Reasons to Believe
I was a missionary in the christian faith for years. I went to a bible college. I've read the bible - at least a dozen times, cover to cover. I've studied the dogmas, the doctrines and the theology - and I'm an atheist. What I'm offering is an open forum (open to the degree that it follows the Hubpages rules). Show me your proof for god - any god. Show me why I should agree with you and convert to your religious beliefs - but be prepared to have your proof examined. Ready, set, go.
Sorry, not gonna happen just yet. Maybe never. Because you're too much on the offense, trying to put everyone else on the defense. You don't want answers yet.
Instead I'll ask you some questions. When you were a "missionary" in the church, supposedly, did you ever accept Christ as your personal Savior? Since you've read the whole Bible, as you say, did you just read it with your eyes or did you actually see what it says about Jesus's Love and sacrifice? Did you ever actually allow the knowledge of the word of God to get into your heart and mind? Did you ever actually feel the Spirit?
There are many other questions too. But indeed I've no patience right now, neither for your dare, nor to stick around for your answers. They are for you to think on.
I'm too sleepy and tired. Will be curious to see how, or even if, you respond. Later, that is.Okay, first of all, your entire response is sarcastic and almost intentionally demeaning. You're making snap judgements on someone who posted a forum thread looking for an active discussion - if I want to be insulted, I'd just go back to church. I have debates all the time on a semi-professional level, and I can hold my own. I have little time for sarcasm and insincerity, however, which is almost the entire crux on your response. How am I on the offensive? I'm asking a question and asking for evidence. I can counter a lot of it - and do every day. How is that rude, condescending or otherwise untoward? Asking for evidence is a dare to you? Doesn't the bible say that you should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have? (1 Peter 3:15).
Why do you put "missionary" in quotes - do you doubt the facts of my history? I understand that you don't know me from a stranger on the street, but are you trying to insinuate that I'm lying about my past intentionally? What could be gained from that? Yes, I accepted Christ as my savior. I was baptized. I fully believed in the bible and the doctrine of the church. Now I don't. I read the bible as a christian - and even went to theological bible college for several years. I took courses in Greek, Latin and Hebrew and continue to read the bible in the original languages. Now I examine it more critically, but I used to read it without question. So what? I've laid my hands on sick people. I've spoken in tongues. That doesn't mean a dang thing. What's your point?
I'm sorry you have no patience right now, but if that's the case, why "waste your time" replying at all? Just move along. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to respond. So why did you?To see if you really wanted honest answers.
My curiosity is satisfied now.more baseless assumptions. Good to know. Safe to say that I'm not really going to put much (if any) weight on anything you choose to say, since you wanted to come here and challenge me without any knowledge or grounds to do so.
I am more than willing to be open minded to any evidence that anyone presents. I won't dismiss it because I may not agree with it. that's being intellectually honest. But I give respect where respect is due - and when you come at me with sarcasm, insults and assumptions based on nothing - you're not due much. If you come to me respectfully, you'll get respect in return. If you don't...well, you got my first response. I'll respond in the manner in which I'm approached, without resorting to petty insults or name calling - because I AM above that kind of juvenile behavior. Unlike some.
JMc,
Once we are new born adults we will be able to speak to everyone in the language of their birth without ever having to study it because we have reincarnated in every known language on earth and remembered it. That's what speaking in tongues is supposed to be when we understand what happened on the day of Pentecost.again, you said you were done talking to me, and I (apparently erroneously) took you at your word.
I said that concerning that discussion's particulars but not all discussions, go back, read it and see isn't that the meaning of what I wrote. .
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9
May be this is not applicable to women.
Jesus sacrifice? I too have once slept for nearly 24 hrs, that was a sacrifice too? After all he slept only for 36 or 40 hrs.
And here is love:"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." Matthew 5:29
This god is so ignorant to know that it is the brain that commands the action and eye has no will, no wonder he is waiting to "burn you in hell", so much for love.Your comment is only a demonstration of how ignorant you are.
If all people who want to divorce, they might think twice to do it if they will take seriously what Jesus had said about divorce. Since they cannot remarry, then they will try harder to save their relationship.
Why do you compare your sleeping habit with Christ's sacrifice? Did you also nailed your self on the cross and been beaten to death? How dare you compare yourself to Jesus while you are just a mere human.
Matthew 5:29 should not be taken literal. You should read the context instead of arriving at a stupid conclusion. Jesus is just showing how serious we should be when it comes to avoiding sin.
God is very patient with all of us. If He is not, then by the moment you sinned, you should be gone by now.
Please do not equate God's love with your short-sighted and limited mind.So what does this comment demonstrate, your arrogance?
That comment was addressed to a specific person who can understand that. What are you trying, showing off?
If I were a god what is a few nails on my body? Do you know that through out the world humans pierce their bodies? Why there were two "thieves" who were crucified on each side, weren't they suffering?
Jesus said three days and nights but friday evening to sunday does not constitute 3 days and nights. A sacrifice is when we give up something permanently, so what was that, that was given up permanently?
Peter was given the key of heaven. Are you given something like that, to decide which part is literal and which part metaphorical?
Please do not equate god with a hot-headed, ignorant and idiotic barbarian and please do not take up the role of god's spokesman. Let the servant remain a servant and not act the boss.Sorry to hurt your ego.
That is the problem with society. they do not read what the Bible REALLY says. they just rely on what the mainstream religions say. If you read the resurrection account carefully, you will discover that Jesus died on a wednesday and was resurrected on a Saturday.
It seems pointless to talk to you. Let us end this conversation. thank you for your time.which resurrection account? None of the gospels agree. The Synoptics have Jesus dying on Passover. John has him dying on the day of preparation. None of the gospels agree on the resurrection either. Why don't you do the Easter challenge by Dan Barker - it offers a thousand dollars to anyone who can chronologically list all of the events of the resurrection without any contradictions and without leaving anything out. Go for it.
The funny thing about those who quote the bible is, most of them cannot agree on different scriptures. The bible is faulty and so is religion without question. I agree that in certain terms, religion can actually be helpful and provide a roadmap for some to live a decent and quality life. On the other hand, religion is the source of much war, death and disfunction.
Who here follows the bible to every word? None of you I'm sure. niether do I and I am proud to say that, Between people telling me that I am taking it out of context, it keeps getting re-translated and the fact that it was apparently written by man, make me seriously question every page. Hey, if you want to take everything in the bible literally, have at it, I applaud you for having such strong beliefs. I for one think that burning people at the stake and putting them to death for adultry, not celebrating the sabbath amongs other so called sins that will cause your death is a little much.
This is a big part of the reason there is so many spin off religions. To be honest, who really knows what religion was first, reality is, we can only guess and hope to be right. Does it matter? Not at all.
Riddle666,
Jesus turned around and said (Matthew 19:29) to forsake everything of this world including families and spouses for the gospel's sake, is that a contradiction to what you said?
I say no for the following reason.
Once a man are born of the spirit they have been called out of the world's mentality and are becoming resurrected into angels (Matthew 22:30).
Sorry, but denying to show evidence to support a claim when the person is asking for evidence is usually what one does as opposed to making up excuses about who it is you're showing the evidence in order to not show it to them. It's called dishonesty.
Brenda,
Something most Christians and missionaries ignore is Jesus' dialog on the new birth which his words as he was about to ascend (Acts:18) makes us know we must have holy spirit power to be his witnesses. Then Romans 1:20 makes us to know the new birth must follow the natural birth\ or we are not born again. Therefore, so long as anyone has no testimony of a new conception, gestation, trivial, birth, childhood, adolescence and, [i]if there be any, adulthood[/b] anyone witnessing for the anointed Jesus has no power to be his witness.
I went through something similar to you, kinda. I was raised a "church goer" who must "follow the rules" but I won't say that I was raised a Christian. Eventually, I did find the "real thing" and decided to get saved. Honestly, I've always been a thinker and a doubter, but my theology was if I forced myself to believe, CHOSE to believe, it didn't matter if it was true or not, that's the lifestyle I was going to live. Well, my thoughts and doubts and beliefs eventually overran my choices and I fell out of it. Interesting challenge, can't wait to see what others post. And that person who posted above me seems to be in a rather rude and foul mood.
I believe that in order to remain intellectually honest, you have to keep studying and keep searching. That means that you have to be prepared to change your mind if the evidence presents itself. That being said, I enjoy the subject, and enjoy talking to others of similar (and vastly different) beliefs. I enjoy the debate and the discussion - and I love to learn, no matter what path that takes me on.
I agree to your comment on the above poster. It makes me wonder (since it was clearly such a burden) why they chose to respond at all?It is a rather interesting topic to discuss and I'm sad to see the debates and discussions ruined by those who seem to let their negative emotions drive their words and replies. Maybe they should have just waited to reply when they were less tired. Regardless, organized religion doesn't fit my personality nor my lifestyle, but I'm not ruling theology or beliefs out entirely. Honestly, if I were to analyze my life and figure out what I "worship" the most, I would have to say learning and knowledge. So maybe that's my "religion" lol
Learning and knowledge is certainly high on my list too, if not at the very top :-)
ShawneeMc,
I agree, it's an interesting topic and what you said about your life puts you on the edge of being a philosophy, lover of wisdom who is willing to pay any price for it. That's why I've lived as you see me in the photo for over 36 years, until October 2012 when I went into a VA provided Transition house so I can fulfill my destiny.
"I believe that in order to remain intellectually honest, you have to keep studying and keep searching. "
Why? That would only be true if a person is interested in knowing Truth with a capital T. What if they aren't interested in that, but only in their own happiness?
I know a lady, one whom I greatly admire, that has a faith in God that you couldn't shake with a baseball bat. Nevertheless she refuses to study any form of religion at all other than her bible. She's afraid it just might shake that faith and she's very happy with her perception of Truth. Doesn't want it changed.
Is there something intrinsically wrong with that? To value personal happiness and satisfaction higher than truth? As long as it is not presented as reality, with a demand that others agree, I can't see a problem.You do have a point, wilderness. I suppose I should have specifically related that to me - and not just in general terms. Ultimately, when it comes to faith, I think it boils down to a simple question: Do you care if your beliefs are true? Most Christians that I've encountered have adamantly declared that christianity is true to the exclusion of all else, and it's only christians that are teetering on the edge of faith that are frightened by the idea of having it challenged. For me personally, that seems to be weak faith. Those who are strong in their faith seem to be open to discussion, to examining the evidence, to adapting and evolving as knowledge becomes more readily available.
I do believe, however, that having a personal faith CAN cause harm. No one lives in a vacuum. When you believe in something and think that it's true, you make decisions based on that belief. Ultimately that can affect other people. For example, if you are a christian and you want to follow biblical (and church) teachings, you may think that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore you are likely to vote for others that share your beliefs - and that causes harm to people who do not share your beliefs, when laws are passed that line up with your theology. I wrote a hub on personal faith - I believe that it's potentially dangerous.Don't think I can totally agree, although the general concept is correct.
Those with firm faith will discuss, but are not generally open to actually changing their beliefs. They will modify those beliefs, but at the root the belief is unchanged. An example might be Noah's ark - they might accept that the story cannot have happened as written, but the new belief is that it was localized and that, coupled with animal collection and landing high up on Arrarat is just as impossible. So the next step is that the tale is allegory only, but the root belief remains unchanged in spite of being found to be fraudulent. The willingness to actually review their faith isn't there.
Beliefs don't actually cause harm; the cause of the harm is the willingness to impose very personal, subjective beliefs onto others. Take away that willingness (which could be argued to be a belief in itself) and the belief will not harm others. The lady I mentioned lives her life very strictly, according to biblical teachings as she understands them, but would not impose those beliefs on others - she has been a beacon in my life, teaching tolerance by example.
Rare, perhaps, but I see other believers on HP with the same kind of tolerance and unwillingness to impose beliefs. As usual, it is a relatively small handful of very vocal people that cause the harm and that minority is slowly finding itself overrun by those that accept others as they are.
When anyone isn't interested in discovering The Truth they are only following their destiny. Every action of every person is their destiny, most are without the knowledge that it is so, therefore none of us have any room to condemn anyone's place in their Evolutionary Journey.
I would like to first make clear that this is not an attempt to convert you or anybody to my beliefs. My interest lies more in the 'having my proof examined' portion.
We talked briefly before, where I gave you my interpretation of the books of Moses, primarily Genesis. This interpretation is not a re-imagined or crudely made-up twist of words, but was pieced together by setting it against actual historical events that match up geographically and chronologically with events described in Genesis. In the context of actual history and modern scientific knowledge, these stories, as I'll attempt to show, become much more cohesive and clear and actually suggest a rather logical 'meaning of life' in the process. And through this lens I'll attempt to illustrate how it resolves many of the more seemingly contradictory portions of the bible by providing context to what's being described.
This is as close to actual, empirical 'proof' as I think you're going to get, as the evidence that many see as 'proof' that God does not exist is exactly the same as the evidence that supports what I'll be describing here. Because the natural sciences are the study of matter and energy, we are only able to detect and observe what is within this universe. In other words, we cannot 'see' beyond the big bang. If God is the creator, He exists before/after/outside of this universe and is therefore undetectable. To be detectable He would have to be subject to His own laws and own creation, thus leaving a 'detectable' impact. The 'evidence' of His existence IS the physical world. It's the immensely complex, yet incredibly harmonious and elegant existence we've come to know so well through scientific discovery. The one difference being that from the 'God does exist' side of the coin our being here is not the result of random chance and countless fortuitous events that could have just as easily become something wildly different, but is rather the deliberate creation of a purposeful, willful God. From this perspective existence would 'appear' just as science shows us; as if the universe and everything in it came together all on its own. Think about it this way, what would you expect to see through the lens of science if there were a God that created everything? What do you not see that confirms in your mind that there isn't? What do you 'think' we should see if it were true that we don't see?
Because of your familiarity with the bible, I most hope to get your analysis from that perspective. This is probably the least 'contested' or 'challenged' portion of what I'm laying out here.
Basically, it started like this. The books of Genesis are undoubtedly the most influential documents in all of human history. They've played a larger role than any other single document in shaping the world we now know, for better or worse. They've had a significant impact on people of every society they came in contact with, again, for better or worse. While the oldest surviving copies are nowhere near the oldest, and while our best scholarly estimations based on the text of those documents place their hypothetical 'source texts' no earlier than around the time of the kingdom of Judah, the stories themselves share many common themes with the oldest known texts of this nature. Texts that are almost as old as writing. Stories about a man in a garden who fell from grace and lost immortality, stories about a golden age before humans became possessive and materialistic, and stories about a large catastrophic flood, echo throughout the mythological tales of many of the first civilizations. And in the case of the Sumerians, the inventors of civilization and the inhabitants of the region/timeframe that Genesis is set in, they also wrote stories about things like a large flood survived by a man who built a boat with a handful of people and a bunch of animals in tow, and about a once universal language that was confused into many. So, based on this, I examined those first 11 chapters of Genesis set against what we now know about the history of that region, tossing aside all previous interpretations or religious-based ideologies built around these texts over the millennia.
To locate a timeframe I took the fact that Abraham's father was said to have been from the Sumerian city of Ur, and that Egypt played a major role in the Abraham/Israelite/Moses stories, combined with the fact that Genesis says Abraham was born just under 2000 years after Adam's creation, and established that if there's any literal truth to Genesis then it couldn't have happened any sooner than roughly 5500 BC. Of course the traditional interpretation is that Adam was the first human, and that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 were two different depictions of the the same event. Even though it's made rather clear within the stories themselves that there were other humans in existence during the pre-flood portion of the story. This is made most clear by the last 2/3's or so of Genesis 4 and the first few verses of Genesis 6. Two of the least agreed-upon and most highly debated portions in all the bible. The 'others' that Cain feared would kill him after he was banished, a fear God acknowledged as legitimate by marking Cain to protect him, the city Cain built, the skills the descendants of Cain 'fathered' that clearly survived beyond the flood, and the mysterious man and boy that Lamech killed for wounding him. Then, in the beginning of Genesis 6, the part separated from Genesis 4 by the list of descendants from Adam to Noah later redacted in, probably to explain who Noah was, that talks about 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans' who it describes as 'mortal', only living 120 years, where Genesis 5 says descendants of Adam lived for centuries. And according to other parts of the bible, like Luke 3, the 'sons of God' were Adam and everyone else listed in Genesis 5.
The significance of Adam is made clear by the stories themselves as well. Notice how the humans in Genesis 1 were given specific tasks that would take numerous generations to accomplish; fill the earth, subdue it, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. All of which describe exactly what homo sapiens actually did by about 10000 BC, just a few thousand years before the timeline of Genesis 2-11. And notice that after this it says God looked on all He made and deemed it 'good'. Now, in Genesis 2 it describes a very different creation. While the first chapter explains that everything in existence, animate or inanimate, followed the will of God exactly, Adam was only given one rule and he broke it. So, how exactly could Adam be expected to realize these commands in Genesis 1, and how could God be certain that the 'others' that Cain feared would kill him simply because he was marked, if Adam, Eve, and Cain were so clearly capable of disobeying? And why would God look on these three that directly disobeyed Him and deem them 'good'? This ability to behave contrary to God's will, the creator of everything in existence, this is what was significant about Adam and Eve. This 'trait' is what caused the 'wickedness' in 'humans' when the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of humans' intermingled and had children. And this is why it says that God 'regretted putting humans on the earth'.
Now, I realize none of that means much of anything by itself. So, here's the kicker. If there were any literal truth to Genesis, if there were any truth to what I've just described, then what would you expect to see? We know roughly where everything happened because it directly says. And we know roughly when based on later portions of the bible. Well, you would expect to see behavioral changes for one thing. These stories described Gen1 humans as being 'different' than Adam in that they behaved according to God's will, where Adam, Eve, and everyone 'of Eve' did not. Behavioral changes that reflect the heightened self-awareness and 'knowledge' that Genesis 2 describes. Well, it turns out that it's exactly these kinds of behavioral changes that can be seen first emerging in southern Mesopotamia. The Ubaid culture (5400-4000BC) was the first human settlement that we see the invention of the first human cities (the first being Eridu, 5300BC), complete with a ruling and a working class. All other human settlements up to this point were clearly egalitarian. The Ubaid culture also happens to have lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis, roughly 16 centuries. Then, around 4000 BC, it came to an abrupt, still not clearly understood, end. What is known is that a flood played a role at least in the region where the Sumerian city of Ur is located as the artifacts of the Ubaid come to an abrupt halt just below the tell-tale 'sterile deposit' of a flood.
Immediately following the Ubaid culture comes the Uruk culture (4000-3100BC). This culture appears to have picked up right where the other left off. They were male-dominant, unlike humans for tens of thousands of years, and they were separated by class much like those of the Ubaid. The city of Uruk was built near the beginning of this period. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list say Uruk was built not long after the flood. Genesis attributes it to Nimrod, the King's list attributes it to Enmerkar. Both are described as 'mighty hunters'. It's also around the beginning of this period that there was a large climatological event, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event (3900BC) that transformed the Sahara into desert, again, only this time it never recovered. This climatological event actually did cause massive human migrations, much like what's described in the Babel story. And what's really interesting is that the nomads that came from this growing desert region are actually the ones that brought both the noted behavioral changes, as well as at least two of the oldest known languages (semetic and indo-european), to the other settlements in this region, primarily along the rivers (Tigris/Euphrates, Nile, Indus Valley, etc.).
Now, as for Adam and his descendants living for centuries, before most of them were wiped out by a flood, what would you expect to see if there were any literal truth to that? Well, obviously we lack physical evidence. Considering this would be a rather small numbered 'tribe', and considering the whole flood thing, this isn't exactly a surprise. So, what else would you expect to see? Well, considering the region described was populated, you might expect to see their influence in the mythologies, or depictions of their ancient history according to them. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, they all believed immortal beings existed in their ancient past. In the case of the Sumerians they claim there were immortal, human in form, male and female, gods who lived on the earth amongst them and physically inhabited the temples we know to have actually existed at the center of the cities we know to have actually existed. According to the Sumerians, these gods taught them civilization. The 'gifts of civiliization', each known as a 'me'. In the Sumerian stories, an immortal god named Enki established that first city, Eridu. According to Genesis, Cain established the first city. Then, of course, after roughly 1600 years, this rather advanced culture came to that 'abrupt end' I described above.
See, this is the age when humans first began to live contradictory to nature, rather than at the whim of nature. This is when we first began to create numerous inventions and began to develop methods of agriculture that actually allowed us to control nature, rather than be controlled by it. Much like Genesis says Adam and Eve began to behave contrary to God/nature, and how it says they would have to work for it. The Ubaid culture invented methods that allowed them to farm, much like the settlements to the north in northern Mesopotamia and Europe, only they did it in the adverse conditions of southern Mesopotamia. Cain, who Genesis says was knowledgeable of working the land, was 'cursed' so that the ground wouldn't yield crops for him, and says he's wonder restlessly. Then it says he settled and built a city. According to the Sumerians, Enki taught them agriculture, and that these efforts were orchestrated by the ruling class of the temple, and carried out the by Sumerian people. The Sumerians then provided for the inhabitants of the temple. In fact, the Sumerians believed they were created by these gods to serve them because that's what they did.
The birth of every major civilization finds its roots in this dispersion and mass migration of these 'patrist' nomadic 'Saharasians'. It was the arrival of these people in each region that brought about these same behavioral changes and unique languages. And the rest of human history describes these 'civilized' people overtaking the indigenous inhabitants of the lands, killing and enslaving the 'natives' or 'savages'. This, all of this (and quite a bit more), is the best 'proof' I think you'll see. It's this very behavior, this change when humans began to take control of nature to bend it to their will, that Genesis is describing. This leads right up to the story of Abraham, who's father was from Sumer, and his dealings with Egypt. This already populated world scenario also brings a lot of clarity to the whole time in the wilderness, the 613 Mitzvah laws, all of that. It's because this one 'chosen' bloodline that would eventually bring about the savior, had to be protected and controlled. But with this new 'free will' running rampant, this took some doing. That's what the OT is describing, and why it all stopped in the NT.
As for the flood, it clearly wasn't global. For one thing there would be no sense in a global flood, whether viewed through my interpretation or the traditional one, because the descendants of Adam/Eve just 10 generations along wouldn't inhabit the entire earth. But it's also made rather clear by the only two mentions of the 'Nephilim' (Gen6(pre-flood), Num13(post-flood)), ie survivors. And, of course, the whole last 2/3's of Genesis 4 which would be totally irrelevant if everyone (and all the skills those that had skills Cain's descendants 'fathered') died in a flood.
I could literally go on and on, but I'll stop for now since this is already a small book. Sorry for the extensive read, but this is no easy task you're laying out. It's dealing with all of existence, all of human history, all of the bible, all the various mythologies of the world, etc. There's a lot to cover. I'll just let whatever you decide to tackle first steer things from here, if you feel so inclined.Headly:
We discussed this briefly, but then our conversation was already part of a much longer diatribe and it sort of got lost in the shuffle. While I do know a lot about the bible, I will also admit that the history that i've studied is not of that region or that time period, and you know way more than I do. I have a problem with your opening paragraph - I don't believe that the earth is evidence for god's existence at all, and I have large problems with the argument from intelligent design, the TAG argument used by Christian apologists and the Watchmaker argument. I do believe if everything that exists has a first cause, then god is subjected to that same idea, which leaves you with the question: Who created god. Apologists then go for special pleading, and claim that god either a) didn't begin to exist, so no first-cause is necessary to explain him or b) god exists outside of space and time and is not subjective to our perception of its laws or nature. I don't believe that the earth is evidence of any god, and I believe that all of the arguments for intelligent design, first causes or others have all been sufficiently countered by people with much more knowledge on the subject that I have. I'm still learning about it, but I am more than content to say that I don't know how or why the universe began - and it doesn't really matter to me. From everything I do know of science, no ultimate "designer" is necessary.
As far as the crux of your argument goes - I can see where you've lined it up with the Biblical account and I commend you for that. But I think that you're starting to enter into dangerous territory when you, again, start with a conclusion and try to fit various pieces of the puzzle into what you hope to believe. appreciate the fact that you have found flaws in the typical interpretation of the biblical story. Your theory is going against doctrine that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Ultimately you have a creation myth - that one group of people used to justify their own existence on earth, and gave them a sense of purpose. The story of adam and eve was written down and created by the jewish people long after the fact to establish their connection and origin with the being they claimed created the universe. They attributed things beyond their comprehension to this mythical being - much like Romans attributed floods to Neptune, or lightning to Zeus. While the history of the region may be able to be explained by the adam/eve story when you take it completely out of context and paint it in broad strokes to fit, since the adam/eve story was written down much, much later - why couldn't the writers tailor the story around what they already knew about the history of the region? Why does it have to be anything special, therefore? They explained the shifts, therefore, by injecting a special super-human and that human's connection with a deity.
I suppose we can begin there - and I'll do more research about the history of the cultures that you mentioned. I'm sorry that I don't have anything more to go on than that.As for the whole ID thing, my mention of that had more to do with why discussions of 'evidence' of God's existence are ultimately pointless, and why I'm taking this alternate approach. It's not so much a 'first cause' thing because you're talking about a fundamental 'rule' that applies to the observable universe. True or not, the God of the bible is described as the creator of the universe. Therefore He cannot be a part of it and cannot be subject to any 'rules' or 'laws' established through our observation of that universe. So, really its just a question of whether or not you think order can come out of random chaos or not. Can intelligence capable of contemplating the universe and our place in it come from non-intelligence? Are the exact right conditions of this universe that formed this universe and allows for life in this universe to exist as it does just a fluke that resulted in us? A countless series of events within those conditions that just happened to pan out the way it did, but could have at any point gone a totally different direction where we never would have existed? Or, do you believe this existence and this life have a purpose? That they're the result of a purposeful 'intelligence', not unlike the intelligence that eventually evolved in this environment? Personally, I think this does matter because if it is indeed just random chance that we're here, then that means all the purpose and meaning we assign to our lives is nothing more than an imagined thing that makes us feel better about our fleeting time here. It means nothing we do or accomplish really matters at all because it'll all just ultimately go away much like it began. Dust to dust, so to speak. It robs all life of any real sense of importance. True or not, provable or not, is that really the 'better' mindset to harvest and encourage? Or is there a reason the human condition repeatedly 'imagines' something more to all of this? Is that not part of what makes us who we are? What would we be now without it? I honestly can't say that way of thinking would really make the world 'better'. But, that's all aside from the point, and it's this kind of thing that I feel really derails the chance for real discussions that can find real answers because it's fundamentally philosophical and cannot be 'proven' one way or the other. Like free will versus determinism. It's a perpetual argument with no end in sight. That's why I'm going this other route.
You're making some assumptions here about the bible that are distorting things right from the start. First, it's important to know and understand all that is actually 'known' about these texts versus what is assumed. For instance, "Ultimately you have a creation myth - that one group of people used to justify their own existence on earth, and gave them a sense of purpose". The fact is, nobody knows how old the books of Moses really are or who wrote them. Our best scholarly guesses can basically be summed up the 'documentary hypothesis'. The texts as we know them now were edited together from multiple older sources of unknown origin. We just don't know. What we do know is that stories with very similar themes have existed in the 'cradle of civilization' since the beginning of writing and were clearly very well known throughout the region. As soon as humans began to write, as soon as writing reached a point that narratives could be conveyed, they started writing about these stories.
As for your question "why couldn't the writers tailor the story around what they already knew about the history of the region?"... A couple of things. First, let's think about that from the 'no God exists' standpoint. We're talking about a span of time that dates back at least 2000 years before writing, and that spans across the rise and fall of at least two cultures. Without writing, you only have verbal stories passed down, again over the course of 200 centuries, with no written record. For these people to have that kind of understanding of the entirety of the history of the region that would allow them to then frame a cohesive narrative around it would be a monumentally impressive task whether there's any truth to the 'God' part or not. Which leads right into the second point... if there's even 50% truth to this, then there's a lot more value in these texts for purely historical purposes than it's currently given credit for. And it also means that the people of this still very 'mysterious' phase of human history that came before the fall of Rome and the onset of the 'dark ages' was even more knowledgeable than even the surviving artifacts of Sumer and Egypt have led us to believe.
We've only really known about the Egyptians for a couple of centuries and we've only just found out about Sumer roughly a century ago. Yet they were both clearly very advanced and intelligent. For example, the Akkadian empire took over Mesopotamia and basically engulfed Sumer. Yet, they continued to use Sumerian 'religion', mathematics, and science. The Sumerians invented astronomy and mathematics, the Akkadians/Babylonians learned it from them, which is where people like Ptolemy learned it from. They're the 'source', you could say, to everything that came after. In fact, it's incredibly interesting to me that the Sumerian language was used much like we use Latin in modern times. They spoke Akkadian, then later Babylonian, yet they continued to use Sumerian for 'religious' purposes and for their scientific and mathematic practices. Yet the Sumerians themselves didn't give credit to their ancestors for such impressive advances in intelligence and knowledge, they say they were taught.
This is what drives what I do. It's not, as you say, me "start(ing) with a conclusion and try to fit various pieces of the puzzle into what (I) hope to believe". It's me trying to find the real truth using all the information available to us. And it's me being aware of where the facts stop and the human assumptions begin. Like I said, they distort things. And that includes the man-made 'doctrines' that have existed for centuries. They're still grounded in the knowledge base of their time. Just as we are grounded by the knowledge base of our time. The first step in learning always begins with admitting and recognizing what we do not know.
How do you know we cannot see beyond the big bang? MACS0647-JD is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time. The James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's next orbiting observatory and the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A tennis court-sized telescope orbiting far beyond Earth's moon.
If the next orbital telescope can see farther back in time it could see what was here before the Big Bang.Really? Are you suggesting that a telescope will let us see the Universe before it formed? That would be a slick trick since, by my understanding, we have no hope of seeing anything before several million years after the Big Bang or until after the first 400,000 years of expansion.
Turn it around and look through the other end!
Why not. Would not a better telescope see farther and therefore longer ago?
No. We can't see the Big Bang because we use light to look at distant objects. Light is emitted from matter. But, when the Universe was very young the matter and radiation were so densely packed that light couldn't go anywhere. So, it can't reach us today.
All this is, of course, assuming the Big Bang theory is correct.Not all telescopes look for natural light. All we have to do is to look farther away to see what was there. If nothing is visible or detectable then we know that nothing is visible or detectable. We have no idea (yet) of what was going on before the supposed big bang.
You might be referencing the European telescopes launched to detect electromagnetic radiation. But, they think electromagnetic radiation hadn't formed until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. We still don't have technology to see anything prior to that. Or, none that I am aware pg.
I find this rather funny. You're saying they can't detect anything because there was nothing there, so why even look? We look, and if we find nothing then we know.
You may find it funny if you don't understand the Big Bang theory. If you can't see anything before 300,000 years after the Bang how do you purpose that to be seeing things prior to the Bang?
Who told you we can't/or won't be able to see or detect anything before 300,000 years after the big bang?
That would be science. I'm not implying that we will never know, but with current technology we can't know. Out of curiosity, how do you propose to see a time before time began?
http://www.jwst.nasa.gov
From this site
"The James Webb Space Telescope (sometimes called JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. The project is working to a 2018 launch date. Webb will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Webb will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. Webb's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range."
Who knows what it will see? Maybe there was a compressing universe before the big bang? We are able to look into the past, we just can't see ourselves.Again. Electromagnetic radiation, according to the Big Bang Theory, didn't form until 300,000 years after the Bang. I'm not catching what you are driving at. It sounds as if you are reiterating something I already told you.
The Big Bang created a sea of electromagnetic radiation from the get go, hence that is why we observe today, evidence for the Big Bang in the form of CMBR (Cosmic Microwave BackGround Radiation).
It was some 380,000 years afterwards, after forming protons and electrons that the dense radiation began to thin out allowing for photons to escape and travel.The point was that we can't see back further, with the current technology. As I understand it. Rad man appears to believe that we can, with more powerful telescopes, observe prior to the Big Bang.
You again do not understand. I personally have no idea what we'll see, but we need to look. The new telescope will be able to see farther away and if it see's nothing then that nothing is information.
I suppose you could have gone back and read your own statement, but since you didn't....here is the comment you made that led this conversation down the path it took.
"If the next orbital telescope can see farther back in time it could see what was here before the Big Bang. "'And... I guess you know what it was like before the Big Bang. I'm saying if we see nothing then we know we see nothing.
But think about it. If you see nothing and that nothing you are looking at is hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang, you aren't finding out what was before it. What you are looking at couldn't be nothing. You simply don't have the technology to detect it. Unless you are saying that the Bang happened and the universe then formed from nothing?
You still don't understand. You're still talking about current technology and I'm talking about future technology. What happens if we can see much farther in space? What do we see? Do you think you have the answers so there is no need to look?
Did the universe form from nothing? There was something, there is no question about that, but what and where that something came from is the question.Well, I do agree with that post. We have to look, we have to be honest about our limitations and reserve judgement and conclusions until we have the data necessary.
I don't mean 'see' in the strictly visible sense. I mean that anything and everything that is detectable/observable scientifically is the result of the big bang. We can apply our understanding of the matter, energy, and natural laws of this universe and trace it all the way back to its original form, but we cannot 'see' beyond it. When I said 'we cannot 'see' beyond the big bang' I was loosely paraphrasing Neil LeGasse Tyson who says the same thing.
How is it that we could possibly know how old the Universe is? That sounds like whoever made that calculation was grasping at straws.
No, they are making educated calculations based on observation and evidence.
There is a whole explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
Fa from clutching at straws the theory is validated by a multitude of tests.Like the Vodka test? Maybe the LSD test?
Or the troll test - one you should be incredibly familiar with, no?
Thanks for the link. *removing foot from mouth.*
HeadlyvonNoggin,
That is very interesting analysis of what Genesis is about. The way I see it, however, is there are far to many impossible or illogical, from the things seen, things for it to be literal which but giving them metaphorical interpretations they could be. However, because we see almost everything happening in cycles and Genesis 1:14 say the sun, moon and stars are for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years, I believe the civilizations follows a pattern of a long time for the evening {time preceding light}, a short transition, a long morning {time of light} and another short transition back to evening. Here's how I see it.
The first 8 verses of Genesis 1 begins with the spirit moving upon the waters {I interpret as people because of Revelation 17:15}, forming of light without a source of light and dividing the waters {people} with a firmament naming the upper one being heaven which, because of the belief in a all-at-once rapture that's what I see it as being. Because the description in Revelation 1:4 & 23 suggest man don't recognize the conditions their flesh it suggest it's a spiritual civilization, therefore it took some 6000 years before man learned their bodies enough to reproduce and eat, so they reproduced for only 1 thousand of years {day of rest} before Adam came into play as the rise of civilization like sunrise of a morning.
Since, according to Genesis 1:9-13, plants appeared on the third day while 2:5 say there was no plants when Adam was formed (V 7) that would be a contradiction unless Adam was born in a desolate place and was then moved to a location with plants at weaning and taught, by a voice[b/] how to survive eating the fruit falling from the trees and drinking from streams until he could reach them. The [b]tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not a physical tree, was placed in the garden for him to begin judging things good and evil was a metaphorical one suggesting the number of things called good or evil would increase as their knowledge grew.
The operation, with him not being told it was going to take place, was a dream suggesting to live in a group as seen among the birds and animals he would have to allow his masculinity or femininity to become dormant but awaking to a presence of the other man he, actually, renamed our specie woven from man in the single term woman, especially since the term man means the ability to become wise or able to comprehend all things. Why? Because 2:24 say leave parents to become man again by integrating the wife into his own flesh, that's the only thing it could mean. Untimely, the flood becomes the completion of the rise of this civilization. For my whole vision of the Bible's interpretation see http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/vision.htm#unsealed.
"Show me your proof for god - any god"
That's where you're going wrong in my opinion. People's belief in god is not necessarily based on evidence (it can't be because there is no categorical evidence either way). Instead that belief is grounded in apparent experience of god. This could be the feeling of being loved, or feeling forgiven, or feeling that some event in life is caused/prevented by god etc. That "experience" of god is what many people's belief is grounded in.
The issue is that belief grounded in experience is different from belief based on evidence. Such belief has a high epistemic status. In other words we tend to believe things we have apparently experienced. This tendency developed due to the process of natural selection because it aids survival (responding quickly and decisively to sensory information was an advantage to our ancestors).
That means people do not believe in god in the same way they believe Everest is the highest mountain. People believe in god in the same way your friends believe "in" you. Your friend's belief that you exist is not based on evidence. They do not reason that they have seen a birth certificate, driving licence, social security number for you, therefore you must exist. Instead that belief is grounded in the fact that they have "experienced" you. It's on that basis that they say they "know" you exist. That is basic belief. No evidence is required for its formation, so asking for evidence is probably not fertile ground for useful discussion.Yes, but there is proof that I exist, and if a god really manifests in the world the way people claim, there should be evidence of his existence. I've run across dozens of hubs alone that claim to have proof for god. I just started a forum to open the discussion.
"Yes, but there is proof that I exist"
Yes but it's not needed to form belief in your existence. In the same way, evidence you ate toast for breakfast is not needed for you to believe you did. Your belief is grounded in your experience of eating the toast, not on an analysis of the contents of your stomach. The fact that such evidence exists is irrelevant to the formation of your belief about it.
"and if a god really manifests in the world the way people claim, there should be evidence of his existence"
Perhaps, but again lack of evidence is irrelevant to belief grounded in apparent experience. If analysis of your stomach showed no evidence of toast, that would not necessarily alter your belief that you ate some this morning. You are more likely to question the reliability of the test than to question a belief grounded in your own apparent experience. Such is the high epidemic status of experience.
"I've run across dozens of hubs alone that claim to have proof for god."
No doubt, but those claims are wrong. There is no categorical, objectively verifiable evidence that proves or refutes the existence of a deity. More importantly there doesn't need to be, for people to form god-belief, which is self-evident if you think about it.It is possible that what people call god is angelic beings, I have plenty evidence of that but don't call god.
The day of my new conception after I had analyzed my life because of the mindset I was in a audible voice told me go back to the church and left me so overjoyed I went back to work 15 minutes before lunch hour was up.
The year was 1978 in the United States of Mexico I was fasting for a day and half because I had not heard the voice for many months when my appetite flared up so I got off the road and prayed, the voice said get back on the road and in less than a hundred miles a trucker going in the opposite direction dropped me food.
In 1986 after I left El Passo, TX I got a ride for over 100 miles to a truck stop where I spent the night and ate breakfast. As I proceeded walking on my way without having food nor water with me around 3 pm I became hungry and prayed for food as there was nothing growing where I was. About 100 yards further there appeared 2 seeded plaints growing just off the roadway but the seeds didn't have the rust color of ripe ones so I refused to get them. As I walked along I questioned myself if I had refused them because they were not ripe or because it was not what I wanted and in about another 100 yard there were another 2 of the plants except there was some rust color on the seeds which i cut off and ate. They were an angel manifesting as the plantsto provide me with food.
And that's only three of many.no no no no, I said evidence. I like the United States of Mexico thing though. It made me laugh.
They are evidence but only to the one who experienced them.
So you always get what you pray for? Prove it. Pray for peace in the middle east. I'll watch in the papers over the next few days to see how your efforts play themselves out.
Dear Lord, please put Rad Man in a better mood. Thanks, in advance. ....................................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
How you feeling Rad Man? If that worked, I'll get right on the Middle East thing. If not, ......damn.
(Just kidding)Thanks Emile, I'll feel better after dinner. I don't like to complain or have excuses, but I've been sick all week and haven't had much sleep.
Breath in.... Breath out.
I know I shouldn't pick on The0NatureBoy, but that United States of Mexico was funny. I think I'm feeling better.
Yeh, I saw that comment. I had no idea what he meant by that...but I wasn't about to ask.
Hope you fell better soon.If you read Mexico's money it reads Estatidos Unitidos de Mexico, I may have misspelled the first 2 words but they translates to States United of Mexico
I don't have to pray for it, it has already been foretold. If you observed just before the New Year they Israel has been providing the Palestinians with building materials and holding back on doing anything to them.
just the same there is no proof of the non-G0d faith
it takes a leap of faith to believe that all the king horses and all the king men couldn't put humpty together again...there is no "faith" involved in not believing in a god. that's another common misnomer.
the experience of god's love or forgiveness is something i have known. it was akin to the placebo effect. some folks can have their pain killed by a sugar pill. something so subjective is poor evidence for an efficacious god. i missed it for a while when i first became rationally based. now i have real friends instead of an imaginary one.
Don:
Your distinction between evidence and experience is not productive, because all evidence is experienced. That's how it becomes evidence--because we experience it in some way.
"The issue is that belief grounded in experience is different from belief based on evidence."
But they are one and the same. How do you know the evidence exists? Because you experienced it (by seeing it, hearing it, or whatever).
You yourself prove this point by saying:
"Instead that belief is grounded in apparent experience of god. This could be the feeling of being loved, or feeling forgiven..."
"Feeling" is one of the five senses, and it is one way we detect evidence.
So claims about "feeling" or "experiencing" God do indeed count as claims of evidence. And they are therefore subject to the same requirements and constraints and analysis as all other evidentiary claims. Accordingly, such analysis demonstrates those claims are always faulty and flawed.I'm not talking about experience per se. I'm talking about qualia, i.e. a specific kind of subjective experience. And I'm not talking about evidence per se. I'm talking about objectively verifiable evidence. I assumed that to be obvious given the context of the thread.
That's what I am talking about too. All objective evidence is experienced by individual people. That's how individuals know it exists.
Something may be experienced by one individual alone, but it is still an objective thing. That is, assuming it is part of reality, i.e. it is real.
The OP mentioned "proof" but did not specify a particular kind of proof. He mentioned "reasons to believe" which is very broad, especially given the fact that theists and naturalists tend to have very different conceptions of what counts as legitimate proof.I didn't specify type of proof specifically. The large majority of religious people I have encountered claim to have absolute, scientific proof for god - servantofgod even has hubs about it. I'm asking them to discuss it openly here, since whenever I commented on his hub, he denied/deleted the comments. Forums make that not possible, if you're going to post. Therefore, I was hoping for an open discussion. Don seems unable to wrap his mind around it, and results to insulting me or calling my qualifications into question when I disagree with his arguments. In the meantime, he's not contributing to the conversation at all - he's just saying there is no proof, so I shouldn't be asking. I don't feel the need to supply my college transcripts or debate printouts for his perusal. Fortunately for me, whether or not he believes me has no impact on the reality. I think he just likes being contrary.
I don't know about absolute and scientific proofs of God but I know that atheits can't offer an absolute and scientific proof of a no-God...any news?
atheists don't have the burden of proof - they're not making any positive claims, and you don't have to prove a negative.
Theists are claiming absolutely that a god exists. The burden of proof rests on them.What difference does that make...you are still left without any belief, while others' have one.
so what? I don't have any justification for believing in a god - there is no evidence to require belief.
The nature of belief is just that...believe. No evidence is required or it would not be a belief. It is the leap of faith where you find God.
so do you believe that unicorns exist? Leprechauns? Dragons? Zeus? Apollo? Why not just BELIEVE in them? There's an equal amount of proof for these things as there is for your god.
No I don't. I believe in Our Creator and believe that we have been purposefully created.
I know you do - but you have no reason to believe it. You just choose to because it makes you feel good inside. You have no problem NOT believing in things without evidence - but you require no evidence at all for one of the (arguably) most important aspects of your life and your possible after-life?
Why do you believe at all?
You say I have no reason to believe, but that is your belief.
and I have asked you repeatedly (which you've repeatedly dodged) WHY you believe it.
This forum topic is entitled "reasons to believe". But all you say is "I believe, so there" without ever discussing why - except that you seem to want to.
Who cares why I believe. You are certainly going to criticise. Let's just say it's my choice.
are you missing the whole point of this forum thread? It's called "reasons to believe". I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you're not willing to provide those reasons, then why are you posting on this forum specifically?
I replied to your statement about the burden of proof. Really people believe whether they give you the proof you want or not.
that's not true. Intellectually honest people will consider all the evidence that is presented. If it is sufficient, they will rethink their position. If it is not, they will keep searching. Only the closed-minded people only believe what they want to believe and refuse to listen to any opinion that differs from their own.
Look at science. As technology advances, science does as well. Some of the hypothesis previously believed to be true are re-examined as more and more evidence comes to light. Sometimes those hypothesis are discarded. Sometimes they're altered to include the new evidence. Sometimes they're confirmed. That's what intellectual honesty is - taking everything into account, confirming or disproving your beliefs and staying open to possibilities.
Bingo. I think you are finally beginning to understand.
okay, I've understood the whole time. What are you referring to?
what is then a definition of atheist? I 'd think that when I say X is and another guy says no, X is not then X and Y are thesis and antithesis and then it's a matter of? Exists means that some stuff IS and Does not exist means that "that" IS not...'essence-wise' therefore to claim that the proof is only the requirement for an existence means that the negation needs a proof for an 'acceptable' 'reason' and then we all start bover the same same old stuff
and that is a matter as old as Matusalen or prior so... the easy way out is to say that your logic is 'right' well it may be but by your own same token mine is too...and that is why I ask if there is any news, so again, any news? You cannot deny the existence and experience of intuition the same that we cannot deny that facts sometimes more often than they should would show the absence of spirituality...But, again, spirituality is not provable but determines a life in a way and not in another and that IS...The definition of an athirst is "without belief". Atheists are completely different from "anti" theists. An atheist simply has a lack of a belief in a god. I don't say "no god exists", I say I don't believe in one. They are two very different things
so far so good
although bottom line is nthe same because for some reasons (reasonable or not you claim that there is no God...it is not that you do not care if one existed, it is that you deny that God exists, and so, I ask again, any news??
I know that agnosticism resigns to the fact that still logic and math and 'sudokos; can't prove anything pro or con regarding a deity (much worse deities), but they leave it as such, a lack of proof;
to claim that for a fact God does not exist is a strong statement and it needs proofs and, for me, this statement exhibits also a faith, a leap of faith (as the scientific method can't prove or disprove any gods or not, those will not affect science...
So if knowledge is kept safe, and faith is present in both believers in God and believers in the lack of a god, then we are talking about.... maybe the distaste for the atheist who strongly and arrogantly discharges almost disrespectfully the belief of others. I understand of the pleasures of argumenting thoughts but to reject whatever the Bible says as unverifieable does NOT mean it's unbelievable: that is my right to a leap of faith, and it's mine and here to stay, until the one claiming the contrary will convince me I am wrong, AND it's not the other way around because, simple, you do NOT have any proofs so far Do not get me wrong, McFarland, you can believe whatever pleases you, but are really right? says who?
One special 'reasoning of atheist goes like this: biased by upbringing and/or tragedies in earlier times of their life as a 'proof' of the evility of God, then could it be that God ius evil? well thanks!!! that is admitting that God exists!! yet, their experiences and reasoning still do not convince...This only feeds bitterness and agressiveness, even when all 'good' intentions are forementioned to avoid just what happens anyway...
Another vway they explain their "lack of faith" is thru "reasoning" and so, God who by definition does not have shape nor location, suddenly is given the impossibility of being shapeless and with no location, you know, the spirit?? : so because of that, language forces us to say the "therefore God does not exist"...how about the unspoken loanguage of our souls? and of intuition and of hopes fulfilled by completed a "lottery' wise system? is this completely random? so mr random is powerfull? he showed uo with my fulfilled hope when I asked for it...well yeah, that's a leap of faith, two-ways...No no no no... We do not need to show evidence that no God exists, you are making the claim that god exists therefore you need to show evidence.
I make the claim that big foot exists, but have no evidence. Do I ask you to find evidence that he doesn't exist or do I look for evidence of his existence.
I make the claim that a tiny spiting frog inhabits the arctic. Can you supply evidence that he doesn't exist? No, It's up to me to find one in it's natural habitat and provide evidence.your 'point' is simply pointless; and that is my point; if you deny spirituality you deny man! then you pretend me to congratulate you?
you keep yourself in your track...it's of no importance for me just as it should be of no importance for you whatever i believe of you, your style, your posts...you are free to be a believer of no gods, but do not say that you are not a believer...To believe or to not believe still means a faith...but you keep saying that you are not
and then send the ball to my field...so far, no scores for you nor me...even!your 'point' is simply pointless; and that is my point; if you deny spirituality you deny man! then you pretend me to congratulate you?
you keep yourself in your track...it's of no importance for me just as it should be of no importance for you whatever i believe of you, your style, your posts...you are free to be a believer of no gods, but do not say that you are not a believer...To believe or to not believe still means a faith...but you keep saying that you are not and then send the ball to my field...so far, no scores for you nor me...even!
You are completely missing the point.
Atheism: Lack of a Belief in a god.
Agnosticism: Lack of Knowledge of a god.
Atheists don't have to say "no god exists" at most, the only thing they assert is that none of the "evidence" presented for a god-claim has been sufficient, and that's an easy assertion to prove - if it was sufficient evidence, there would be no atheists. Gnosticism/agnosticism has NOTHING to do with belief. it addresses knowledge. Agnostics state that it is impossible to know with absolute certainty whether or not a god exists.
I have NEVER said in this forum or anywhere else that "there is no god". Never. Therefore your assertion is false - and also could potentially fall into the straw-man logical fallacy category. You asking me to disprove god is identical to me asking you to prove that unicorns don't exist.
If you're going to participate in the discussion, you need to actually understand the meaning of the words that you're using. I have now defined them twice. You're welcome.
absolutely anybody with a statement of this nature must have a sound base that validates the correctnes or say the truthfullness of the statement; you, McFarland, do not have one just the same I do not have one...everythinng else is piure conjectures...do you know what that means? it means that it may be possible but probability NEEDS more support.
that's how many science advances have began with and succeded and many more failed!! do you understand what does that mean? it means that as long as you feel like it and it is meaningful mand it does not bother you, in particular then it maybe or not...and your statements happen to suffer of the same quality of, perhaps, a possibility...after death we will know for sure...or maybe we won't; in the case we will you loose, in the case we won't you win...it's almost 50/50 % barely Everything else is fruitless if related to the burden of proof on one team sorry for the bad news...and too is fruitless because you reject the possibility of a common approach not even by default but by using the same frame of...mere...just... conjectures...If you impose on some the burden of proof and in your own terms that has a definition in psichology :< so the burden is, itt seems, on you too even if you do not acknowledge it...sorry...it's just like that among humans...we all do and undo...there is always two sides of the coin simultaneously or...?Firstly, your long, drawn-out comments make very little sense. Is english your first language? I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm trying to understand the potential language barrier here.
You're not familiar with debates, are you? You don't seem to understand the concept of the "burden of proof" - it's not something I'm making up. It's scientific, it's logical and it's known world-wide in the debate community, in the religious community and in the scientific community. If you make a claim, you are expected to be able to prove it. If you cannot, then your claim is baseless. I am not MAKING a claim, although you like to misrepresent me a lot and keep on saying that I'm saying "no god exists" when I have said no such thing ever - at ANY point of my life.
I get that it may be hard for you to understand, but your understanding of things does not change the reality.
To avoid a pointless semantic argument let me be clear. There is a difference between belief formed on the basis of that which is objectively verifiable, and belief which is not formed on the basis of that which is objectively verifiable. I am making the points that god-belief is an example of the latter, that there are other beliefs of the same type, and that this has implications for the OP.
By way of illustration I've used the belief of doing something in the past (having breakfast) as an example of belief which does not require objectively verifiable evidence for its formation. It is grounded solely in apparent subjective experience, which by definition cannot be examined by anyone other than the subject. Whether objectively verifiable evidence exists is irrelevant, the point is that it is unnecessary for the formation of belief about what we had for breakfast this morning.
Likewise, even if some theists (mistakenly) believe there is objectively verifiable evidence that supports the existence of a deity, that's irrelevant because such evidence is unnecessary for the formation of god-belief, which may be grounded solely in apparent subjective experience. If subjective experiences are someone's "reasons to believe" then by definition, they cannot be examined by anyone other than the subject.
The opening post says: "Show me your proof for god . . . but be prepared to have your proof examined". This implies objective evidence (by definition you cannot examine that which is subjective unless you are the subject). It therefore makes a false assumption about the nature of god-belief. I have already pointed that out to the opening poster. From his responses I suspect he does not understand, rather than disagrees. I can't fault him for not understanding. Whether you understand remains to be seen.I understand you perfectly fine, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Your premise is wrong, there is no legitimate belief that cannot be objectively verified. Because reality is by definition objective in nature--it doesn't change based on the individual.
You gave the example of eating breakfast--this is objectively verifiable. Someone else can attest that you ate breakfast. Or, if you ate breakfast alone and no one else can vouch, then as I already said, it is still an objective fact that you ate breakfast. Even if no one was around when it happened, the fact is that someone COULD confirm it. It is theoretically possible to confirm it objectively.
If you later hallucinate and suddenly believe that you did not eat breakfast, you are wrong, because the fact that you ate breakfast is an objective fact, independent of your own beliefs or thoughts.
By contrast, claims about God, or angels or demons and whatnot, cannot be objectively verified. That is why they are illegitimate claims, and they rank with fantasy and imagination.
There is not a single legitimate claim that humans can make that is categorically incapable of being objectively verified. And it is the verifiability of the breakfast claim that makes it "believable"--it doesn't take a great leap of faith to accept it. The same is not true of miracles, for example."Your premise is wrong, there is no legitimate belief that cannot be objectively verified . . . You gave the example of eating breakfast. . . . Even if no one was around when it happened, the fact is that someone COULD confirm it."
You comments address a misconception of my argument, rather than my actual argument. Either you need to read more carefully, or I need to express myself more clearly. Hopefully both those things will happen.
The point is not whether someone's belief about breakfast can be objectively verified. Not once have I said it can't be. The point is that falsifiability is not necessary to form or maintain such belief. It is the apparent experience which leads to the formation of such belief, not its potential for falsifiability. If that was the case, no one would believe anything which was not falsifiable. Clearly they do, so evidently falsifiability is not the attribute which determines the formation of belief in those cases. I notice you are now qualifying belief with the use of "legitimate". That doesn't really help. Does falsifiability determine whether a belief is "legitimate"?
Depends what "legitimate" means. Let me start by taking it at face value. If falsifiability determines whether a belief is "legitimate" (whatever it means) then the belief that someone has a headache is not "legitimate". Let me do some pre-empting here: No, that belief is not objectively verifiable. No, a scan of someone's brain/ nervous system does not categorical tell us what that individual is experiencing. No, there is no instrument, test or method that allows us to exactly experience another human being's experience, so it is not possible to categorically tell someone they are not experiencing a headache. By your standard, the belief someone has a headache is therefore illegitimate(!?)
On the other hand if by "legitimate" you mean epistemologically justified, then falsifiability does have some bearing on that, and it doesn't. A belief which is objectively proven false, can still be epistemologically justified. Using your example, if someone hallucinated they had no breakfast, but was not aware they had hallucinated, then belief grounded in that apparent experience is epistemologically justified. This is because, in the absence of contrary evidence, a person is justified in assuming their subjective experience to be real. That is a fundamental axiom by which we live (it happens to aid survival). So the formation of that belief is justified.
However, if it was categorically proven that the experience was not actual, then maintaining that belief would be unjustified. Assuming it was so proven, then for the person in your example we would have to say their continued belief that they had no breakfast is unjustified, but the formation of that belief was justified.
The implications of all this for god-belief are: the formation of god-belief is epistemologically justified if it is based on genuine apparent experience and 2) it cannot be determined whether maintaining certain aspects of god-belief is epistemologically justified, because certain aspects of god-belief are not falsifiable.
So no, falsifiability does not affect the formation of certain beliefs, and no beliefs which are not falsifiable are not unjustified if that's what you mean by illegitimate. Maintaining such belief maybe if it can be categorically proven that it is not grounded in actual experience, but that's not always possible with god-belief. Hence my original point that a discussion about god-belief and evidence is essentially a red herring.Well the word "justified" sounds a lot like "legitimate" if you ask me. But call it whatever you want.
"If that was the case, no one would believe anything which was not falsifiable. Clearly they do..."
Sure, people believe all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they are right in doing so.
Falsifiability is an essential part of knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it is the whole thing, but it is a necessary condition. The reason is simple: how can I know that something is true if I can't sense it or figure it out myself?
I don't entirely agree with the idea that we can't really know if someone is having a headache. But let's leave that aside for now. Suppose I accept the premise that the truth of the headache is indeed unknowable to an outsider.
Ok, so take two statements: "I have a headache" and "There are pixies flying around inside my head."
According to you, both of these statements carry equal epistemological weight. We have just as much reason to believe one as the other. But if someone made the second claim to you, can you honestly say that you would not be worried for that person's mental health?
There is something that makes headaches different from pixies. Headaches and the effects of headaches are observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is affecting many people in the same way.
When someone reports a headache, it does not arouse nearly the amount of incredulousness that head-pixies would. And there is a reason for that.
Now for some reason you are creating a distinction between the formation of a belief and the maintenance of a belief. That's all very interesting, but it seems unnecessary. The question on the table is, what makes a belief (epistemologically) legitimate. You admit that when evidence arises to the contrary, non-evidenced experience must yield.
Now, suppose I accept your argument that certain beliefs are justified in the absence of falsifiability--specifically, beliefs dealing with one's internal world which is not accessible by outsiders. Ok, great. You still have a problem: the belief in God is not a belief about something internal, it's a claim about something external, in the external world. It may be based on one's lonely experiences, but it is still a claim about objective reality--there is a thing called "God" hanging out there in the universe. Well, if reality is so ordered, then it must be accessible to other people in some way too.
One doesn't get to make an objective claim but then hide behind the shield of subjectivity when challenged.
"in the absence of contrary evidence, a person is justified in assuming their subjective experience to be real."
No, all one can say is that it's sometimes pragmatic to believe something without evidence. It requires less brainpower expenditure to just accept whatever silliness pops into one's head than to rigorously apply the scientific method and spend hours researching and experimenting on every idea one has. But pragmatism that enables the average person to get on with their daily life is a far cry from epistemological legitimacy."Sure, people believe all kinds of things. Doesn't mean that they are right in doing so."
What do you mean by "right" in this context?
"Falsifiability is an essential part of knowledge. I won't go so far as to say it is the whole thing, but it is a necessary condition. The reason is simple: how can I know that something is true if I can't sense it or figure it out myself?"
Falsifiability is an essential aspect of scientific method, but it is not essential to form or maintain belief in god.
"Ok, so take two statements: "I have a headache" and "There are pixies flying around inside my head . . . According to you, both of these statements carry equal epistemological weight. We have just as much reason to believe one as the other."
If by "carry equal epistemological weight" you mean they are epistemologically justified, then not necessarily. Depends on context. If both statements were made in a situation not conducive to reliable sensory perception, neither would be justified. If either was being made by a person with a known dysfunction that affected their sensory perception, that would not be justified. Note: justified/unjustified does not equate to true/false. Belief can be epistemologically justified, yet false and vice versa.
"But if someone made the second claim to you, can you honestly say that you would not be worried for that person's mental health?"
My first thought would be that it's a joke. If it wasn't I'd think they must have imagined it or dreamt it. If they were adamant they didn't, I'd think maybe someone spiked their drink. If someone was adamant that it was none of those things, I would not assume mental illness but I wouldn't rule it out either. I would mostly be curious as to why they are making that claim.
But that's irrelevant. Assuming the belief is epistemologically justified, that doesn't mean you or I have to believe it. By definition the subjective experience that led to the formation of their belief can't be experienced by us. But just because we have no reason to hold that belief, that does not mean they have no reason to hold it, and it does not mean it is not epistemologically justified for them to hold it.
"There is something that makes headaches different from pixies. Headaches and the effects of headaches are observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is affecting many people in the same way."
The above comment is equally applicable to god-belief in comparison with pixie claims. E.g: there is something that makes god-belief different from pixies. God-belief and the apparent effects of god-belief is observed and experienced by countless people every single day. In other words, it is not an entirely subjective phenomenon. There is something objective at work, even if not on par with the sun, because it is apparently affecting many people in the same way.
"When someone reports a headache, it does not arouse nearly the amount of incredulousness that head-pixies would. And there is a reason for that."
Again, the same can be said of god-belief relative to pixie claims.
"Now for some reason you are creating a distinction between the formation of a belief and the maintenance of a belief. That's all very interesting, but it seems unnecessary. The question on the table is, what makes a belief (epistemologically) legitimate. You admit that when evidence arises to the contrary, non-evidenced experience must yield."
The distinction is important. Yes, when categorical objectively verifiable evidence arises to the contrary, maintaining such belief is unjustified. However, the nature of such belief negates the possibility of such evidence. For example, the pixie claim above is non falsifiable, i.e. it's grounded in subjective experience which by definition cannot be examined by anyone else. So categorical evidence to the contrary is not possible. In the absence of such evidence, maintaining that belief is epistemologically justified according to my criteria of justified belief. That does nothing to convince you or I of the truth of that person's belief, but it does mean they are as much within their epistemological rights to believe it, as we are within ours to disbelieve it.
"You still have a problem: the belief in God is not a belief about something internal, it's a claim about something external, in the external world. It may be based on one's lonely experiences, but it is still a claim about objective reality--there is a thing called "God" hanging out there in the universe. Well, if reality is so ordered, then it must be accessible to other people in some way too."
Is the existence of god a claim about something external? I'm not sure. What if the conception of god is something which can only be perceived internally? And does the word "thing" apply? Is god a thing? I think that might be a category error. As far as I'm aware, within Christian theology, god is not considered to exist, but rather constitutes existence. I'm not sure what the corollary of that is for things, but I suspect thing is probably a poor descriptor. How does it all work? No idea. But from existing objectively verifiable evidence, we can infer that our inability to fully perceive something, and how it works, does not preclude us from speculating correctly about something's existence.
"No, all one can say is that it's sometimes pragmatic to believe something without evidence."
No, reacting immediately to sensory perception is essential for survival. That's why we can do it.
"It requires less brainpower expenditure to just accept whatever silliness pops into one's head than to rigorously apply the scientific method and spend hours researching and experimenting on every idea one has."
Perhaps so, but that's not the main reason people form and maintain beliefs without objective evidence.
"But pragmatism that enables the average person to get on with their daily life is a far cry from epistemological legitimacy."
I don't know what your criteria for justified belief is. Present it to me, I'll be happy to debunk it for you."Present it to me, I'll be happy to debunk it for you."
Sounds to me like you're not even willing to entertain my argument. Thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in playing a game with a disingenuous partner.
"Is the existence of god a claim about something external? I'm not sure."
Unless you are aware of a belief system that posits a "god" that does not exist unless humans exist, it seems fair to say that god is indeed something or someone (or some-whatever) external to humans. I see no reason to start questioning that basic idea now.
"What do you mean by "right" in this context?"
Justified, by your terminology.
"Falsifiability is an essential aspect of scientific method, but it is not essential to form or maintain belief in god."
That's just a repetition of your premise from the top.
How does the statement "God exists" add to human knowledge if other humans are incapable of verifying it for themselves? This is the basic problem you keep missing.
Pixies-- "Depends on context."
This is one of your most interesting statements thus far. Now suddenly things depend on context. And what are the rules that apply to contexts? And where did you get those rules?
Suppose that pixie person is legally and clinically insane. Who are you to tell him he is insane? Who are you to determine what is "real" and what is "imaginary"? Maybe you're the one who is insane, and he is the one who sees things clearly. Or, indeed, suppose he's drunk--so what? What if the world of sobriety is a shadow world, and the truth lies at the bottom of a glass?
What are the rules you are working with? What laws of nature? Which way is up and which way is down, and how do you know?
You see, you have opened a can of worms no one in your position can close. I have something you do not have, which is a common, core, universal set of rules for understanding reality. But you, on the other hand, allow for different sets of rules. It's like playing baseball, but sometimes allowing the rules of football... and then sometimes allowing the rules of basketball. There is no rhyme or reason here. You are allowing everyone their own rules. An epistemological relativism.
"it does mean they are as much within their epistemological rights to believe it, as we are within ours to disbelieve it."
In the world of politics, equal rights signifies that everyone has the same freedoms and entitlements. One person does not get special treatment for having connections, or being from a privileged family. In a corrupt or autocratic system, by contrast, rights are relative. Relative to one's religion, one's skin color, one's gender, one's wealth, and whatnot. What you have constructed, my friend, is an epistemological relativism where everyone does not have to play by the same rules. Everyone can believe whatever they want to believe, and no one can say they are wrong.
But no, you will say. There are still objective facts, you will say--things that everyone must agree on because falsifiability applies to them, science applies, naturalism and empiricism apply.
But really? How is that? On what basis do you presume to tell me what counts as "evidence"? You have already sawed off the tree branch upon which you sit. You have already opened this pandora's box of subjectivity and relativism. There is no turning back now. But just as with political rights, it's all or nothing. Either everyone plays by the same rules, or nobody plays by the same rules--anarchy, in other words. Anarchy here means that knowledge is impossible. That is the ultimate implication of your position.
So the real question you must answer--not so much for me, or anyone else, but really for yourself--is, how do you know anything?"Sounds to me like you're not even willing to entertain my argument. Thanks but no thanks, I'm not interested in playing a game with a disingenuous partner."
Doesn't the seeming impossibility of me knowing exactly what you think before you express it preclude the possibility that this was anything other than some light-hearted banter? Clearly not for you. By all means accuse me of having an opinion on the subject, but that doesn't extend to narcissism I assure you. Thanks for assuming the worst though.
"Unless you are aware of a belief system that posits a "god" that does not exist unless humans exist, it seems fair to say that god is indeed something or someone (or some-whatever) external to humans. I see no reason to start questioning that basic idea now."
There is reason to question the basic idea. I'm not sure the word "exist" is even applicable to be honest. How can something which people claim is existence, be said to exist? Perhaps, technically, god does not in fact "exist". If god were actual(!?) then the most that can be said is that god is. Even that's pushing it. If certain conceptions of god are to be believed, the most one could say is simply: god. But none of that is particularly relevant to a discussion about belief.
"How does the statement "God exists" add to human knowledge if other humans are incapable of verifying it for themselves? This is the basic problem you keep missing."
The basic problem you keep missing, is that the underlying assumption of that question is that every statement should "add to human knowledge". According to who? The statement "I think Claude Monet paintings are beautiful" doesn't add to human knowledge either. So what? That doesn't mean discourse about art is not enriching. I value the knowledge scientific method provides when applied to falsifiable statements, but I don't accept that such knowledge is the only way human lives are enriched. Art evidently enriches some people's lives, so does god belief. That's the case regardless of whether you think they "add to human knowledge" or not.
"This is one of your most interesting statements thus far. Now suddenly things depend on context. And what are the rules that apply to contexts? And where did you get those rules?"
Nothing "sudden" about it. I've said from the start that epistemological justification depends on a specific criteria. That criteria is based on applying reason to what we know about beliefs and the way they are formed.
"Suppose that pixie person is legally and clinically insane. Who are you to tell him he is insane? Who are you to determine what is "real" and what is "imaginary"? Maybe you're the one who is insane, and he is the one who sees things clearly. Or, indeed, suppose he's drunk--so what? What if the world of sobriety is a shadow world, and the truth lies at the bottom of a glass? . . ."
Two things: 1) the fact he is insane is irrelevant. If someone is diagnosed as "insane" that doesn't automatically mean their sensory perception is unreliable, and therefore their belief unjustified. An insane person can still have an epistemologically justified belief. By contrast if someone was completely sane, but had a tumour on their brain which was known to be putting pressure on their visual cortex causing hallucinations, then their sensory perception would indeed be unreliable. So the sanity of a person is irrelevant to whether their belief is epistemologically justified.
2) Querying the validity of all that is "known" is a philosophical position known as scepticism. I am not a philosophical sceptic because that position is self-defeating. It rests on the proposition that nothing is truly knowable. However, if that were the case, then that proposition itself cannot be known. So either the proposition is false, therefore things can be know, or it is true in which case the proposition can't be known. So employing scepticism in a discussion is futile.
"What are the rules you are working with?"
They are not "rules". They are a criteria for justified belief. I'm happy to clarify anything you don't understand about that criteria.
"I have something you do not have, which is a common, core, universal set of rules for understanding reality. "
No, you have another philosophical position known as evidentialism, which is simply the assertion that belief is only as good as the evidence it's based upon. That philosophical position also has problems. To believe something, you must have supporting evidence for it, but that evidence must in turn be supported by evidence. Any evidence you provide in support of further evidence must also be supported by evidence, ad infinitum. In order to prevent this problem of infinite regress, at some point you have to draw a line in the epistemological sand, and make an assumption. By definition that will not be based on evidence, so does not meet the evidentialist criteria for justified belief. So if evidentialism is false, then belief is not only justified by evidence. If it's true an infinite series of evidence is required, so effectively no belief can ever be truly justified (remember the problem with that from scepticism). In short it is another self-defeating position.
"What you have constructed, my friend, is an epistemological relativism where everyone does not have to play by the same rules. "
That's a misconception, and the rest of your post seems to relate to that misconception. There is no "epistemological relativism". Your attempt to employ philosophical scepticism to suggest there is, doesn't work as that position is self-defeating. Our most fundamental beliefs are based on assumptions. They have to be in order to avoid the problems of evidentialism and scepticism. Indeed that's why we assume what we are apparently experiencing is real. To do otherwise places us in the clutches of that evil Cartesian demon. The fact that we must assume certain things is exactly the reason belief can be formed without evidence and is the reason for the high epistemic status of our own apparent experience.
But that doesn't mean everyone has to believe everything. It just means you can't assert that someone's belief is unjustified simply because you have no reason to believe it. Likewise they cannot expect you to share a belief grounded solely in their subjective experience. That's what it's all about, the difference between what is required for someone to form belief based on their own experience, and what is required for someone to convince someone else of their belief. The former requires only a genuine apparent experience. The latter, by definition, requires something objective.
But just because someone does not have objective evidence for their belief, does not mean it isn't justified. If you assert otherwise then you need to address the ramifications of that assertion, i.e. if belief grounded solely in genuine apparent experience is unjustified, then the belief someone has a headache is unjustified. Likewise, if their belief that they have a headache is justified, then likewise god-belief must be justified. Again whether either belief is true or not is another matter, but we cannot assert that a belief is unjustified simply because we don't believe it. Likewise we can't assert a belief is justified, simply because we do believe it. Both constitute a fallacy, a non sequitur.
In short what we believe is true, or even likely to be true, is of no relevance to whether a belief is epistemologically justified. The fact that people form belief grounded in subjective experience is simply part of the mechanism by which we process the world. We cannot assert that beliefs that come through that mechanism are justified when we agree with them, but unjustified when we don't. That's disingenuous and self serving. The only time we can truthfully assert a belief is not justified, is if we can categorically prove that there is some fault with that mechanism in the case of a specific individual. What constitutes a "fault"? Anything that can objectively be proven to make someone's sensory perception unreliable. Why objectively proven? Because we are trying to prove the reliability of their sensory perception to ourselves. By definition that requires objective evidence because we are external to the person holding the belief.Lol, you need to work on your banter skills, that's all I will say about that.
"How can something which people claim is existence, be said to exist?"
Most god believers do not couch their beliefs in those terms. Most say "God exists." This is not just true of most strains of Abrahamic believers (which are the overwhelming majority of all theists), but many non-Abrahamic ones as well.
My point is not that knowledge is the only human good. My point is that statements that are intended to convey information had better be justified. The statement "God exists" is an attempt to convey information, i.e. new information, i.e. new knowledge.
If someone wants to have a discussion about how they feel, how connected they feel to the cosmos, the fact that they feel a life energy connecting us all, and whatnot, fine. I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with, is when people make a positive claim about objective reality based on faulty evidence or unjustified assumptions.
No one would ever say that the chemical makeup of the paints Monet used necessarily leads to a certain opinion of his art--that objective facts should determine subjective feelings. And yet we allow the reverse all the time--that subjective feelings should say anything about objective facts.
"Art evidently enriches some people's lives, so does god belief."
If we are only talking about subjective feelings, fine. But those are feelings or personal opinions. That's not objective reality. People who express opinions about art do not presume to use those opinions as a basis for explaining the origin or structure of the universe. Yet people who believe in "God" do that all the time.
"No, you have another philosophical position known as evidentialism, which is simply the assertion that belief is only as good as the evidence it's based upon."
No, I am not and have never been an evidentialist. This is a misconception on your part. I do accept the need for blind faith assumptions, always have. But they are much narrower and much more limited than what you probably accept.
And I am not employing "philosophical skepticism." I was simply using questions, some real and some rhetorical, to demonstrate the point that your worldview is unsustainable. (As an aside, whether my own worldview, skeptical or not, is flawed, is irrelevant, because it is your worldview that is "on trial" here, as you made the opening statement.)
"The fact that we must assume certain things is exactly the reason belief can be formed without evidence and is the reason for the high epistemic status of our own apparent experience."
This statement is a total non-sequitur. Just because we must assume certain things does not at all give our experience "high epistemic status."
Of course belief can be formed without evidence. But that does not mean any particular belief so formed is "justified." You are making many leaps. There are seemingly infinite examples of personal experience failing to conform to reality. We thought something was true, then we find out it's not.
"...the difference between what is required for someone to form belief based on their own experience, and what is required for someone to convince someone else of their belief."
Is there one reality, or isn't there? Because if there are multiple realities, each of us in our own little world, literally, then this statement makes sense. But if there is one, single reality of which we are all a part, then this does not work. If there is just one reality--one group of things that are real, for all of us--then what is good enough for one observer must be good enough for another. And what is NOT good enough for one observer is also by definition insufficient for all others.
Why should the epistemological bar be lower for one’s own beliefs than for someone else's beliefs? This is extraordinarily arbitrary.
"if belief grounded solely in genuine apparent experience is unjustified, then the belief someone has a headache is unjustified. Likewise, if their belief that they have a headache is justified, then likewise god-belief must be justified."
Again, there is a difference between a headache and a god. A headache is a purely naturalistic phenomenon, does not require the existence of a parallel world or supernatural world. God does. Note that this has nothing to do with the truth of the headache, or of God, but rather with whether the belief is justified in the first place. If God exists, then some kind of supernatural realm must exist (even if such a realm is only or entirely occupied by God). I do not need to ask how a headache is existentially possible, even if I have never experienced one. It is obvious how it is possible. But I do have to ask how God is existentially possible.
Moreover, if someone says they have a headache, this is simply a statement about their own feelings. A subjective statement based on subjective evidence. But to claim that there is a god, and the evidence is one’s feelings, is an objective statement based on subjective evidence. You can’t just make any random statement about anything and then say “cuz that’s how I feel” and voila, you’re off the hook.
"Why objectively proven? Because we are trying to prove the reliability of their sensory perception to ourselves."
Don't you see the self-defeating nature of this worldview? You are seesawing between two different sets of rules (or "criteria" if you prefer) for the epistemological justification.
A person makes a claim. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience. And how do we know their experience is accurate? Can we have a similar experience? Oh no, that's not necessary. All that is needed is to make sure their senses are working well. And how do we know that? By objective analysis. And what is our objective analysis based on? Objective rules that are not limited to one person.
Ok, so suppose a person makes a new claim: objective facts do not exist. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience (feelings/ visions/ hearings/ whatever). How do we know their experience is accurate? By objective facts.
Voila, objective facts have confirmed that objective facts do not exist. We, external people, may not have to accept that claim, but we are not allowed to say that claim is wrong.
Either there is one reality for all of us, or there is not. You can't have it both ways."Most god believers do not couch their beliefs in those terms. Most say "God exists."
No but from an ontological perspective these are interesting questions. What does 'exist' mean? What is it to 'be'? Can god 'be'? I don't think 'god exists' can be
entirely accurate, but that's another topic.
"My point is not that knowledge is the only human good. My point is that statements that are intended to convey information had better be justified. The statement "God exists" is an attempt to convey information, i.e. new information, i.e. new knowledge."
You are confusing two seperate things, the accuracy of a belief (truth) and justification of a belief (warrant). These are descrete concepts and one bears no relation to the other. Justified is not a psynonym for accurate or true. In an epistemological sense a belief can be justified and true, or justified and false.
So for a belief to be epistemologically justified (warranted) you need to be able to show that person's sensory perception is not dysfunctional and that they were in an environment conducive to reliable sensory perception, i.e. not asleep etc. And yes, to do that objective evidence is necessary.
"How do we know their experience is accurate?"
Depends what the claim is. If's objectively verifiable, we can determine accuracy that way. If it's not, e.g. it's about some internal perception of god, then we don't know whether that belief is accurate or not. We can speculate that it's likely/unlikely based on existing knowledge, but that's all. But that's irrelevant to whether that belief is justified.We can say that even though we can't determine the accuracy of a belief, a person is justified in holding that belief based on subjective experience.
You are entitled to say it is unlikely to be an internal perception of god if that's what you think, but you cannot reasonably say a person is not justified in holding a belief grounded in their own apparent experience, in the absence of refuting evidence.
"Ok, so suppose a person makes a new claim: objective facts do not exist. What is their claim based on? Their subjective experience (feelings/ visions/ hearings/ whatever). How do we know their experience is accurate? By objective facts. Voila, objective facts have confirmed that objective facts do not exist. We, external people, may not have to accept that claim, but we are not allowed to say that claim is wrong."
Again you confuse accuracy with justification.
If a person's sensory perception is not dysfunctional, and they are in an environment conducive to reliable sensory perception, then in the absence of any categorical refuting evidence, belief grounded in their subjective experience is justified. That does not mean that belief is accurate. If there is subsequently refuting evidence, we can say the formation of that belief was justified, but maintaining that belief is not justified. However, if there is no refuting evidence, then whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, maintaining that belief is epistemologically justified. You can certainly say you think it's unlikely the belief is true if that's your opinion, but you cannot reasonably say it's not justified. Once again that does not mean that belief is accurate. It means it is epistemologically justified.You keep harping on the distinction between "justification" and "correctness" when I have already said that I understand the distinction perfectly well, and your argument still does not hold up.
"And yes, to do that objective evidence is necessary."
So again, all subjective claims are buttressed by objective fact. So it all comes down to objective facts. But what happens when the subjective claims violate those objective facts? This is the problem you keep missing.
You will say "the person was simply mistaken, but their claim was still justified/ allowable." But I'm saying that to make a subjective claim in the first place is unjustified. To be mistaken when making an objective claim is one thing. But to make a subjective claim, which definitionally does not require any objective facts, is quite another.
Subjective claims are not allowable. They are fine for areas where the subjective is all there is, such as art, music, fashion, parties, whatever. But not for objective claims about reality.
You are basically saying that for claims that definitionally require objective evidence, objective evidence is not required to make them justified (NOT necessarily correct). All that is required is for the claimant to be of sound mind/ body, which is, in turn, determined by objective evidence. The internal contradictions are running in multiple directions.
The unity of reality is something you completely ignored in your most recent comment here. The notion that a claim is "allowable" for one person, but not "allowable" for another person, is extraordinarily arbitrary and frankly makes no sense. I can believe whatever I want, but as soon as I open my mouth and start trying to convince my friend, suddenly the evidential bar that needs to be overcome shoots up in front of me? What is it about me opening my mouth that alters objective reality so drastically?
Sorry, but having breakfast is indeed an objective experience, there is hard evidence for that. To imagine having breakfast on the moon would be subjective.
You are breathing, brother. That's good enough for me.
that, unfortunately, is not good enough for me. Everybody breathes. That doesn't mean that a god out there made it happen.
I exist and you exist. This is a fact ! ... ?
If a person comes to me saying they are your representive; If they say things to me that I expose to be untrue, does can I assume that you do not exist?If an all-powerful being existed and manifested in the natural world, there would be signs of his presence. There aren't. My existence isn't what's at question here - your god's is.
Who/what do you presume my God is?
Everything and everybody is under some kind of doubt from somebodythat's the point - i'm not presuming who your god(s) is. I'm asking for evidence of any god, and it doesn't really matter which out of the thousands of gods that have been proclaimed throughout history you're claiming to prove exists.
Hundreds of years ago there was no proof that bacteria existed yet a few people “Knew” something was there. Some people thought that evil spirits hid in the sheets and clothing so they burned them. There was no proof that this thing existed yet it did. Their theories were wrong concerning what it was, as is many of our ideas concerning the identity we call God. We Christians are close minded when we refuse to change our ideas concerning who/what God is and where God resides.
If All doctors and scientist had kept a closed mind, bacteria would still be unnamed and thought to not exist.You must admit that your god is supposed to be undetectable - yes? So your argument is silly. I understand you need to defend the belief in any way you can - no matter how silly, but this is scraping the barrel.
In any case - Bacteria actually exist.Again, you are clumping me into a tight little form which is your perception of what all other “Believers” believe.
All that I am saying is that there will always be unknown things that are soon to be discovered. I do not admit that “MY God” is undetectable. Uranium still is undetectable without the proper device or without the willingness to accept the validity of the evidence presented.So - your god is detectable than? We just haven't developed the technology to do so. Is that so?
I am clumping you into the garbage you have spouted at me to defend your irrational beliefs in the time we have known each other. You think I wasn't reading all the stuff about biblical prophecies coming true? I take it you now reject the biblical god that you have been claiming for all the time we have known each other - yes?
You made a NEW GOD UP?We may hear a person speaking and we may read the things a person writes and still not understand what they are thinking because we think we already know what they are going to say.
We hear a sound, see face expressions and lips moving and yet know not what we think we know.I can tell you that even when one speaks in riddles other know that one speaks in riddles.
What has that got to do with our discussion other than more smoke screens?
do you remember that song? "If You Don't Know Me By Now you will never never know me"
I know you as well as you are capable of representing yourself.
And you judge my ability to represent my self through your ability to understand
You are judged on your ability to communicate your thoughts to others. If we are having trouble understanding your thoughts it's because you are not communicating your thoughts properly.
Thanks Emile R. Sometimes I think I'm the only passenger on my particular train of thought.
I suppose we all do from time to time.An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
I think we know who the troll is, pencils sharpened?
And what exactly is your particular train of thought again?
It seems to be something along the lines of Bacteria exists and we didn't know it did, therefore the bible is correct, but don't assume the god he is defending is the god of the bible just because he spent 3 years saying that.
Got it - all me not being able to understand. Say some more nonsense to defend your beliefs. Lie a little even. That will always work. Emily will probably say how clever you are.
By the same token ... Maybe if you were better explaining your beliefs we would better understand them.
Hope you see I'll not insult you by adding unnecessary adverbs and adjactives.Out of courtesy (misguided as it will inevitably prove to be) I'll clarify the comment I posted in response to Jerami's statement. He said "And you judge my ability to represent my self through your ability to understand". I do agree. Miscommunication is responsible for more disagreements than anything else.
That is not an argument for the existence of God simply because it can be applied to any and all things, real or imagined.
There was plenty of evidence that bacteria existed. The evidence is what led people to burn burn sheets. If you were to point to what evidence we have for a God that is like the evidence for bacteria you would certainly have the worlds attention. Unfortunately a ticking clock is only evidence of a clock maker.
I think that all evidence at that time was circumstancial and not the kind of HARD evidence we seem to be insisting upon today.
But the only reason we looked is because a scientist rejected the "god," hypothesis and actually looked.
Sorry your not understanding. People getting sick for no apparent reason was hard evidence for bacteria. The evidence was there before bacteria and or viruses were found. This completely different than God because your starting of saying that bacteria/God exists and looking for the evidence.
False assertion. Every natural phenomenon is a sign of something, but we can't always perceive what. Quantum entanglement may be a "sign" there are more spacial dimensions than we thought. We don't know because we can't currently perceive those spacial dimensions. The universe may be the "sign" of a big bang, or a rapid inflation, or a collision between two inter-dimensional membranes. Again we don't know, so we can't determine what the universe signifies. Some people assert existence is the sign of a deity which constitutes existence. Again, we can't tell what existence as a phenomenon signifies.
So unless you have some never before seen information about the universe, you cannot determine what aspect of the natural world does and does not constitute the "sign" of a deity, let alone determine that no such sign exists.if you're claiming that I'm using a logical fallacy, do tell me which one.
I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. And still, none of it adds up to evidence for a god."if you're claiming that I'm using a logical fallacy, do tell me which one."
I'm suggesting that your assertion there are no signs of a deity's presence, is false i.e. the opposite of true. I think that's fairly clear. What's more I'm suggesting such an assertion is as nonsensical as suggesting there are signs of a deity's presence. There is no rational basis on which to make such assertions.
"I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. "
Now that is a fallacy. Straw man to be precise. You are responding to a misconception of my argument, not my argument. My argument is that any phenomena could be a "sign", i.e. an indicator, of some wider phenomenon. Causal relationships have nothing to do with it. The issue is that we can perceive certain phenomenon without being unable to perceive the wider phenomenon it is part of. Therefore we are unable to determine what it indicates, or if it indicates anything at all. It does not follow that because we are unable to determine a wider phenomenon, that therefore no wider phenomenon exists. In other words, just because we are unable to determine whether a phenomenon indicates the existence of a deity, it does not follow that therefore a deity does not exist. That's another fallacy, a non sequitur.
"And still, none of it adds up to evidence for a god."
You seem preoccupied with evidence. Let me repeat myself: there is no categorical, objectively verifiable evidence that proves or refutes the existence of a deity. So you (and the theists who think there is) would do better to move along and stop flogging a dead horse in my opinion. However, that's all irrelevant to god-belief, many instances of which are not formed on the basis of evidence, but are grounded in apparent experience.
If you are refuting the supposed "evidence" for god presented by theists just for the sport, then say so, and I'll leave you to your sport. Otherwise you could develop your position to address the argument that evidence is irrelevant to certain beliefs, including god-belief.What signs of a deity's presence would those obvious signs be? You on the one hand claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, then turn around and say that the assertion that there are no signs of a deity's presence are false. You're contradicting yourself - which one is it?
"I think that you're trying to get at "everything in the universe has a cause" which is simply untrue. "
Your second paragraph made no sense at all. I'm a debate student and have years and years of experience, but your assertion of logical fallacies do not fit into any rational knowledge I have on the subject.
If i'm preoccupied with evidence, so be it. I think extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence if they're to be believed. The fact that religion, and not just christianity, has existed for thousands of years without any evidence whatsoever is ridiculous. there should be evidence if you're going to devote your life to a supernatural being. Without it, there is no justification for belief. It's blind faith - and I cannot see blind faith as a good thing.
Evidence may be historically irrelevant for religious beliefs, but it's not to me. Without evidence, why believe? Servantofgod has several hubs claiming to irrefutably prove the existence of god - but he falls far short of the mark, and deletes comments that disagree with him. That's willfully ignorant if not intellectually dishonest. It's not a sport. I'm genuinely curious. If there IS no evidence for god, it's sure to catch a lot of believers by surprise. I'm just asking them to present their case. I don't understand how that personally affects you at all. You claim there is no evidence. Fine. So why are you in a forum that is asking for that evidence?What I think Don W means, is that as of yet, there isn't any evidence of a god's existence to speak of objectively, and to keep things even, there isn't any evidence against a god's existence to speak of objectively as well. Most of our beliefs are based on our experience of the things around us, and in matters of observation, our sensory experience, and said beliefs are hinged only on how reliable we should perceive our senses to be. Ergo, we have as much basis to disagree on what we deem as, for instance, the colour purple, as we have to disagree on the existential status of a supreme being.
Those looking outside the field of faith for something to reinforce their own faith, usually find much comfort in supposed miracles, a common example of which would be the miraculous recovery of an individual from a supposedly incurable condition. That's as much evidence any religious individual would need to substantiate their own beliefs, and anyone who say otherwise can go to hell. Figuratively speaking of course.No one has to "prove" that god doesn't exist. Claiming so is shifting the burden of proof - or "moving the goalposts". To not believe in god without sufficient evidence is the default position. You have to be taught religion in order to believe - and the religion that you were taught is directly linked to where you happened to be born. In the united states, that typically meant that you're taught christianity. If the same person was born in Iraq or Iran, they'd most likely be Islamic. If they were raised in China, they are more likely to be something else.
Christians (and other religious people) claim to know definitively that their version of god exists. they're making the positive assertion - that means that they have the burden of proof. I'm simply asking them to supply it. I am not claiming definitively that 'no god exists'. I'm not arrogant enough to assert that. I'm simply stating that, thus far, no sufficient evidence has been presented.No one has to "prove" that god doesn't exist
That is a statement that fascinates me in the atheist/theist debate. Both sides insist they don't have to prove anything. I think they do... Once they have chosen to make a stand and claim a cosmic truth. Stepping back and claiming you aren't saying God doesn't exist is somewhat like cheating...once you've made that initial claim. Aren't you doing the same thing the theists do? Moving the goalposts to support your argument?
From where I sit, atheism is little more than a fringe branch of theism. 'Fighting the good fight' in their own mind. Standing up for 'reason' as the theist stands for 'god'.
To those on the outside it all looks the same. Who can claim cosmic truth? None can know anything for sure on the grand scale. Review your own opening statement. You were a missionary. You know the dogmas. You've read the Bible cover to cover, repeatedly. Then you proceed to share the conclusions you have come to. Is this any different from the Pentecostal who chooses to evangelize their understanding of 'the truth'?
Not really, the color purple, like many other physical things that exist in our universe, is indeed agreed upon, as are the many various permutations of purple our eyes can perceive, let alone the technology and instruments we have that deal with the visible light spectrum. That is no comparison at all to the existence of deities.
"You on the one hand claim that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a god, then turn around and say that the assertion that there are no signs of a deity's presence are false. You're contradicting yourself - which one is it?"
It's very simple if you think a little. The fact we are not aware of any categorical, objectively verifiable evidence, does not mean there isn't any. In 1900 we were not aware of background radiation in the universe (an indicator of the big bang, or rapid inflation) and would have suggested there is no objectively verifiable evidence for the big bang theory. Later of course we discovered such evidence.
"Your second paragraph made no sense at all."
You mean you didn't understand it. There is a difference.
"I'm a debate student and have years and years of experience . . . "
I see no evidence of this in your responses.
". . . but your assertion of logical fallacies do not fit into any rational knowledge I have on the subject."
If you don't understand what a straw man and a non sequitur is, I suggest you need further study. If you don't understand the argument, I suggest the words "I don't really understand your argument, can you explain it in a different way" might be a more fruitful.
"The fact that religion, and not just christianity, has existed for thousands of years without any evidence whatsoever is ridiculous."
No, it's just a different theory of knowledge and belief. The one you are expressing is called evidentialism, which sits within the area of philosophy called epistemology. There are a multitude of other theories of knowledge. Rationalism for example, appeals to reason as the source of knowledge rather than sensory perception.
"Without evidence, why believe?"
What did you have for breakfast this morning and why do you believe that?
"I'm genuinely curious."
Then I suggest you start by learning about epistemology, starting with evidentialism and the differences between that and other theories of knowledge, if you don't already know. Specifically look at the Infinite Regress Argument and the responses to it (foundationalism, coherentism, scepticism etc,) which should better inform you of the subject you are trying to discuss.
"You claim there is no evidence. Fine. So why are you in a forum that is asking for that evidence?"
To point out that it's a nonsensical question, and to share whatever knowledge I have on the subject. Are you implying I shouldn't?
If we can observe the "wider phenomenon", why bother with a sign? That would suggest the sign is merely a subjective opinion of interpretation and diminishes the phenomenon for what it is exhibiting to being irrelevant.
But, one need not create that fallacy considering your argument for a "wider phenomenon" that has yet to be observed and is being asserted as a deity is a non sequitur. Nature has never in any way, shape or form given indications, evidence or "signs" for the existence of deities. By stating that some "wider phenomenon" will eventually show up as a deity in another phenomenon as a sign is the same as waiting by the chimney for Santa to come down or watching your pillow for "signs" of the Tooth Fairy.
That would be an argument from incredulity based on your own words...
You have chosen to ask and answer and loaded your question up front ! Fine , you're here among fellow God stompers , roll on man !
I have been an atheist for the past 18 years but before that I was a Pentecostal evangelist. I too have a similar background with Christianity and have read the bible on 4 occasions cover to cover. I was a literalist and believed the bible to be the true and inerrant word of God. I was baptized and I preached for four years mostly in local area churches and I had a street ministry with my partner that we ministered publicly on Saturdays and Sundays.
One thing I hate about theists is that as your first responder Brenda Durham has so nicely demonstrated is that they immediately doubt your experience with Christianity. They assume you did not truly serve the Lord of have a genuine conversion etc. It's insulting and arrogant when they do this.
As for your request for evidence of God, I don't think anyone can provide that since the only evidence they truly have are subjective and therefore invalid. I still search as you do for truth in all matters but I am convinced that the evidence for God does not exist. This is the reason that faith is necessary. Faith does not require evidence all it needs is your acceptance to believe without evidence.If you accept Jesus as the son of god or an enlightened person his last words on the cross (Matthew 17:46-50) suggest his own lifeforce, the Bible calls the ghost, was his god. Otherwise I see no proof of god in any religion's sources.
I would never try to convert you to my beliefs for two reasons:
1) My beliefs are mine and based on my understanding of the Bible. You believe what and how you choose to believe (or in your case not believe) as according to your understanding
2) I have too much respect for you to try to limit you to my way of thinking. As a scholar, You have way more knowledge of what the bible says than I do. When I hear a scripture, I try to analyze what it is saying to me. My opinion is not the total truth. It is simply my opinion.That is the way it's supposed to be, people are to discuss their views and if one reasons the other is or isn't to their satisfaction they respect them in what they believe. The reason for Christian's working to convert others is because of how it became a world religion as revealed in
Revelation 6:2. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow {weapon}; and a crown {knowledge or gospel about Jesus} was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
That tells how Constantine's crusades the Catholic Church continued to go about preaching Jesus and if they didn't accept it they killed them until they accepted it. Today it's the attempt of 1% of the 1%, or what Revelation 13:1-3 calls the Beast who wants to control the world by using the United States' nuclear arsenal to instill afraidness in everyone world wide. That's why there's so many up-heavers worldwide, they are causing them to send the United States {Beast that came our of the sea} to occupy them in this new way of colonizing the world.
I agree with Brenda somewhat you are on the defense but i think you may be plagued with things you saw and thnk to yourself " if there's a God why would he allow this" the answers are in that book you claim you read cover to cover "The Bible". We all go thru trials and tribulations that is apart of life.
No man, no philosophy, no doctrine can provide the proof you seek. These things can only point to God. Only by experiencing will you have all the proof seek. Will you understand these experiences? Probably not, at first, but when you disengage the mind that is designed to seek knowledge your proof will come to the fore. It is beyond words or thoughts.
Like the experience of love, you cannot share that experience with any one except through using words to describe it. They however will never experience what you have experienced.
Any experience is unique to each and every one of us.I'm sorry, but it sounds like you're saying that the only way to find god is to willfully decide not to use your brain and think. Didn't your god create your brain? Does he not want you to use it? What kind of god would give you the ability to think, decide and reason and then only reveal himself if you ignore the tools that he gave you?
It does not escape my notice that the "original sin" in the garden of eden was that adam and eve ate from the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" If they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, then they cannot possibly be expected to understand the consequences of their actions. Without that understanding, god still judged them guilty of disobedience - even though they can't possibly understand disobedience or the consequences because of it. that's not moral. You don't sentence a mentally handicapped person to the death penalty if they kill someone. You sentence them to get treatment.
The church has been anti-knowledge, critical thinking and rational thought since its inception. Apparently, that philosophy is still in full force.Yes that is what I was saying.
An analogy might help? When we experience the wind we cannot catch the wind in our hands and give it to another. We do not use the logic to experience the wind, we use it only to describe it. We can think about it through the experience but as soon as we do the essence of the experience is lost.
Just so you know, my understanding of God is not like the mainstream understanding. God does not have a gender but is the essence of all that exists. It cannot be described or it becomes something entirely different in nature although still connected.
Good/evil, right/wrong, etc are concepts (dual in nature) created by the logic that separates 'this' from 'that' when really there is no separation. We separate ourselves from 'what is' because we subscribe to the reality of the logic, as in Eves case.Couldn't you just hold a fan up to your face?
If you like, haha. So is holding a fan to your face the exact same experience of feeling the wind on my face or is it something different? Was the speed the same was the gentleness the same or was it a lot more forceful than my experience. If you believe that it was, it is a belief, not a reality.
but we know what wind is. Its effects can be observed. So can the effects of love. So can familial bonds. Your analogy doesn't really hold water. We can't see air, either, but we know that it exists and we can define it. It has properties that can be tested through experimentation.
I'm sorry, but I can never see giving up my brain and my thought-process and my critical thinking skills just to possibly experience a god. If you give up logical thought, you become open to any claim that anyone makes. In that regard, you should believe in every possible religion because you cannot think critically about any of them.Effects can be observed I do agree. How do you test for properties you do not yet understand. How do you test for properties that are yet to be discovered?
Yes and therein lies why many do not understand God. Critical thinking or the tree of knowledge of good and evil is too enticing to the masses. The fear of giving up logic keeps one bound to the rules that it governs no more no less. The fear that we lose what we are is exactly what makes us lost to what we are.It is only through testing and exploration that we come to understand things that are not yet known. Can you imagine what would have happened if Galileo or DaVinci had never explored the unknown - in the face of persecution and potential death at the hands of the church, no less?
If humans didn't use their brains, we would be no different from the other animals today. It is our brains that set us apart from practically every other creature. We evolved to have bigger brains and to be able to use them to think critically. If you want us to stop using our brains, then we'd no different or better than cavemen. I rather like our technological advances - or else I couldn't be here talking to you. How did it come about? By people using their brains, challenging what they've been told about what is/is not possible and pushing the boundaries.What makes you think that animals don't use their brains? Animals have reasoning skills as well. As for cavemen, They used the tools that they had access too at that time and when something new came along, they adapted to it all the way to today.. That's called evolution (I think...)
animals do use their brains, but not in the same manner that we do. Some animals are HIGHLY intelligent (like Dolphins, for example) The fact of the matter is that the current homosapian brain is bigger. That doesn't mean that all of us big-brained folks actually USE it, however :-)
I think the issue isn't so much of whether or not we USE it. The issue is more in HOW we choose to use it
That's probably true :-) Although animals do choose to use their brains as well. Some species exhibit morality, social constructs and modified behavior.
Things yes, God no. We can test and explore God till the end of days with logic, yet God will be as elusive and incomprehensible as God has been since the beginning of time. Especially if we persist in using the brain and logic.
Logic leads us to believe we are some how 'set apart' from other species simply because we have the ability to use our brains, that by design separate "this" from "that", when really nothing is separate. The same brain separates rich from poor, beautiful from ugly, high from low type of thing. That is it's learned function. Generally it is whole, is does not discriminate, but old/learned habits die hard, which is why we need to disengage it for a while when seeking the experience of God
It's called the 'Scientific Method', which is used to test things like properties.
The reason is because gods are invisible and undetectable, hence impossible to understand.And impossible to test right? No scientific method available yet.
If you recall, God warned them that if they ate from that tree they would surely die. What's not to understand about that? So they knew the consequences of their actions, but ate the fruit anyway. With this in mind (based on my understanding of the story) I would conclude that they were guilty of disobedience because they were warned of what would happen, But Eve listened to the serpent then caught a look at the fruit that was looking good and then she and Adam ate. But of course this is how the story goes.
If you tell your child to not touch a hot stove or else they will get hurt, do you fully expect them to understand the pain and negative sensation that touching that stove will cause?
If they disobey you and touch the stove, do you ground them for the rest of their lives - or condemn them to death because they disobeyed? Do you expect them to understand at that age that actions have consequences? Does telling them NOT to do something not automatically make that forbidden action more attractive? Most of the time, if a child touches a hot stove once, they'll never do it again. They learn by doing and accepting the consequences because they're fully able to comprehend them.
Actually, what god really said "the day that you eat of it you will surely die". They didn't. They lived for a few hundred years afterwards. Sure they "started to die" from that moment on, yadda yadda. The fact of the matter is that god told them of a consequence that did not come to pass, so he had to compensate for it by kicking them out of the garden and cursing them instead.
Do you disown a child for a single act of disobedience - ESPECIALLY when they're not in a position to understand what you're saying? Of course not. that's not a moral judgement. Until they understood the difference between right and wrong, how could they know what disobedience really was - or what it would cost them?No argument from me here.. Then again, I currently don't believe this story is true. When I was a kid, I always viewed this story as a harsh example of what would happen if I disobeyed God and this story (among some of the others) kept me fearfully in line for several years. Then I grew up and started expanding my mind to different books (time away from the church help that too) as well as the dictionary and stumbled across the definition of myth. This opened my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities and ideas regarding the bible and how I never looked at it for myself and the context of which I was reading it all of my formative years was totally off base. This led to my rediscovery of the bible and my new mindset as to being open to any possibility.
And then, mankind was cursed forever more.
It would appear more reasonable to conclude God was guilty of incompetence and took his anger out on his own failed creation.
Or, is that the type of behavior we should be learning from this wonderful story of love and compassion, to curse forever the very thing you create, for having made one mistake.
Is that how we are supposed treat others?You have NO argument from me on this one if this story is true (which I doubt).
Nah this is not any kind of behavior I learned from that particular story. I never thought that particular store had any love or compassion even when I actually believed in it. I looked at that story as a story of punishment for one mistake with no forgiveness involved (which kept me fearfully in line for years)Fear, and more precisely, the reward/punishment system is what is supposed to keep believers in line with religions, yet it is a failed system as we can observe believers don't even follow the system, they do whatever they want, anyways.
Just like Adam and Eve with the apple.Except that there is both love and forgiveness involved. Even though they were cast out of Eden, they weren't forever banned from communion with God (which satan was.)
No. It's "I can't let you stay in this house but that doesn't mean I don't love you and I won't help take care of you."
did you disown your children the first time that they disobeyed you - especially if they were unable to differentiate between right and wrong?
My children were not grown human beings who tainted my whole household beyone repair.
If you choose to look at things that simplistically. There's actually a lot more to the whole thing.Adam and eve had no knowledge of good or evil. They had no way to understand the consequences of their actions before they did them. We do not judge people guilty for crimes when they are unable to differentiate between right and wrong. We get them treatment. Is your god less intelligent than modern justice?
Additionally, god told them that the day that they ate from the tree that they would surely die. You can claim it was a "spiritual" death all you want, but what it comes down is that god was impotent to follow through on his threat.Adam and Eve were not "grown" human beings either, they had no childhood and were created as adults with no knowledge or experience of the world around them, which would equate to them being small children.
I notice that, as usual, you left out the part of my post that was inconvenient for your response.
Not as lame as your response. And you sneer, also right on schedule.
Only in a world as flat at ATM's. In the real world there's a real difference.
I'm going to leave that one alone.. but there is a question floating in my head
You mentioned the world that ATM lives on versus the "real" world.. Whose world would you consider the "real world" and how do you know that that is correct?
ATM's world appears to leave no room for nuance. Based solely on his interaction with myself, he appears to believe that anyone who believes differently than himself is an inherent and willful liar. And as such is not worthy of a reasoned or reasonable response, only sneering and jeering. Were I the kind of person who does the armchair Freud thing, I would say it's unsurprising that someone who expresses themselves in such black and white (and largely humorless) terms would see religion as a black and white (and humorless) and oppressive institution.
To answer your question a bit differently, if God really does talk to you then the real world would be one where God talks to you.
Are you saying that you prefer ATM's deity-free world?I am saying that ATM's world is the real world.. to ATM.. Just like the world you live in is the real world... To you and the world that I live in is the real world.. to me..No one world is better over all than the others except to the person living in that world. Our world is shaped by our own experiences and as such we couldn't imagine ourselves living in each other's world because we haven't had those same experiences. Even if we did share the same experiences, each of us have different minds and can come up with different reasons for the same experience. That's like the saying "there are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. Each of our sides is colored as to be biased in favor of our point of view while the truth is unbiased and objective.
The inherent problem in your statement is that if there is a Heaven and a hell, and a God, and Jesus really did die for our sins and rise again on the third day, then not only denying their existence but also doing things to prevent others from believing in them makes you culpable. And by the same token, if none of those things exist, then the point about not facing reality is valid indeed. It all sounds very noble to say that whatever world you live in is the best one for you but it's not axiomatically true..
Exactly my point. Whatever world you see with your perspective is only from your perspective and may not be the truth. We will not know the truth until we either pass away or until the return of Christ (Provided he exists out of respect for my atheist friends). You know your truth based on your experiences.. likewise for me.. Likewise for everyone else around the world. But once THE truth is revealed, then the only division that there will be is purely based on how people respond to the truth
But, you will continue to ignore reality, never facing it in light of those beliefs, which by any stretch of the imagination are as childish and ridiculous as the minds that created them. And, that is what the believer should be made culpable.
Condescending assertions by people who are guilty of so many what they so readily ascribe to those they are so accusatory of does not equate to actual correctness or even rectitude.
In plain english, there's no one as self-righteous as the one who is accusing others of it.And yet, it is YOU who claims to converse with gods, the epitome of self-righteousness. No one is making accusations, YOU are willfully telling us that is what you do.
Our criticism and ridicule of such claims is only fitting to such open dishonesty.You want honesty?
Okay.
I think you just like to fight.I'm not the one making dishonest claims about talking with gods. YOU are.
You are the one making dishonest claims that man has no spirit, and that God does not exist.
If you can definitively prove that man has a soul or that god exists, then share it.
Otherwise, disbelieving in an unprovable deity is not dishonest. Is following the (lack of) evidenceI think this basically falls on a two side of a coin. each side apparently accuses the other side of dishonesty based on something that is unproven either way (at this present time). However, on each individual side of the coin, each side believes they are being as honest as possible with their belief (or lack thereof out of deference to you and my other atheist frineds) about how they view God (or the lack of one, again out of respect)
It's imposible to prove something doesn't exist, but possible to prove something does exist. I can't even prove big foot doesn't exist. It's up to the believers in big foot to prove he does exist. There are currently people searching our junk DNA for messages from aliens, incase they visited millions of years ago and wanted us to know they were here, but no one searching for God.
Yes, and this us what a lot of believers have a problem understanding. You cannot prove a negative. A believer cannot prove that Allah or Krishna or zeus does not exist. They can demonstrate what makes their existence unlikely, but so can atheists. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the people making the positive claim - even more so when they claim to have absolute certainty.
And again that is a statement I agree with to an extent. But the thing about faith and belief is that it is considered certainty without needing proof. Because ultimately, if there is no other answer to be found, The final answer (to a lot of believers) is God.. Now unfortunately, that is also the FIRST and only answer as well
Hey.. I agree wholeheartedly with you. I was just merely stating that it is funny (to me) how each side accuses the other of dishonesty (sometimes blatant) when something is being argued from two different perspectives. Each side accused the other of bias based on what they specifically view the situation
It's interesting and I don't call it dishonesty because both parties truly think they are correct. But we can look at it this way. What is the most likely case. A God that has aways existed outside our universe made this vast universe with billions of galaxies some 14 billion years ago when all that was needed was our solar system in order for us to just drive in the last few thousand years in order to worship him and is impossible to detect in any way shape or form. Or natural process brought us here as science has and is confirming?
Or maybe (I know this is absurd.. even to believers) a combination of the two.. *shrugs*
I'll pay complete attention when you give me some evidence.
By all means ignore me.. I was just stating possibilities.. not certainties.. I told you I was crazy sometimes
I don't think Rad meant that to be taken personally.
I didn't take it personally at all. I understand where Rad was coming from. The strange thing about me is that I think very differently than a lot of people and explore possibilities that both sides would consider absurd. That's why I said something about being crazy..
I like Rad, you, ATM, Getit, and even Mark. I am able to separate myself from my beliefs and discuss them without taking it personallyCould you please teach that to everyone else who can't?
Sorry, I chose my word poorly. I meant something "get back to me when..."
No No No.. I understand what you were saying. I didn't take offense at all. My response was in humor. I have no proof of my specific unique belief, I only speak of possibilities.
How about those who claim to have conversations with gods? Are they being honest?
How about those who claim to understand reality for what it is and how it works based on logic, reason and evidence? Would that be honest?
I'm trying to understand what you mean about dishonesty being unproven either way?What I mean, ATM, is that for either side to come outright and give an absolute yes or no regarding the existence of God leads to a type of dishonesty. I will give you the fact that science, reason, and logic answers a lot more questions than religion (especially organized religion), especially when you factor medical advances, scientific research, technology, etc, but (And I will beat you to it, it's gibberish and nonsense and a fallacy) for as small as it makes the chances of there being a God of some sort (And I'm not necessarily talking about the Nutjob that is portrayed in the bible at some points) it doesn't completely rule out the possibility that there might be a creator of some sort (No I don't have evidence, Just saying).. On the flip side, It is just as dishonest (and more so) and illogical for God to be the first answer for everything with no hard evidence other than a perceived experience. This is why I speak purely about possibilities (which given some of the things i speak on I get crazy looks from both sides). But even though I say I believe, I can also say hey I could be wrong. In fact, There are some times I'm not even sure which one I prefer (Right or wrong)
I have gained an even stronger respect for you after this post. It can't have been easy to lay it all out there like that, and I'm impressed. Thank you for sharing this.
No, it wasn't hard at all for me to admit this.It is what it is. I arrived at all of this several years ago. As a child, I can admit to being indoctrinated with the whole "Hell mob mentality" that organized religion teaches (or programs into children). Luckily (or unluckily depending on who you are) for me, my mother stopped being to take me to church because she worked a lot so from the age of 10 or so to my early 20's (The prime years where indoctrination could be really set in), I was very sporadic in church. Maybe it was the specific church I went back to, but when I went back to church, I heard so much that sounded.. well, wrong, to me, that I went back and started reading the bible for myself. For every verse I found that seemed wrong to me, I looked up the word that made it sound different and then started thinking about context depending on the definition. Based on this, I was able to piece together some applications that made more sense to me than it did with me going along with the most common definitions of words that are used in society. So now, for me, I believe in the possibility that God exists and I follow that possibility because even when science runs out of answers, there is that possibility. I cannot divorce myself from that possibility totally because even though there is no specific, physical inimpeachable proof (so to speak) that God exists, there are still a lot of questions that must be answered. I know that this is an oxymoron (when looking at a lot of believers) but I actually have reasoned and examined things rationally and logically regarding my belief in the possibility of the existence. This is why I debate with both sides objectively (or with equal bias...LOL). Based on my understanding and what I have been able to piece together, I have come to the conclusion that even if God exists, he really doesn't want us depending on him like a newborn needing mother's breast (unlike how a lot of believers act in general) I could pull a scripture and break it down my way if I wanted to, but It would only bore you..LOL
Well, JM, here is my reason to believe I guess.
And in my reason to believe, This is how I define religion. What I spoke of is only what I believe. Unlike organized religion, whose mentality is to ostracize those who do not believe the same way as they do, , I do not expect or want to sway anyone to my beliefs because in order for you to believe what I believe and how I believe it, you would have had to experience what I experienced. Without those experiences, it will never be possible to convert anyone to any way of thinking. And I also do not (now will I ever) condemn someone to a place that may or may not exist because they disagree with me. I have been told by fellow so- called "Christians" that I was going to hellSorry, but that is a false premise, science has not run out of answers, science is collecting answers every day, building a huge library of knowledge and understanding. Science already shows the possibility and probability of gods existing to literally be impossible, that is, unless everything we understand is scrapped in favor of the magic supported by religions.
What questions? Put them up on a thread and see if there are answers already.
I would agree with that. However, you'll find few atheists who will come out and make that bold statement. If they are saying there is no god, they are most likely referring to the fact that no gods have ever shown themselves.
Not only that, there is the history of religions that show how they evolved over the centuries all the way back to sun (son) worshipers, strictly through man made ideals and actions. We can see the obvious similarities between Christianity and other religions that came before it, for example. There is so much information that show religions have zero credibility and validity in that regard.
I totally get that. However, with possibility, one must also look at probability, the probability of a creator based on the evidence and understanding we have of the world around us. The possibility is easy to accept, however the probability of a creator is so infinitesimally small based on what we know and the fact that so many physical laws of nature need to be violated or scrapped entirely based on that probability, with magic reigning supreme, it has little to no chance of ever seeing the light of day.
Believers always put forth the possibility of a creator, but rarely if ever talk about the probability, simply because it demolishes the possibility.
And, have you noticed that even believers within the same religion rarely if ever agree on their shared beliefs and usually wind up hurtling insults at each other, calling the other a demon or lead by the devil? Those folks can't even agree with themselves and then expect non-believers to understand their position.Then why not say no gods have shown themselves. I have met atheists that have made absolute statements
I can agree with a small probability factor, but at the same time, a probablility (even one so small as to be easily dismissed) is still a probability.
You have my 100000000000+% agreement on this one.There are miniscule probabilities for a great many things, like unicorns and leprechauns, but we don't usually build worldviews on them. Instead, we focus on that which has a much larger probability, usually associated with facts and evidence and not wishful thinking.
And I can agree with that. The problem is that this worldview was created and generated long before science and technology could be advanced enough to lower the possibility and probability
There are still differences between a belief in God and a belief in unicorns. Although it's true that there are people who believe that unicorns exist, it is a very small number and no actual religion has been built around the unicorn (again, if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I've known a lot of people who were into weird things by anyone's standard and there's no equivalent of the Bible for unicorns.) A better analogy might be Allah or Brahmin. Just because there are "small probabilities" does not mean that every probability is equally small or that they are equivalent in other ways.
No, there isn't, they are both beliefs, identical in their form and result. No difference whatsoever.
That is only true if you want to isolate parts of an argument and extrapolate it out in order to bolster your desire to dictate the terms of the discussion. Or if you just like to insult people. There are differences.
You once denied my statement about nuance. You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that among people, even people with similar beliefs, there are variations. And there are variations in the way that people, or God, deal with people and situations. Yes, God is a constant. He exists (for the sake of argument if nothing else, to explain my point.) You also exist and in that way you are a constant, as am I. But you don't deal with me the way you deal with someone who hasn't claimed "to converse with gods" even if they claim to be a believer. I don't deal with you the same way I deal with other non-believers. Situation often dictates action. Variance. Nuance.
WOW ATM.. Looks like you're in the middle of a big fight
It's the typical liars for Jesus who have nothing to say, so they create false accusations and dishonest claims. It's laughable.
The world we both share leaves room for nuance and for God.
Nuance presents itself in our world all the time, God doesn't.
Really? I thought it was all about your claims you talk with God? Yes, that's exactly what it was about.
That is the respect one deserves when they make such claims.
Our world, the one we both share, IS a deity-free world, unless you or your god can show otherwise.Nuance and God are both constants. Based solely upon your interactions with me, you seem to have room for neither. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong but I wouldn't know it based on your previous actions.
A small group of interactions have been about my claims to talk to God. Which is a misnomer but that's for another time. You have, with a few exceptions, acted this way toward me long before I ever made any such claims.
Really? So you really think your argumentative, brow-beating absolutism deserves better?
He has. Often.LOL. A nuance is a variation, how can it be a constant, it is the antithesis to being constant.
Your God could a nuance, a variation of reality, but if YOUR God were a constant, we would all know it.
You can't expect to receive respect when you go about making clams of talking with gods. Ridicule and criticism is all that deserves because it has attained the height of dishonesty.
And yet, another example of that dishonesty. Very sad.Wow, Chris! You came up with another way to say, 'I know you are, but what am I' Well done.
And, would that be the "real world" in which you converse with God?
It seems you missed the point. The point of the story was in the beginning no distinctions were made, when you make distinctions (ie eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil) you will surely die..... from the awareness that there is no such thing as good or evil except if our minds make it so.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Distinctions?
What I think she is referring to is that in the beginning there were no differences made known to Adam and Eve between good and evil. As a result, they were unaware that not listening to God's warning would be considered evil until they ate the fruit off the tree of knowledge
All that manages to do is support the incompetence of God for not having made those distinctions clear.
Yeah, But I think this is where the parental "Because I said so" thing comes into play..
(Note: I agree with what you are saying regarding the story.. If the story is true)That would be the response of a parent who is not intelligent. I would suspect that would be the same kind of logic a God would use.
Wait a minute...
There were no distinctions before the eating of the fruit lol
Actually no, the knowledge of good and evil did not come about until she ate from the tree. The eating of the tree was neither good or evil. Gods warning was that they would surely die. We know from biblical texts they did not physically die, so it was pointing to a spiritual death or death of the awareness of the whole. Knowledge then tended to make one believe it was now separate from the whole and duality as we know it came to the fore.
That's a patent apologist excuse. Good told them that the day they ate from the tree, they would surely die. They didn't. God failed to follow through. Therefore, a lot of Christians say "oh it was a spiritual death". That is a modern extrapolation that does not exist in the text. You're making excuses for gods ineptitude.
If you take the bible literally yes you are correct. Do you really believe that Satan was a serpent too? Do you really believe that revelations should be interpreted literally as well? This is where logic becomes useful.
So, you don't take the Bible literally? If not, can we use that answer in further posts where you DO take the Bible literally?
Well I don't take the Bible for anything more than a manual for immorality and disgusting excuses. Use your brain to interpret the Bible, but don't use it to try to locate the god who "wrote" it
Yet once upon a time you bought into what it advocated. The bible has not changed, your taught understanding has. I see that as a good thing. It always pays to question what another man professes to know about a written text or God. Like I said earlier, no man, no philosophy, no doctrine can ever give you proof of God. Questioning is always useful.
we're supposed to question but not to look for proof? We're supposed to be doubtful - except when it comes to god - and then we're just supposed to shut our brains off and just believe? That doesn't make any sense.
Beliefs have no role at all. Nor does faith. As I said earlier, it is beyond words, thoughts. Beliefs are thoughts that we cling to by habit. Words are vehicles that convey that belief. One must always question, because words and thoughts of the logic are use to ruling.
so now you're not supposed to believe in a god or have faith in one. Just know (without anything that leads to knowledge) that a god is out there?
Knowing and not experiencing is not knowing...... That is faith and belief. Experiencing is knowing. Faith and belief not required.
In reality, things don't work that way. You believe in something once you know that it's real. I could WANT to believe that there's a tiny laundry fairy that makes all of my clothes dirty every time do the wash - or that steals the sets of matching socks. If I believed that she existed, that wouldn't make her exist. That would make me crazy. The time to believe in something is after you have proof of it. The fact that socks disappear is not proof of a laundry fairy.
The definition of believe is to accept something as true WITHOUT PROOF
then to me, that would be the definition of hope - not belief. You hope that this god is true, so you'll act as though he is. That hope does not make it true. I get what believers say, but I cannot wrap my mind around accepting something with no evidence whatsoever and sacrificing my own instincts and my own will to following it - without knowing if I'm sacrificing myself for a lie or not.
The mind is an amazing thing isn't it? It can create a simulation that the ego itself can't or won't see. Clearly, it's only fantasy happening in their minds, but they protect it in the face of logic. Did anyone read what vector7 wrote in the forum "Reasons to Believe" Quoted - Counted? someone get that boy some help. He's going on about seeing demons with both his eyes and his mind, then he goes into great detail about what they do. Most (I hope) would agree somethings up with that, but they don't think their own simulation of God as being odd?
There is a difference between hope and belief..
Hope is the feeling that what is desired CAN be real.
Belief is the knowledge that something IS real
The difference (though slight) is that with hope you want something but you can understand and accept that it may not be real. With belief, you basically have no doubt in your mind that it is real and (In the case of some people) You refuse to accept any other possibility that it isn't real
Okay, I looked that one up because I don't have belief without proof. By that definition, anyone who lives in Florida would have to not believe it exists because they have the proof. Strange semantics.
Well then, for you it is no longer a belief, but a certainty because you have evidence that is sufficient enough to convince youof the existence of God. Good for you that you have that evidence. Perhaps for some others that do not have specific evidence enough to change that belief to certainty will find their proof as well
And I mean this totally. I am happy that you have proof
Why not? What you are declaring seems to be illustrating exactly what I said?
The issue with faith is that some people hold to it as being real even though they don't have the knowledge for sure
No.. Part of the questioning stages is to get your answers verified. I simply think the is saying that it doesn't matter how much you question or how much you question it you may never find the proof of God that you seek.. Which, for some people, means what's the point in trying. That's where faith comes in. For some, Belief is considered knowledge without proof. (Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the Evidence aka "proof" of what isn't seen)
**Note, I said SOME people. I didn't say it makes sense**
Is there a difference between good or evil in your mind or not? Is that not a distinction?
That depends, but those distinctions were never placed in the minds of Adam and Eve. Incompetence on the part of God.
It wasn't, that's the point. God made no attempt to teach anything.
Now you make no sense. Who said God was attempting to teach anything? If the ability to make distinctions were placed nowhere, how did Adam and Eve know they were naked after eating from the tree?
Well said Pennyofheaven, but I do have one exception and that's to your "when you disengage the mind that is designed to seek knowledge your proof will come to the fore." Disengaging the mind from seeking knowledge isn't what is required but stopping the mind from clinging to taught concepts without proof is the requirement. Knowledge objectively observed leads one to determining purpose and proper use for it but even from our mother's womb the concepts of right and wrong are instilled into us which prevents our being objective in our approach to things. It's the concepts of good and evil deeply instilled into us which prevents our seeking evidence which will make us wise. Even that book tells us everything unseen is revealed through the thing made therefore it is only our lack of objectivity which blinds us. Otherwise I agree with everything you said.
I am not advocating disengaging the mind when in search of knowledge. It is useful. In search of experiencing God however is an entirely different thing. If the logic is engaged while experiencing, the essence of that experience, for the most part, is lost.
I do agree, everything unseen is revealed through the thing made and vice versa. Yet most cannot see beyond the surface of the made and the mind needs to be disengaged. When the experience comes to the fore, most are able to see, even if it is part thereof, the essence of the made and the unseen.
We cling to concepts sometimes without awareness. Words are such concepts we blindly accept to define our logical reality. Nothing wrong with that. It works for the reality we accept. If we seek the understanding of God however, words fall short.Good points, But the issue with this is that in disengaging our minds and just living by the experience, we would essentially dismiss any other possibilities of other occurrences that our engaged minds would consider. For example, Some believers get pregnant and say God did it but dismiss the fact that the man stuck his part into a woman's parts and the resulting mixture of an egg ans sperm actually created the child.. The origin of this design is irrelevant (for the most part). The point is that Some people thank god when the actual power to conceive the baby is ours
Yes that is the dilemma most face when they think about disengaging the mind. Believing that God did it however is an engagement of the mind.
Sorry, but that sounds like the lamest of excuses. Logic makes God disappear? How does that work? God is so weak that He can't stand up to logic? Hilarious.
You lost me here as well. I will not say that it is an excuse, Just that it makes no sense
Where did I say God disappears in your mind? If you read carefully, it said the essence of the experience is lost. Simply because the logic (when it comes to God) will always try to fit what it does not yet fully understand into a box.
That is pure baloney and a lame excuse.
There's absolutely nothing to support that view.
It has nothing to do with me. Show us how your claims are supported? Can you do that?
Read my initial reply to the OP. You insist on a show and tell which cannot be done as I have been saying all along.
Doesn't matter, the experience will not be fettered no matter what logic is put forth. If it does, then the experience is false.
Yes agree, it becomes false when logic rules because that is the way logic deals with what it cannot grasp.
LOL. Sorry, but logic can easily grasp your examples. If it becomes false with logic, then it IS false.
Your logic has not that is apparent. If you say so.
Your posts have rarely if ever shown any logic, so it is apparent you are unable to understand what logic consists and how it's used. It's not a matter of me saying so, and in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with me.
Then why bother discussing any thing with me if you believe my posts show no logic?
Can you clarify what you mean by the essence of the experience is lost? How is it lost?
The cool thing about life is that you have the choice to believe whatever you want and you shouldn't need someone else to prove anything to you as if you believe something you do and if not , then not!!! Enjoy the choice you have chosen for yourself!!! No one else's opinion should matter.
Absolutely, people have the right to believe as ridiculous and childish things as they want. They shouldn't complain then, about the sorry state of the world when they are the ones contributing to it.
When you can see it and touch it,it is no longer a maybe,but a fact. It will later come to the world that God shall reveal Himself to world population in many ways,yet,some will not believe,but it was meant to be.
I don't speak from books nor schools of education,but from experience and hands-on knowledge. He made me a witness,and so I speak.If you define god as that which produced all this then it is self evident that there is a god, because all this did not always exist. Simple as that.
But no where in the definition does it say what this god is.
You now have two choices. It might be a conscious god of which you have over 4000 models to choose from, or it might be a non-conscious process such as the nature of energy.
Despite there being over 4000 conscious god models there is no evidence for any of them.
But there is plenty of evidence for the nature of existence and the laws of physics.
No one converts to Pantheism. You either recognize your own world view in it or you don't.
Dan Barker goes into some detail in his book about how real his faith was, how he FELT the presence of Christ and so on. He gives accounts of people saying that he must not have been a 'true' Christian if he fell away from it. Good reading. This defense is just another one that religious people use to find a way to dismiss your claims. I'm sure your faith at the time was as solid as anyone's. You should write lots of hubs or a book about your experiences.
Have you read his book, "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists?" It's quite good and I'm sure you could relate to much of what he expresses. I'd encourage the faithful to read it too, but that would really be pointless, I think.I love that book. In fact, I've had to get several copies of it because I loan it out to friends and they like it so much they don't give it back. I've even had the chance to see Barker speak.
That's one of the Christian tactics that I find the most frustrating. As soon as they find out I'm an atheist, they seem to automatically dismiss my history as irrelevant. If I tell them about my background, their first line of defense is to tell me that I was never a true christian at all - because it would be impossible for a true christian to become an atheist. It grates on me to no end. Who are they to tell me that? They weren't there. They didn't live through it. To me it seems arrogant at the very least - simply because a christian turned atheist makes them uncomfortable.I believe that's exactly the case, they are uncomfortable with someone converting because everyone who is "right" is a Christian (in their minds). Personally, even when I was a Christian, I never really "felt" right doing it, it was just a choice I made to stick with... Church made sense and I like the values and some of the right way of doing things (like the importance of staying faithful to your spouse and don't kill, among other things), but I don't like the way that Christians try to guilt you into doing these things, instead of explaining. I never understood the mentality of Christians I've encountered, but then again, I've known many Atheists with the same mentality as well. In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"
After reading the praise of Dan Barker, I thought I'd look it up on Amazon. Now when I look up a book on Amazon, I make it a habit of reading both the gushing 5 star praise reviews and the 1 star 'the book is crap reviews'. It appears that Barker has come out of the right wing intolerant fundamentalist branch of Christianity, which as we see evidenced on these forums, is populated by people who are often wilfully ignorant of the bible; people who choose to rely on their church leaders to interpret it for them rather than thinking for themselves. Apparently he freely admits that as a Christian he was not very knowledgeable of the bible. Now evangelists do not need to be; they only need to memorise sound bite verses that support their mission to convert people. So it seems to me that as a Christian, Barker was as far removed from a deep thinking sober biblical scholar as it is possible to be. So why should I be inclined to believe he has applied any more rigour to his arguments now as an atheist? If he singularly failed to apply himself to understanding the bible as a Christian, should we assume he has any better understanding of it now? If his grasp was shallow then am I to believe it is any deeper now?
Just for the record, I do not hold the view that if someone walks away from Christianity, they never were one in the first place, and I accept without question your testimony as a former Christian. I have spent an awful lot of time examining my own history as a Christian, reevaluating, asking myself if what I believed and went along with was real. I think that today's Christianity is very often a feelings based, experiential, sensationalist religion, which when serious questions are asked of it, it does not stand.Understanding of what exactly? It is simply not possible to "understand," something that is beyond human comprehension.
What's beyond human comprehension Mark?
Hi disappearinghead,
I agree with some of your statements. I really do not know Barker but I assume he is also an atheist. I cannot blame anyone if one turns to be an atheist. To tell you the truth, if I had not made my own investigation, I should have become an atheist. But my study and personal experience of God became an unshakable faith that there is God and there is hope beyond this lifetime.
Sad to say, the majority of this world's religion has blatantly and erroneously represented Christianity. So SAD... I hate to say this but the leading misrepresentor of Christianity is the Catholic church who blended the Christian faith with paganism which God clearly abhors. But if one truly came to the TRUTH, I believe that that person will also develop an unshakable faith. We have to realize that Satan deceived the WHOLE WORLD (Rev. 12:9). So what we see in the world today is not the doing of God but of Satan but one day He will finally intervene and establish His kingdom here on Earth and every atheist and person will bend their knees to the one TRUE GOD.Hi, we don't need any more religious extortionists here, thank you
How exactly do you think that christianity is misrepresented? You do understand, don't you, that without the Catholic church which you hate so much, there would BE no christianity today? They were the ONLY christian church up until the reformation. They were responsible for the texts, the scriptures, the gospels, the writings, etc from the earliest days of christianity up until now - and without them (as flawed, distorted and altered as they are) you would have nothing.
Tell me one thing in your particular version of "true christianity" (which miraculously every denomination claims to have while decrying everyone else) does NOT have pagan roots?Actually in parallel to the Catholic Church there was the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Coptic.
yeah, and all of them have different versions of christian history and fail to agree on even the most mundane points. How do you reconcile that?
Heck I dunno, I guess I'll sort that out after I've implemented World Peace.
If you really want world peace, do away with organized religion. It won't solve all of the world's problems, but it would probably be a good start.
Far be it from me to support organised religion it is not the cause of all the worlds ills as well you know. I'm sure I don't need to mention Stalin, Chairman Mao, Vietnam, Gulf Wars 1&2, etc.
I agree. This world's religion cannot achieve world peace because it is not what the TRUE Church is supposed to do. This world is ruled by Satan and time will come that God will ultimately step in the world scene and intervene in man's affairs and establish lasting peace on Earth.
Yes. I firmly believe that my Church do not have pagan roots.
And by the way, it is not the catholics who come up with the Bible. The oracles of God is given to the Jews. It was the scribes who painstakingly made copies of the manuscript.Everything IN your religion has pagan roots. Have you ever studied it? Any of it?
You get that all religions claim that they're the "true" church, right? And none of them, including yours, have any actual proof to back up that claim.
DO you know how the bible was formed? Put aside the old testament for a moment - how was the new testament formed? Do you know that there are more recorded mistakes/copying errors/differences between the earliest copies available for the new testament books than there are words in the new testament? True story. Look it up.@ JM - that is interesting. How can you say that my religion is of pagan roots when you do not know my specific beliefs?
- really? well, please give me one link so I can read them.
I firmly believe that God is the Creator and Possessor of the whole universe. He will not let His very Word to be adulterated by us humans. He is God and He can protect the Bible from malicious people.Sorry, mate, that's already been done before God himself could even blink.
Hi HeatBlast,
I agree, there are many adulterated versions of the Bible but we can still go back to the original text and see the real meaning of a passage.we don't have any of the original texts - that's one of the biggest problems that biblical scholars have. DO you have the originals hidden under your bed somewhere that you're refusing to share with the rest of the world?
1) Christmas is not actually christ's birthday - it is the Saturnalia celebration in ancient pagan Rome. Incidentally, it's almost Yule, the celebration of the winter solstice, which has existed for millenniums prior to the birth of christ.
2) Easter is named after the pagan goddess Ostara. hence why it is still celebrated by the easter bunny (a symbol of fertility.
3) there are hundreds of other "messiahs" in both jewish and pagan traditions - sun gods who die, and after three days are resurrected.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78751914/Misq … art-Ehrman
Bart Ehrman is a world-renowned biblical scholar. "What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don’t have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways….There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.1 [emphasis in the original"
If god can protect the bible, then how come it's been changed, forged, altered, etc. For example, none of the gospels were written by the people who's names are on them. In fact, no one knows who wrote them. Dating them, however, has proven interesting. The earliest date for the earliest gospel (Mark) is in the mid 70's - after the destruction of Jerusalem. We know that because Mark makes errors, which are later corrected by Matthew and Luke, neither of which were eyewitnesses. They mess up geography (they have jesus going 55 miles out of his way on a journey, stating that a city was on his way to another city - when it's in the opposite direction) they call the sea of gallilee a sea, when really it's a lake - one that is not troubled by hurricane like storms, incidentally. They go out of their way to prove prophecies have been fulfilled, when, in order to fulfill a prophecy, you can't ACTUALLY go out of your way to try to inject it. This has been studied for thousands of years, it was mocked by philosophers in Rome, and it is criticized by biblical scholars today.
I studied theology, and I read the scriptures in the original languages. I went to one of the most prestigious bible colleges in the country, and I actually have a background in studying this crap. Because I studied it, I no longer believe it. The bible is no more the word of god than "The Night Before Christmas" is truth about Santa Clause. If you examine the evidence rationally, and without your pre-existing bias, it's easy to see.hi JM,
Sorry but we dont celebrate christmas and easter in anyway. We know that it is pagan and God clearly abhors these holidays. We only celebrate God-ordained festivals written in Leviticus 23. what a dismay for you huh?
I admit that i did not study any thing that you mentioned and i lack the scholarly knowledge. and because of this discussion, i am driven to study archeology and how God's word was preserved. thank you for this conversation."He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day — things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."
Get it?
Not yet.so you celebrate passover and all of the other jewish holy days? Yet you believe in christ? Interesting. Tell me - do you smear the blood of a dead human on your doorway, or the lamb that you slaughtered to remind god not to kill you? Ironic, since you'd think if god knows everything, he'd KNOW which houses are his, and which ones are the egyptians, don't you think?
You have made no studies, it is your indoctrinated faith that drives your belief system.
No, we won't.More claims of arrogance servantofgod from yet another theists who claims to know the "truth." In the U.S. alone there are around 35,000 Christian sects and they like you all claim to have the truth. Which one is right? Somehow you have managed to find the truth all on your own of course with the aid of the Holy Spirit which every Christian church known to man claims to have. But I guess you sog are the exception.
Your faith is self contradictory as are its texts and most of the information there is not historical but rather doctrinal. All the accounts of the trial, death, and especially the resurrection of Christ disagree with each other blatantly. It's actually an insult to my intelligence that I once believed it all hook line and sinker. Also, your faith does not require evidence since it is based entirely on hearsay and cannot be corroborated by any credible external sources.
The truth is, for an atheist, there is no proof of God's existence. So no matter how many proofs presented, all will become in vain and pointless. I believe forums like this does not aim in seeking the truth but only for amusement.
Just like what Psalm 14:1 says, "the FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God".
So no matter how you to talk to an atheist, since he or she is a FOOL, then nothing will happen. It is like talking to a chicken.
Atheists believe that there is no God and yet they always attack God (which they think does not exist). How ironic.
An atheist will refuse to look at the hard evidences that God exists because he or she does not like Someone or God for that matter, to tell him or her what to do with his or her life. Plain and simple. For example, people read in the Bible that HOMOSEXUALITY is a sin, abortion is murder, divorce is wrong, since they practice such behavior, instead of changing their ways, they will rationalize things and discredit God so that they will not be bothered by their conscience. FREEDOM as what they call it. But Freedom without God's guidance will just lead to destruction.
Look at America today. What was previously the greatest nation now becomes the WORLD's number one debtor. All because of moral degradation especially the re-engineering of the family unit which results to many untold sorrows. America is founded in the Bible and the founding fathers recognize God and His word to be the best Guide to run a country. Deviate from that Guide and suffer the consequences.Fact-check before imposing silly arguments, please and thank you. Also, through what logical train of thought did you manage to relate 'the re-engineering of the family unit', the concept of which is, like the Bible itself, man-made itself, to America's somewhat bleak financial crisis? Bear in mind the OP's sexual orientation, by the way, if you're going to lambaste on anyone else's behind that facade of self-righteousness of yours.
@ heatblast - I am not being self-righteous. I am just telling what the Bible says. It is not me who said it, it is the bible. you can read it yourself.
I believe the Bible is written under the inspiration of God though written by men.
The only way a family work is having the traditional structure of family composed of father, mother and children. You can see the statistics that most juvenile youth came from broken family.
Because of unending cycle of poor family structure such as single moms and unprepared pregnancy, more and more people rely on the government to meet their needs. this leads to further financial crisis.
I don't really care what you believe about the purpose of this forum. If you want to just come and preach and not provide any evidence to prove your case, why are you here? There are no proofs. There haven't been for thousands of years, and I don't believe it's possible to prove god - any more than it's possible to prove purple pet dragons.
Almost every scripture in the world without fail has some kind of passage like this in it. It is an attempt to validate itself and discredit any alternate beliefs, rather than providing firm evidence for its claims. Funnily enough, however, Jesus himself says that if you call your brother or sister a "fool" you are in danger of hellfire.
How is asking for proof attacking something/someone? I don't understand this logic. If a god exists, and that god manifests in the natural world, there should be ample evidence that he exists. In the case of the christian god, he supposedly used to travel down to earth quite a bit and talk to people face to face - yet there's not one shred of proof that he was actually here, so you have to make justifications and excuses for his existence - none of which hold water.
I'm not refusing to look at anything. I'm asking for something. There's a big difference - one that you seem incapable of understanding. You are in no position to lump all atheists together and judge us as a whole - especially since you seem to have no understanding at all what atheists actually think.
Your little diatribe about America is sounding dangerously like the Westborough Baptist church. Picketed any soldier's funerals lately?Hi JM,
Sorry, I am not too familiar with American setting or news for that matter. So i cannot really relate what you are talking about Westborough.
But let me explain about the "fool" part.
You should not fail to see the context. Being angry with sin is lawful. there are many instances in the bible that talks about being angry and not sin. God is righteously angry with the wicked (psa 7:11) because of the suffering they have caused. Jesus was angry with the pharisees (mar 3:5). When Jesus was talking about calling someone a fool, He is saying that a person is in danger of hell fire if he calls someone a fool without a CAUSE. Sometimes strong words are needed to rebuke people. Thus, there is nothing wrong when God said that people are fools when they do not believe that God does exist.
Alright. Let me ask you something JM, how can you prove evolution?Evolution proves itself with natural selection and diversity of species.
In the same way, God proves himself by what has been created. Ask any Hopi.
He told you that?
Why not ask God, that is, if you can find Him?
@troubled man,
evolution is a fairy tale. that is why it is still called "THEORY" and nothing more. Charles Darwin was so frustrated that he cannot come up with the evidences to support his theory. He "HOPE" that the evidences will surface in the future but more than 150 years ago, there is no solid evidences to support this pigment of imagination of Darwin. When he hoped, this is only an exhibition of his "FAITH" on his theory, more faith is needed to believe on his theory than what the bible actually says.Jesus is a fairy tale. that is why it is still called "FAITH" and nothing more.
How is that?the only thing your response demonstrates is that you know nothing about science - just like you know nothing about history, archaeology or ancient literature.
the "just a theory" argument is so ridiculous it's actually laughable. Do you believe in gravity? It's a theory too, you know. Evolution is a FACT. It can be observed, repeated and tested in a laboratory. Why don't you add the scientific process to your list of things to study.So, you admit to evolution being a "THEORY" yet you call it a fairy tale. Of course, your dishonesty in calling it that is due to the fact you know nothing about evolution and are only trying to defend your religious beliefs at any cost, lying included..
That is entirely false. Why are you lying about that?
So sorry, that you're must resort to such tactics in order to defend your beliefs. How very sad. It's little wonder your religion causes so much conflict in the world.the definition of theory that applies to evolution is the same as the wave "theory" of light or the "theory" of gravity. these are overarching principles that tie together a field of science. this sort of theory does not mean someone's best guess or hypothesis.
It's also slightly different than the application of "theory" I've heard used for evolution before, which is that enough evidence has been found that scientists are comfortable that any holes will be filled in at a later time. So while you can see gravity more or less en toto right now, the same is not true for evolution, but the scientists have faith that it's all there waiting to be discovered.
Evolution is better understood than gravity, the cause of gravity is distortion in the space time continuum by way of complex relativity a hazy field at best, evolution is simple genetics, are there points in the evolutionary chain that we don't have fossils from? Sure but that is mathematically inevitable given enough points.
We can definitively genetically prove that several species evolved so we are on the working assumption that all did, maybe one day we will find one with no genetic markers of previous forms in the evolutionary ladder.
In our genome for example there is code for a reptiles' three ventricle heart, a Japanese man was recently found with just such a heart due to a genetic oddity after going to the hospital with chest pains, a part of his DNA that is usually inactive because we have evolved out of it (reptile heart) was activated.
There is no question at all therefore that humans evolved, we can trace that process in inactive genes.Not questioning at all that the genomes are there (I admit I don't know much about it but I do find it fascinating and do appreciate opportunities such as this to learn a bit more!) why is it "proof positive" that we evolved? Why is it not possible that God did create humans with similar genetic material to other creatures, not unlike an artist reusing themes and motifs from other work?
Does it make sense that God would put inactive old genetic material in creatures that would help the evolution theory? For instance, people have been working with birds to turn on certain genetic switches to hatch dinosaurs. Birds have the genetic material to produce dinosaurs but mammals don't. Ever wonder why the human embryo develops a tail? Ever wonder why people are sometimes born with a soft tail? A study of Human vestigiality and perhaps the Appendix will help.
I actually knew all this. And yes I do wonder. Ever wonder why I believe in God?
You know, I shouldn't sound so cynical. I guess I'm a little disillusioned myself because after actually treating people like they're smart enough to figure out what I was saying and leading to, it turned out that most of them prefer me to simply state things categorically that they can disagree with. But in this way Mark was right, it "won't end well for you." I was hoping for actual debate and discussion, I find that stimulating and rewarding. There's a reason why I don't argue with some of the people here. But everyone seems so comfortable just thinking of me as somehow deluded.Here's the thing, Chris - and it is the last thing I will say about our former discussion.
If you were to set out a preposition that was DELIBERATELY over the top and sarcastic like, I don't know, "atheists eat babies for breakfast" and then I came along behind you and said "how dare you call me a liar. I do eat babies, and you're mocking my own dietary choices" that would be absurd. I was mocking my OWN projection, not accusing you of being dishonest. There was no possible way for me to know in advance that you were actually going to claim that, instead of appearing to you in your living room like I suggested, you were going to say that god appeared to you in your head. If you turn the situation around, it makes sense but you jumped to conclusions unnecessarily.
Furthermore...just because I'm not asking the questions that you want me to ask does not mean that I'm not smart enough to figure things out. I was asking questions in the first place, which is more than I can say for others I've seen. I tried to be respectful, albeit sarcastically respectful. I gave you several chances previously, and you gave me chances as well. After all that, however, it ended poorly. I don't want to be "led" to the correct (in your view) questions. I'm not a sheep and I don't enjoy being herded. I'm not a mind reader. I was asking you the questions that came to mind as we continued our discussion, and you ridiculed the attempt when I made a real, genuine effort. None of that encourages further conversation. I've seen other atheists mock you and speak to you disrespectfully and you've gone out of your way to tell them it's not productive and then do the same thing yourself. Yes, I was upset but I believe that I have justification for it. I did not call you a liar like you seem to believe. I'm a human being and sometimes I have a short temper, but if I'm doing my best to treat you respectfully and listen to what you have to say, perhaps you can extend the next person making an effort the same courtesy.Okay, I appreciate that. And since you're relatively new, you didn't know that yes, I would claim to have known God personally. I've done it before, it's not news.
Yes, you were asking questions. The problem was that nobody ever asks the right question, which is "Why do so many people who were not previously disposed to belief in God become believers and can I study this?" Usually the question asked is, "Why do people believe in God?" and then an answer which seems self-evident to the asker but not to people like me, and which reflects negatively on people like me, almost always reflexively follows, I decided to try a different tack. The question is not specific enough and the answer is too wrote. I assumed that if I kept at it long enough that someone would get it. What I didn't take into account was that people would give up. In hindsight I suppose that being told I had "written off" atheists when in fact I was doing exactly the opposite should have been foreseeable. When I called ATM an idiot, I did know he wouldn't understand what I was saying and he didn't. I kept trying to lead him to a certain point, not a conclusion necessarily but a place where real dialogue and debate could start. Instead he said that he didn't believe me at all. So much for that. When you also said you doubted my statements, I felt a little despair.
If it helps any, the fact is that even within the church you get funny looks when you claim supernatural experiences (assuming you don't go to a Pentacostal church, which I never have.) And it's too easy to make that the sum total of your argument, both pro and con. But I have experienced God's presence, more than once. Which is the ultimate reason I stick to my position, no matter what is said to me. And a lot has been said, from the respectful disagreement to the frothingly accusatory.Excuse me.
...real dialogue and debate...
That's hilarious.
You're under the impression I don't understand. Of course, that is only too obvious a conclusion from the perspective of an indoctrinated believer who claims...
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a place in which real dialogue and debate can begin, but instead, only serves to repress it from a position of feigned authority.No, I'm not under the impression you don't understand. But, in retrospect, I admit that thinking you were interested in dialogue and debate is pretty funny.
Sorry, but there are no grounds for dialogue or debate from one so superior and special in their authoritative position of being within God's presence, more than once.
What's really funny is the fact you actual believe that.What's even more really funny is that short burst witticisms and intractable non-responses are what you try to pass off as intelligent replies.
But that's just you.
I do laugh, though!Oh, I almost forgot. You are trying something new, though. You take snippets of different conversations and piece them together as if they were one continuous string and then respond to that. Sort of.
Not at all unlike people who pull one or two verses out of the Bible and claim that they know the whole thing backwards and forwards, eh?
Chris, there are perfectly logical explanations for the things that are happening in your mind. The mind has a way of protecting us by making a representation of whatever it is we need. A simulacrum. Much like a lucky charm is real to those who perceive it to be. That explains why God is different to everyone. I'm not saying you are lying about feeling his presence, you most likely really felt it, but only in your mind.
This is the respectful disagreement end of the spectrum. I know you guys are tired of hearing about it, but let me say again, for the record, that it was not one single experience or even a cluster of them in a short time. Attempts to psychologize what I think and how I feel have all managed to miss the mark because they consistently ignore (by accident or design) events in my life that I have recounted.
And, with all due respect to you and JMcFarland and Mark Knowles and yes, even A Troubled Man, I am never not struck by the irony of the fact that most of what you all use to explain me in terms other than those I use myself could just as easily be used on yourselves. And if you think that condescending or patronizing, then maybe your empathy button will click and you'll think, "Oh, yeah!"And how exactly do I refer to you in terms other than you use to define yourself?
How about the lectures about how people who stop being Christians can still feel it? I would say that counts.
That can be explained with a little knowledge of the mind. Sorry to interject.
'salright.
Your point is valid but I was responding to a direct question. In fact, what I've had trouble making clear from the beginning and has especially been lost in the shuffle now is that I do think about and read about all this stuff. What seems like such an easy explanation for some people usually just opens more questions for me.
But maybe that's just me.
that wasn't about you - it was about their experiences. I'm trying to demonstrate that "feeling the presence of the lord" is not a purely christian experience - and that even after recognizing atheism, former ministers can still feel the same way they did before when they were praying. How does their experience translate to defining you unless you're uncertain?
Perhaps you didn't mean it the way I took it, but to me it came across as another way of saying that my experiences weren't valid, or at least my interpretation of them wasn't valid. Again, I'm aware of this stuff and I think about it a lot, but on the other hand it's not one experience or even one cluster of experiences that led me to think and believe what I do.
I don't think that is condescending or patronizing and we are all of the same mind, as we are all human and have the same abilities. I'm merely suggesting that the things you feel or sense could only be in your own mind.
I understand but by the same token I've been blasted as condescending for things I've written that were in no way meant to be and I still don't understand how they came across that way. I understand that you don't mean to be condescending but come on, put yourself in my situation and tell me that you honestly would just be feeling like, "Okay, thanks for the help!" when someone is trying to help you by pointing out that, once again, the most probably explanation for your beliefs is delusion.
Actually I take one part back. It's been made pretty clear to me why some people felt my last bit was condescending. But it was not meant that way AT ALL and I'm sorry that anyone felt that way.I don't remember ever getting that from you, I've always thought you were being as honest as you can be. I think I've backed you up a few times because of your honesty, I think even this time.
Yes, you have and I saw that post and I thank you. Sorry I didn't say that earlier.
You know, Chris, I've always thought you were very open and honest with your experiences, and I've appreciated that in you. As far as you being condescending, I never really got that from you either. I get that you are passionate with your views (as are we all). I think when it comes to believers, some of us (me included at times) hold on so tightly to what we believe that we sometimes refuse to entertain any other ideas. This idea is what leads us closer to the line of arrogance and condescension in the minds of others
You make a good point. I will admit that sometimes (with certain people) I do give my snarky side free reign. But I try not to be condescending about things because I'm all too familiar with what it's like on the other end. Still, it can be a fine line between defending what you believe (no matter what that belief sounds like to someone else) and getting carried away.
Thank you.I try to keep my snarky side reigned in (to an extent), but I let mine loose when I notice people heading toward the arrogant side with their arguments. If we are simply disagreeing respectfully about certain points, then that's cool, But when it would appear that things are getting to a certain level (even with myself at times) I will bow out before my snarky side really comes out.
Trying to lead a conversation with an intelligent person is not going to work as conversation. If you want to answer a specific question answer it.
Thank you. That's ultimately what got me so frustrated. I felt like a puppet on a string who was being ridiculed for not following a script. You herd cattle. Sheep. Dogs. If you genuinely believe that you're conversing with someone who is intelligent and worthy of respect, you don't lead them by the hand like a small child. If you have something to say, you need to come out and say it - not try to control the conversation like you're talking to a preschooler.
Again, you walked in on this conversation relatively late in the game. I've done all the things you guys say you resent me for not doing, and the reaction was, while I got points for intelligence, no less one of antipathy than what I'm getting for trying a different tack. I answered questions directly. I brought up points for discussion. I did research and put up some lengthy posts and even some hubs. Let me just say as example that there is little noticeable difference between ATM's responses to me now than there was then. I felt that what you all wanted was points of resistance, not moments of clarity, and I tried to get you all to see where I was going (NOT assuming that anyone would agree with it) a different way. Your response that what I was trying to drive to (which I have stated flat out on more than one occasion) was simply something you would never be interested in and never ask speaks volumes on multiple levels and I suspect is the articulation of what many here think.
You have to know that different people think differently. Just because we're atheist does not mean that I'm going to respond the way Rad or troubled does. If your previous attempts fell short with them, they might have worked with someone else.
I don't speak to you the same way that I speak to deepes, or Mo our Melisa because I've come to know a little about what they respond to and how. I can joke around or poke fun because I've seen their humorous side and I know they aren't likely to take offense. Sometimes I get it wrong, but that doesn't mean I chuck it spill out, try something completely different and then get frustrated Wyeth it doesn't work out. I get that your personal experiences mean a lot to you, but every time I've seen you flip your lid and go off on someone is in reference to them. If you keep talking about them, they are going to be examined critically our even criticized, and you should expect that given their extraordinary nature. If you can't handle that, maybe you shouldn't bring them up.I appreciate the conversations you and I are able to have now JM. In the beginning I admit to having a guard up from atheists because I had not dealt with very many and especially not on this type of level. But from talking to you, Mark, Rad, Getit, And ATM I've come to learn the differences in how each of you think. I've also come to learn that we think similarly in terms of how to live. The difference is that you came to your conclusions based on looking at everything wrong and contradictory regarding the bible while I (based on my understanding of the bible) picked out a lot of the applications that made sense (the way I interpreted them) and mainly can admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God. With this in mind, My belief is more of an optimistic opinion instead of a certainty that i place a death grip on. I try to think outside the box, which is why i debate with both atheists and believers objectively (or equally biased...LOL)
I noticed the more we talked, the more relaxed you've become.. Maybe Fluffy the wonder Dragon has been a good influence on youYou may notice we all look at holy books differently based on what we need. Some compare the bible and the world and come to the conclusion there is no God, while others don't want to look critically because they still have a need. I think the same happens in marriages, and I can only hope my wife has rose colored glasses. I have a friend who maintains he needs to make his wife think she needs him at all times. He says, no life insurance and no great paying job and a mortgage is the ticket. It's kind of funny that that marriage has lasted almost 30 years and my other friend who is just making way to much money is on his second brutal divorce. They gotta need ya.
I can agree with that. That's why I feel that organized religion fails miserably. You cannot apply a blanket principle to what is supposed to be an individualized philosophy. The blanket will only cover those who will fall under that blanket. I lucked out a little. I grew up under indoctrination and was under that for most of my childhood. Luckily, My mother started working more and I didn't have to go to church as much.. I didn't go to church throughout my teens and early 20's. I still believed, but I just wasn't going and as such wasn't still under that constant programming. When I went back in my mid 20's, I heard so much that rang out as WRONG to me that I started reading the bible for myself along with a dictionary. When I got to a part that seemed off to me, I looked up the word that was causing the confusion and checked the different definitions. For some scriptures I plugged in the definition that made the most sense to me. For some of the others I acknowledged where any definition might fit. Then looking at the fact that the bible is a collection of books with different writers with different perspectives, I really was done in. Ultimately, This is why I am more open to the fact that I could be wrong. Rad, You mentioned that you think that If God is real that we don't need him. I got that same thing out of the bible with specific scriptures. Based on all of what I gathered out of the bible I hold to my belief more as an optimistic opinion rather than a certainty. But If there is a God, He ultimately empowered us to do things for ourselves. But the problem is that organized religion AKA the mob mentality. seeks to rule out of fear of the bad points rather than love of the good... It's sad
The mob mentality of the church does the ego no favours when fighting of the super-ego's wants and needs. Unfortunately when we ignore the ID to long it strikes back like a televangelist caught with a prostitute.
Yes, Fluffy has been teaching me quite a bit. It's almost time for her weekly burnt offering. thankfully, since she breathes fire, I don't have to actually burn it myself.
When i first started entering into forum discussions on hubpages, it was a new experience to me for a completely different reason than you. I'm used to debating, but the debates that I'm familiar with are in person, moderated events - and I usually run across the exact same arguments over and over again.
talking with people on a more intimate level on the forum has taken some adjustment, and I've had to shift my perspective a bit. I like to think that I've become less on edge (typically - but I do get frustrated at times) and more willing to listen to what people say. It is infuriating, however, to get to a certain point in a debate where a theist just says "i believe what i believe because I believe it and I don't care why". I want to get to the root of the issues and have a calm, rational respectful discussion. Sometimes it's possible but sometimes it's not. Learning to accept those "not" scenarios is still challenging me, but I'm persevering.I understand that. When I started in the hubs, I felt like I was fighting three battles. The first battle was the battle to defend my beliefs against what I considered (at the time) harsh criticism from Atheists. The fight I was most surprised about was against fellow believers. I was not totally shocked, but still wierded out a little at how we believe in the same God, but you're telling me I'm wrong. I even had a fellow Christian ask me if I was sure that I was a Christian. Then my final fight (that I seem to be winning.. more or less) is the fight that Although I consider myself a Christian, I am not like some of the others. My ace of spades isn't "You're going to Hell!!" But As I got deeper into the forums and talking with you and some of the others, I've come to enjoy my time here. Having a good dialogue (even with some of those that may still try to push a button) has really been enlightening to say the least.
The mind is a terrible thing to wast. All the time I've been here I've been wondering why. I think I now have some answers for myself, but perhaps it's just a need.
Perhaps it's a combinations of a few things, but jonny mentioned something a while ago that struck me a brilliant. No surprise there of course and it stuck with me. Perhaps we believe what we need to help us through this life in the most peaceful manner. If you need a father figure to say, point you in the right direction or if you need to be kept on the right direction because your being watched then that's what you get. Someone in another thread just mentioned the loving two way relationship she has with God. Perhaps she needs to feel unconditional love.
Understanding Freuds's model of the mind is a great help to understanding the God thing, at least for me. We have the ego, the mostly conscious part balancing what the super-ego demands and what the ID demands. The ID want immediate rewards and thank goodness it subconscious. The super-ego wants to look right in others eyes and to do the right thing and as it turns out is mostly conscious. This super-ego sounds very much like a God talking in a mind telling them to do the right thing. The super-ego and the ego are in constant dialogue and this certainly explains why people think they have conversations with God. Some religions teach that this dialogue of the mind is a dialogue with God.
But, just how does the mind do it? Give us what we need? Make us think something is there when it's not?
This was the part I have been struggling with for a while until I can across a youtube video link that someone on hub pages posted. It turned out to be a series of videos of someone who looked familiar so I watched them and although they were a little boring I found them interesting.
In one of the videos he described the Simulacrum of the mind. And it just made perfect sense to me. I'll try to find the link, but it may have been to long ago to still be in my computers history.
In short it's a simulation our brains run for the purpose of giving us what we need. Kind of like a lucky charm. Most people hold no value to lucky penny, but to those who do the charm holds real luck.
I apologies if I've offended anyone, that is not my intention at all. I'm just telling you what I think, just you are doing the same.
Found it. This link is the first of the series. They are a little hard to get through, but it may be worth it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp … D163BE880AThis is actually a very interesting perspective that makes a lot of sense. I remember reading up on Freud while I was still looking at the world through my fearfully indoctrinated sight and thought that while he made sense in some areas he was still crazy because GOD was the true answer for everything. I've since gone back and realize his genius.
Exactly, and it is the claims of meeting and talking with God that are show stoppers of the discussion. It is impossible to move beyond those claims as they are clearly bunkum, hence anything stated afterwards cannot be trusted.
Chris just can't seem to get that through his head.IF they were "clearly bunkum" then you'd be right.
But you're not.
And it's not like I'm stuck on that as the only subject of conversation. There certainly are people who cannot get past that, but I'm not one of them.How very sad you feel compelled to keep supporting that obvious fabrication, Chris. All it does is serve to show the high level of dishonesty from indoctrinated believers. No morals.
Hmm.
Well, at least your predictable, canned responses are always good for a laugh.
Interesting point. In fact I would say that until this latest foofarah, Rad was probably the one I had the best relationship with here because, religion aside, he and I see eye-to-eye on so many social and moral points.
I would not say that my experiences have ever been examined critically. Criticized, yes, psychologized, stigmatized, notarized, bastardized, scandalized and booby-prized but not examined critically. I keep talking about them because they keep coming up. People ask me why I believe. Those are the reasons. I think most of the people here remember a time when I was gaining a bit of a reputation as a thinker and I'm more than willing to go back to philosophical conversations about the nature of morality and the place of religion. I enjoy those. But what you perceive as me flipping my lid is mostly a response to what I perceive as others flipping their lid. In a very real way, this whole subject is indirectly what led me to losing a relationship here. But I have to stick to what I know to be true.
Which doesn't mean I have to beat it into the ground.How would you define the difference between someone examining your claim critically vs criticizing it. I WANT to have this discussion with you, or I wouldn't have persisted for some time. If I wasn't interested, I would have bowed out a long time ago.
The only time I felt that you were condescending unnecessarily is when I felt like you were intentionally try to manipulate my puppet strings and telling me that, although I was asking questions which was good (and uncommon) I wasn't asking the RIGHT questions. I'm sorry, but that reminded me of my father who used to tell me all the time "well you're learning, but you're not learning the right way, so I'm going to demean you until you figure out not the truth but the truth that I want you to accept without question". Perhaps it was my issue, not yours, but it rubbed me the wrong way. And then you accused me of calling you a liar, when I did no such thing - but I think you've accepted my explanation of what I was trying to do after I explained it to you in this forum - that I was mocking my own suggestion, not what you were actually saying.
While I share the same non-belief as others, I'm not them. On some things we may react the same way, but on others we may not.Okay, that's a fair question. I guess, not unlike yourself, my perception has been coloured by previous interactions with other. As for "examining critically" vs. "criticizing" I would say the one end of the spectrum is ATM, who rather uncritically rejects what I say, usually with little in the way of academic discussion. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a smart guy and I even rather like him, but his replies usually run along the lines of a) how can you believe that, b) that's obviously untrue and c) no wonder religious people cause so much conflict. He even goes to the point of saying "That's not true and you know it," (at least a half dozen times) and finally, "I highly doubt any of that happened to you." So in that sense, yes, he's calling me a liar whether he thinks he is or not and I react to anyone else who says they doubt my experiences the same way. I apologize if I went over the top on that. I was just trying to get someone to wonder why someone like me (not predisposed to Christianity, not brought up in it, not searching for something along those lines) would have such a sudden and radical conversion. Now I know it's not going to happen. C'est la vie. Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about it but I've been trying for months with multiple people and the response is either that they don't care or they think they already know and are way off base.
I'm very sorry to hear about your father and please understand that I was not trying to belittle you. Please also know that I was not trying to ram MY truth down anybody's throat.
That's fair and I will try to keep that in mind in future.thank you for this, I do appreciate it. I'm a bit hesitant to ask you about the specific details of your experiences because I'm slightly wary that any critical questions or points I would make would be viewed as "criticizing" and not "critically examining" I hope that you know, going into this, that I'm going to be highly skeptical of what you say and that someone asserting that they don't necessarily believe you or they doubt your story does NOT mean that they're calling you a liar. I fully accept that you believe you had these experiences and you're not willfully lying about them. That doesn't mean that me or anyone else has to accept them as truth. There's a difference. I think you're hyper sensitive about them, and from what I've seen (limited time or not) you've reacted incredibly negatively to any comments about your experiences at all, no matter how well-intentioned the commenter.
I think you have a hypersensitivity to being called a liar, like it bugs you to not be believed at face-value, but here's a newsflash for you. Skeptics are skeptical. Unlike a lot of the christian community, if someone claims a miracle or an unexplained "supernatural" event, skeptics are likely to question it. They won't just accept it and suddenly view the world differently. I have seen christians claim miraculous events and had other believers just fall in line, praising god for his miracle - when it turns out that the original statement was made up by the person posting it. I've seen it more times than I can count over years and years of experience. I don't think you're just making this up, but I also think that if you're going to bring your personal experiences into the equation and continually try to talk about them, then you have to be prepared to be doubted. Doubt does not equal the label of "liar". I get called a liar all the time about my education or experience, but it doesn't really bother me? Why? Because i don't have to prove things to virtual strangers on the internet. I know the truth and the people that know me know the truth and whether or not anyone else believes me is completely irrelevant. A lot of people are extremely discomforted by the idea that someone who has attended a bible college would turn around and denounce their faith as false. They want to believe that all atheists don't believe because they're ignorant about the bible and the true meaning of god. Encountering someone of intelligence who does not succumb to it is unsettling, and this is evidenced time and time again in the comment section of my hubs. They either discount me entirely because "what does an atheist know" or they tell me that i have no business writing about god because I don't believe in him. Yet I still write. It comes with the territory.
I hope that you understand what I'm saying, and I'm doing it in a spirit of mutual understanding and respect. I'm not trying to throw you under the bus, here. I'm simply trying to help you so that our conversation can continue.I've seen Christians fall into line as well. Never actually met any of those Christians though. As I've said to you and to others, someone who does not go to a Pentecostal church but still claims either direct experience or close second-hand experience gets funny looks even in evangelical churches.
I may be hypersensitive, but there's a difference between skepticism and accusation and the latter is more often what I've encountered, so it's a conditioned hyper-sensitivity. I'll be more, ah, "sensitive" to that
You don't have to ask me any questions, I put up a hub about a lot of it. http://chris-neal.hubpages.com/hub/The- … e_accepted
My point was that I went from having NO experiences to MANY in a short time. Again, this is where the difference between "skeptical" and "accusatory" took it's toll. I was accused of lying and of delusion many, many times.
The assumption of many "skeptics" appears to be that if I claim these experiences, ipso facto I have checked my brain at the door, will swallow anything and am a poster boy for every evil (real and imagined) they care to ascribe to the church. Maybe they don't mean it that way but, like your experiences with being an intelligent person who has turned away, my experience with being an intelligent person who has turned to faith is that all kinds of excuses for why I can't be the genuine article are hurled at me.
Interesting world, don't you think...
Except that wasn't working either. Back to previous point. When I did answer directly I was accused of having walls up and not thinking for myself. When I try to conduct intelligent conversation I'm accused of condescension and writing atheists off. When I stick to my guns I'm desperate. So I tried option "B".
Chris, I don't really care "Why do so many people who were not previously disposed to belief in God become believers and can I study this?" so that would never be a question I would ask. People believe in god when they didn't before for any number of reasons, and they're usually not good ones - at least in my experience. People believe in god when they didn't before for the same reasons that people believe in god all of their life - it doesn't make it true, and I don't by any means believe that the number is significant. the majority of people who believe in a god do it for all of their lives. The stragglers usually turn to god (in my experience) because something changed in their lives and they were looking for answers - and they clung to whatever happened to make sense to them at the time. People convert to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc too - does that give their faith justification as well?
A lot of people claim to have personal experiences with a god. The phenomenon is not limited to christianity. If you're claiming that your experience is justifiable proof that the god you happen to believe in exists, then how do you discount all of these other personal experiences? If your personal experience is valid proof, these other experiences in different religions should be just as valid. Are they? Or are they all wrong, because they are from/for a different deity?
When I was a christian, I believed that I felt god's presence too. It was indescribable at the time. But I've been an atheist for years, and I still have that same feeling - every time I hear a particularly moving piece of music, or see a beautiful sunset. It's not god. It's me. I know former pastors that can still feel "filled with the holy spirit" and speak in tongues - even though they know that the entire experience is bologna. It's gibberish. I still want to know how god identified himself to you. How would you, who had no knowledge or belief in the christian god, know that what you were experiencing was not only divine in nature but specific enough for you to identify the deity. Furthermore, do you not find it somewhat disheartening to know that, while god was taking the time to appear in your living room - or your head - there were helpless children dying? There were people being abused, beaten, raped, murdered - and I would bet that a large number of them were screaming out for help, but your god was too busy appearing in your head and identifying himself to you to hear or help them?I want to push this thought (just to be sporting). Do you think it possible that it may not be a different God? Could it possibly be that person's vision (or visions for the polytheistic) of how they see God?
Does everyone here really think I have never thought about that?
That there's one god, and he/she/it just answers to whatever name it's called by and transcends cultural and religious boundaries? It's an interesting question. It's something similar to what my wife believes, but she maintains agnosticism. She believes that there's something more to us, but she doesn't call it a deity - it's more like a universal power.
From a psychological perspective, I can understand that some people feel a need to beseech or cling to a "higher power" that they can credit for unexplainable events. The problem I have with this kind of prospect is a) it still can't be proven or demonstrated and b) since it truly exists worldwide, it seems to be a human phenomenon - not a supernatural one. When people experience something that they can't explain, it means that they can't explain it - it doesn't mean that there's not an explanation. I think it's somewhat disheartening that a lot of people jump to the assertion that it's a "god" without examining all of the options, researching or applying their critical thinking skills. The fact that everything that seems unexplainable is attributed to a god is not a new thing. It's been happening for thousands of years. the list is just gradually shrinking with the advent of science.I agree with this one. But to push it further, there are some that do think critically enough to keep asking questions until they run out of answers. once there are no more answers to the questions, that's where the final answer (for some) becomes God. For others the final answer becomes "I don't know". Still for some others the answer becomes "I don't care, but I'm not going to give it to a deity".
Okay, but this makes it pretty clear that I wasn't the one writing people off here.
Was I or was I not still conversing with you? You wanted me to ask a specific question so you could answer it, and when I didn't, you got frustrated. The question you wanted is never one that I would have asked. I was interested in other parts of the question, so I was following those parts. What you wanted to discuss was not within the scope of my interest, and it simply cannot be quantified, unless you speak for everyone that has come to believe later on in life.
I'm wondering if you are the only one who missed that point by such a wide margin. Replay that sentence but eradicate that phrase "so you can answer it" and replace it with "so I can think about it".
If you're going to be frustrated, at least be frustrated for the right reason!
Yes, you were still conversing and yes, I do appreciate that but how many times did you threaten to just cut me off? And not to be badgering you but that post just shows that you still don't get what I was trying to do, even though I've come out and explained it.
But don't worry, I'm not going there any more. You guys want straight up, I can do that.
It is dishonest to reject that which one has very little understanding and only shows a deep indoctrination of religious beliefs being defended at any cost.
I rejected nothing. In fact I was very grateful to Josak for an opportunity to learn something, even if for me it opened up other questions. I find it ironic that a person who so often claims that people like me don't think for ourselves doesn't seem too keen to help us do that. Berating is more fun, I know, but it's also still ironic.
there is NOTHING in the bible about abortion being murder.
though not directly mentioned as abortion, we can derive some principles when it comes to abortion.
Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exo 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life...
God gives importance to unborn babies that He will punish anyone who will cause a pregnant woman to give birth prematurely.
When Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit, despite of being a shame to Joseph and a shame to the whole community, she still decided to continue her pregnancy and did not decide to abort the child. The same situation happens to most women today who consider their pregnancy to be unwanted.
Abortion is killing. PLEASE BE HONEST WITH YOUR SELF.what about all the times that god commanded his people to kill children and "rip unborn children from the womb"? How do you line that up with your theology? Or what about: Numbers 5: 12-19 sets the stage: if a man knows or suspects that his wife has been sleeping with someone else, then he has to take her to the priest with a “grain offering of jealousy”. The priest takes the woman to “stand before the LORD”. He unloosens her hair. He puts the jealousy offering of grain into her hands. He takes some “holy water”, and sprinkles into it some dust from the temple floor. Then he puts her under oath and says “If you’re innocent, may this bitter water not harm you.”
But if she is guilty, it is God’s command that the priest ask God to curse her and cause her to have an abortion and have her uterus collapse, as a warning to others and as a way of making sure that the husband is only raising his own children.
God provides a recipe for a forced miscarriage.I have to admit that upon rereading Numbers 5 it is a bit bizarre and full of medieval style superstition.
There's a reason that this passage is not often quoted or studied. For all of those that claim that god is "pro-life" there are lot of biblical passages (and this is among them) that seem to contradict that assertion.
Hi,
I admit in the surface, numbers 5 seems very negative. But with the proper understanding, it can be explained. Let me quote a statement from our website.
"The offering of jealousy can seem to be one of the strangest offerings in all the Bible, offered by a jealous husband who suspects his wife of infidelity. Stranger yet, perhaps, is the awful ritual the wife is required to undergo. But there is a purpose to everything God commands. The Nelson Study Bible notes, "This text can be read as an exceptionally harsh judgment on an unfaithful wife [or even a faithful one!]. But there is a sense in which this law ameliorated the harsh realities for a woman in this time period. A woman could be divorced in the ancient world on the mere suspicion of unfaithfulness [thus leaving her destitute]. Without the limitations of laws such as this, a woman might even have been murdered by a jealous husband just on the suspicion of unfaithfulness. Here at least there was an opportunity for the woman to prove her innocence before an enraged husband" (note on 5:11-31).
Still, to some this whole proceeding might conjure up images of witch trials from medieval to colonial times, in which women were dunked in water to see if they drowned. A survivor was considered a witch and burned at the stake, leaving drowning as the only proof of innocence. Yet there are major differences here. For one, the faithful wife did not die but was exonerated in childbirth, and her unjustly jealous husband made to look the fool for his unfounded accusation.
Yet there is another, even more important difference. Whereas God never commanded and had no part in the completely absurd witch trials just described, He directly commanded and was an integral part of the trial of jealousy. Notice: "Bitter water that brings a curse was not a 'magic potion,' nor was there some hidden ingredient in the water. The addition of dust from the floor of the tabernacle to a vessel of holy water and the scrapings from the bill of indictment (verse 23) were signs of a spiritual reality. Holy water and dust from the holy place symbolized that God was the One who determined the innocence or guilt of the woman who had come before the priest" (note on 5:18)—not freak happenstance or the reasoning of ignorant people.".It is true that God commanded Israel to make war and wipe out another tribe and race, including children and women. Rather than an act of cruelty, this is an ACT OF MERCY. God in His infinite wisdom chose to end the miserable life of these people instead of continuing in their lifestyle. Instead of suffering the consequences of their sin, it will better to stop them from causing harm to themselves and others. That is how loving and merciful God.
AND it should be noted that those people are not forever forgotten because there is a resurrection waiting for them where they will finally hear and learn God's word and way. GOD is truly a God of Justice. He will give everyone the chance for salvation.Okay, first of all - you have absolutely no proof that these people were having a miserable life - and how does murdering them, slaughtering them or condemning them to a life of sexual slavery make their lives any better? It's immoral. It's repulsive and it's ignorant. Do you go around killing everyone that doesn't accept your god? It would be an act of mercy, right? After all, they disagree with you - they don't accept your god or your beliefs, and since your god is SO MERCIFUL death would be better than continuing to live. (ironically, this kind of rationality is the EXACT same mindset of terrorists who fly planes into buildings - you're basically saying that terrorism is justified)
Not everyone is going to be resurrected. According to Jesus himself, the only way to eternal life is through him - and that not everyone who says "lord, lord" who has done miracles and cast out demons etc will be saved. Once you're dead, your chance at "redemption" is over - at least according to the majority of christian theology. You are an immoral, evil person if you believe that killing another person on behalf of a god is a GOOD thing. What did those innocent children do? What did the unborn fetus' do to deserve that kind of gruesome death? Yet you're opposed to abortion - unless god commands it, in which case, killing an unborn child is a GOOD thing. what is WRONG with you? You're an excellent spin doctor if nothing else - I have never heard anyone speak so highly of genocide before - it's mind-blowing. Hitler would be proud.If you’re going to discuss these portions of the bible, you should at least do so in the proper context in which they’re set. It makes a world of difference. You’re right, from our modern view, living in our modern socially evolved communities, protected by an established government in a land protected by a military from the outside, and governed by established laws and law enforcement agencies within, it’s easy to read these stories as barbaric. But just as you would in any other case, you should go into reading these with an understanding of the environment in which they’re set in, especially if you’re going to criticize them. Given your knowledge of the material, you should know what I’m talking about.
Let’s just imagine this for a minute. Whether it be in the context I’ve described (world already populated), or whether it be in the traditional context, we’re talking about an environment where there are only two established civilizations (Sumer and Egypt). The rest of the landscape was lawless and demonstrably violent and chaotic as even our archaeological and historical record will attest. This was arguably the most turbulent time in human history. This is the age when organized warfare was invented. Artwork during this timeframe shows a low regard for human life, or life in general, than in any other age prior.
If you wanted to survive in this age, you had very few choices. If you were not part of the established majority in an already ‘civilized’ society, then you were most likely either a slave or you were out in the lawless lands outside of those established societies fending for yourself. And you remember the stories in the bible about the gangs of men attacking visitors of their town, like in Sodom, or how the Israelites were under constant attack while out in the wilderness, often losing the weaker members of their party while out in the open. You and I can hardly imagine the landscape these people lived in. If you wanted to keep yourself and your people safe, your only real option was to take a plot of land by force and hold it. And in those cases you had to do something with the inhabitants of that region. It’s not like they could just go the next town over, or go find some sort of gainful employment elsewhere. And it's not like those being overtaken were just going to cohabitate with those that overtook them, though God gave specific commands about that as well that were otherwise unheard of in that age. Though it sounds detestable to us now, slavery then was a way of life. As a slave you were provided for and protected.
And in the case of Numbers 5, it’s not like there was an established social norm, or established laws to handle this kind of situation. I can assure you that what’s described there is a much better alternative for the accused woman than what would happen if these rules were not put into place. Again, whether it be in the context I describe where the world’s already populated and Adam is the introduction of a ‘free will’, or whether it be in the traditional context, this was the early days, just 30 or so generations after Adam. The commands given to the Israelites obviously had everything to do with controlling breeding, protecting against disease and infection, and maintaining order where there was none, and no established law. Things that were much more important then than they may seem to us now because that age is when the first societies that would ultimately lead to what we know now were first established. If not for these laws and for the actions of these people, there may not be a Jewish/Israelite population in existence for everyone here to be discussing now. They may never have made it.
If you are here, and I am here (as well as everyone else in these forums), that means that we all descend from people who in some way had to do much the same thing you’re condemning now for any of us to be here. Indigenous cultures were uprooted, enslaved, massacred, for us to be here. It may seem harsh to you now, but like it or not it’s what was necessary. What can I say, ‘free will’ is a volatile thing.Absolutely amazing!! A few thousand years ago a group of people convince themselves that God told them to commit atrocities on other tribes and a few thousand years later you are defending murder, rape and slavery as a means of survival of this particular group as directed by the same God as if it matters that it was a few thousand years ago. You would think an ethical God would have instead convinced other tribes to leave the special ones alone? You would think an ethical God wouldn't have favourites? This would involve thinking and not justifying and defending the bully.
What is the ethical thing to do with children in the school yard? Teach your favourite to strike first or teach them all to respect each other?I'm sorry, Rad Man, but it's the truth. I'm not defending anything. It's not like the Israelites were the only ones doing this kind of thing. Every established society back then did the same thing. Every one of them. What alternative do you suggest so everyone could just peacefully get along? And what exactly should God have done, in your mind, to convince other tribes to leave them alone? Free will is free will. God getting involved and forcing everyone to behave in a certain way would override free will, thus they would not truly by free. It would be God 'bullying' everyone and forcing His will. Hence not free will. God was not 'teaching' in this age. There was a particular need. A savior that must be born because of the behavior inherent to free will. To realize that in this landscape, this is what had to be done.
If you knew the history of the region then you'd understand how your statements make no sense, whether a God was involved or not. Even outside of the context of Genesis, this age was demonstrably chaotic. We can actually see in the historical record that humans changed here. Dramatically. And in the wake of that the ensuing chaos is beyond what anyone here living in this age could imagine. It would be much more like what has been seen in recent decades in Africa, with hoards of enslaved young men being brainwashed and forced into militarized mobs who hack innocent people with machetes and rape and pillage. Even the big guys, Sumer and Egypt, were under constant attack by violent nomadic tribes as their historical records attest. Nobody was safe. In that age, military power was the currency. If you didn't have that you had little chance of survival.Nonsense, of course, God is a bully, is forcing everyone to behave in a certain way and is not offering any free will whatsoever. He sends those who don't agree to behave in a certain way to hell. That isn't free will at all.
It's also amazing how you claim God could not intervene because that would go against free will, but he directed the Israelites to murder, rape and to keep slaves. Your claim that he only revealed himself to the Israelites because of the coming saviour is another contradiction and only one that the Israelites would make up. Your claim that God doesn't know how to treat children in a playground is an indication that the story is somewhat skewed. Claiming I don't understand the history is irrelevant when your dealing with what you consider a moral/just God.
so basically, the Israelite-led genocide was okay because everyone was doing it? Then why did they need a god to order the slaughter of whole tribes of other people? I don't understand how a grown man can look at deity-ordered mass-murder and call it good - while at the same time condemning hitler or sadaam hussein, or anyone else of their ilk. How do you reconcile that with reality, dude?
Oh, don't let Hitler and Hussein take all the credit. If we're really going to condemn all the mass murders of tribes and such as if they're all one and the same, why stop there? Why not the Sumerians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Syrians, British, Americans, etc.? Who here is not here by way of mass-murder in their past? Unless you're descended from the native people of the land you currently inhabit, you're here as the result of mass-murder. It's woven into the fabric of human history. That's humanity's MO, so to speak.
The fact is those that did not live this way in that time and place are no longer here. You're apparently looking for God to have just made everyone get along. So how does that work exactly? When you read the OT do you see a God that has the firm control over the behavior of people? Is that not what the whole thing is about? Human behavior? Is this story not told against the backdrop of the most tumultuous time in human history? This is when the first civilizations rose up and began to war with one another. All around this little region. Free will was running rampant. There was no law, no authority to make sure everyone was treated fairly. What do you propose God should have done differently?I don't know - ANYTHING? It's funny how god commands his chosen people to behave in a way that is rampant among various other tribes and cultures - instead of, i don't know, proving that as an all-powerful GOD he could do better. God is not imposing any higher morality, he's just going with the flow. Is that what you're trying to say?
Don't you imagine that a god who not only supposedly created the world, but also then wiped it out with a flood could have come up with a better plan that did not include the needless slaughter of thousands of people - simply because they already lived somewhere and didn't know anything about him? Basically you're saying they were simply born to the wrong clan. If they had been born a Jew, they would have been the ones doing the slaughtering instead of the other way around.
Don't you think it's puzzling, to say the least, that a god would command his chosen people to do just what everyone else around the area was doing? Why did he give them a land that was already inhabited anyway? If the garden of Eden was now supposedly invisible, because it was being guarded by an angel with a fiery sword, why weren't there a multitude of angels surrounding the holy land so the jews could walk right in? Why didn't god just wipe all the people out - we know that biblically he was capable of regretting things and destroying the whole world. Why make your people do the dirty work for you? What lesson did they learn from it? That it's okay to act against the 10 commandments when god tells you to? Why did he bother to include "thou shalt not murder" in it at all? Why not save it for later? You're trying to rationalize an immoral, evil act by saying "everyone's doing it, why can't we?". Do you also make excuses for the holocaust because Hitler was acting in god's best interest by punishing his evil, evil people?Exactly. God's not imposing a higher morality. He's not forcing anybody to behave in any way beyond this one line. And only those that are in direct conflict, or pose a direct threat, to that line are taken out when necessary. And that includes Sodom and Gomorrah, way back when the line was still very small and these cities were teaming with people who were a very real threat to the chosen line.
This is why the context I'm trying to stress is so important. We can see this dramatic change in behavior in the history of that region. And like I said before, those who didn't fight for their place in it are no longer here. This is not God's will, this is free will. That's the difference. All throughout the creation account it describes God willing things into existence. Everything, animate or inanimate, formed according to His will. Then He created Adam who didn't. And Eve didn't. And Cain didn't. And in Genesis 6 their descendants began intermingling with humans. This is given as the reason for the 'wickedness' in humans and why it says God 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. It's the result of free will, not God's will.
And if you'll notice, the people that inhabited that land were the descendants of the one and only group beyond Noah and the gang that the bible says lived both before and after the flood. The Nephilim. Children of the intermingling of Adam's descendants and humans who the flood was meant for.
As for the whole all-powerful God you keep looking for, what about the testing of Abraham? God did not know what Abraham would do. And I know He can see past/present/future. That's what's so significant here. Think about it like this. God, being outside of space-time, being the creator of it and therefore existing outside of it, doesn't see time linearly as you and I do. There's no span of time between past and present and no space between here and there. It's all one point, unchanging. There is only what exists and what doesn't. In the case of Abraham, God commanded him to take Isaac and sacrifice him, stopping him just before he did it. If God had not commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the situation that caused Abraham to make a willful decision never would have been made and God really wouldn't have known what Abraham would do. Because God intervened and created the situation, Abraham's decision existed. This is because Abraham has a free will that is apart from God's. He, just like you and I, can create decisions and actions that are not 'of God' and can often be in conflict with His will. This is an element that I don't think you're really considering here. How powerful a free will really is. It's the equivalent of matter choosing for itself how exactly to react to gravity. Imagine if each particle in the universe behaved in non-constant, random ways in relation to gravity. That's the kind of situation the stories of the books of Moses are set against.
And what exactly would the point of all of this be without free will? If we all just behaved exactly according to His will? Why live life? Why just perpetually go through the motions of birth and death? Why create existence at all? It's our behavior, and how it's an anomaly compared to the rest of the predictable world, that's the whole point to the stories of the bible, that's the whole reason for Jesus, and it's what gives this life purpose and meaning.
Since you seem to be so convinced that how He went about it was wrong, or not how a true all-powerful God would have done it, what's the right way? You must have a better way in mind that makes you so certain that this way was wrong. What do you suggest?prophecies
Genesis 15:18 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.
2 Samuel 7:16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me[a]; your throne will be established forever.
I bring up prophecies to show you that God claims to see the future. You claim God has no idea what Abraham will do when given a murderous task, but God is pleased that Abraham will follow through with the murder of his son?
The bible is littered with prophecies. You claim that God can see the past, present and future, but doesn't know the future is ridiculous. With all the stories we are told about God listening to our thoughts and knowing and loving us he pulls a stunt like the one above to Abraham? In the above story who has their head on straight, God or Abraham? What do you say to someone who tells you they about to kill their child because God told them to? Should I give you the definition of merciful again? Ever wonder why the God of the OT is not the same as the God NT? It's simply because they were written by different people with different needs. Gods are a reflection of what people need. The people of the OT needed justification and entitlement and that's what they got. The people of the NT needed salvation, love and mercy and that's what they got.If you think about it for a minute you'll realize what I'm saying make sense. God intervened in the case of Abraham. He created a situation that forced Abraham to make a decision. If He hadn't, that particular decision of whether or not to sacrifice his son never would have existed. In every other case, every other decision created by a human, that causes another to make a decision, and so on, each decision or action only happens once in one way. So God sees and knows every decision and action, thus He sees the future. Without outside interference, each person's life plays out one way. They, of course, had control of their lives and made their own decisions within each moment of their life, but from God's perspective He can see the beginning, the middle, and the end. It all only happened once and only played out one way.
When God gets involved and changes the course by creating a difference that creates a new decision that didn't exist otherwise, He does not know for sure until that decision exists what would have been done. He knows our hearts and minds, knows our thoughts, but just like you and I don't actually know for certain how we'll behave in a given situation until it happens, God does not know for certain what decision we would make if a situation were introduced into existence that caused us to make one.That's silly, if he see's our future he knows our decisions. As I sit here today I am aware of the decision my oldest son made regarding his university education. His decision was made in the past, but at the time it was that present. So claiming God can see the future, but doesn't know what decisions your will make is silly.
It's really not. You're missing the part where God created a situation that forced a decision to be made that otherwise wouldn't have existed. Your son's decision about his university education always existed from God's perspective. That was not a case where God intervened and created a situation where a decision had to be made that did not have to be made if God hadn't intervened. Do you see what I mean? Unless God gets involved, every decision you or I or anyone else makes is within this universe. Within space-time. To God's perspective it's unchanging. Every decision in every moment was only made one way. Every decision you or I make exists in this case. But, let's say a time comes in your life where you have to sacrifice yourself to save your son's life. If that situation never comes up you don't have to make that decision and nobody knows for certain, including God, what you'd do. Though we're all pretty sure you'd gladly give yourself, nobody knows for certain unless you face that choice and choose. Now let's say God speaks to you on the 100th day of your 65th year on this earth and tells you that he created a situation that will make you choose whether or not to sacrifice yourself to save him. If God creates that situation, He has altered how your life would have played out if He had not directly interfered. Now a decision you made exists that would not have if God had not created that situation. Get it?
No, I guess I don't get it at all. A forced decision is till a decision and a God with knowledge of the future would know what your decision was. I said to my kid when he got his acceptance letters. "you can go to this school or that school and study this or that?" At the time I had an idea of what he would do, but didn't know for sure. With my knowledge of the past I can tell you for certain what decision he made.
Right, but would you know for sure what he would have decided if he never did make the decision in the past? What if a school that wasn't one of the original options he chose between were added to that same decision? Do you know if he would have made the same choice, or would he have chosen this additional school if it were an option? If the decision wasn't made in the past, then you don't know for sure what he'd do. You'd probably have a pretty good idea because you probably know him pretty well, but not for certain. Now, let's say God intervened and through that intervention added an additional school to the list of those your son had been accepted by. Would his decision change? Do you know for sure how he would have decided if this additional school were an option back then when the decision was made?
See, that's the key. God is outside of time-space. There are two versions of existence here. One where the situation didn't exist and Abraham never had to make the decision, therefore his decision doesn't exist, and another where God created the situation that then caused Abraham to choose. No matter if you can see past/present/future or not, if the situation that caused you to decide never happened, then your decision doesn't exist, therefore even God doesn't know for sure what you'd do unless He intervenes and creates a situation that causes you to decide. Get it now?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So, if He created it, how exactly does He exist solely within the bounds of His own creation?
I don't know, but you can create a house and live in it. I can build an Ikea chair and sit on it. Surely, it's possible if you an all powerful God.
Right, but you also existed before that house and chair, right? Your whole existence isn't tied to the existence of that object. You're more than that object. You can live in the house, outside of the house, before the house, and after the house. Whether or not the house exists, you still do.
Which makes your claim that God is outside of the universe irrelevant, because he can come or go just as I can come and go from my house.
Right, but before the house you still existed. The house, assuming you built it, wouldn't exist without you, yet you still exist without it. You can exist outside of it or inside of it, before it and/or after it. The pocket of air that is enclosed by insulated walls and climate controlled by the AC you installed wouldn't exist in that spot had you not created the house, and would not exist in the same way if you tore down the house, because it's dependent on the house (walls, foundation, roof, insulation, AC) being there. You're not.
Let's see, you've given your God the ability to come in and out of the universe he made as well as to see all of time at the same moment, but he has no idea if Abraham will murder his own child because he asked? He could just jump to that point in time to see what he would do, but instead he decided to torture Abraham, but not really because Abraham seem ambivalent. I think I would have said. Please God I'm old take me instead. Just saying.
Jump to what point in time? If God hadn't first told him to do it there'd be no point to jump to to see what he'd do. God's command created the situation that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Still not getting it? You've created a God that can see his own future. He would already know he would ask the question and what the answer would be.
Rad Man, it's Abraham's decision. A decision he wouldn't have to make if the situation that caused him to decide never happened. If the situation doesn't exist then he never makes the choice. No matter what point in time you, or God, or anyone else 'jumps to'.
But you are claiming the situation does exist and you are claiming God can move in and out of time. I'm showing you that if that were the case he wouldn't need to ask.
But if He didn't ask then Abraham wouldn't decide. Time doesn't matter. It's whether or not Abraham made that decision. The request/command is the cause. Without the cause you have no decision.
Now time doesn't matter? You can't just throw time out of the equation because it's not helping your argument. Either your God knows the future or he does not. Which is it? If he know the future he doesn't need to ask the question. If he has to ask then he doesn't know the future. If he knows the future and asks anyway... well he's not very nice.
How's He supposed to know the answer if He never asks the question?
Oh, of course. How silly of me. The future. Just look to the future to the day Abraham decided whether or not to obey God and sacrifice Isaac..... oh. Wait. There's a problem. He never told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, so Abraham never made the choice. So, what now?
do you or do you not think that god is omnipotent?
Omnipotent as in 'capable of creating a stone so large even He can't move it' omnipotent? What are you asking? Do you think that means He should know what Abraham would do without Abraham actually having to decide? Or do you think that means He should be able to test Abraham, then go back and do it all over again, only this time not test Abraham?
sorry, I responded too quickly and got the wrong omni. I meant "omniscient"
I think free will is free will. Yes, God is all-knowing in everything that is of His will. And God knows our hearts and minds. But free will is the kicker. Notice how God brought the animals to Adam to 'see what he would name them'. Or how he 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. Or when He tested Abraham's faith. Free will means a will apart from his and that's what was significant about Adam and everyone 'of Eve'. That's why there was a flood, why there were commandments and Mitzvah laws. That's why we need a savior and why it's up to us to choose. Free will. That's what the whole thing's about, right from the start.
Interesting. SO you're claiming that the human "free will" that god gave them negates his ability to be omniscient?
Is that not how you read it? How else does it make sense for Jesus to say, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."?
A truly free will is a will able to create decisions and actions that are not 'of God' or according to His will. That's how sin is even possible. Sin comes from the capability to behave contrary to God/nature. Because everything else in existence behaves according to His one singular unchanging will, human behavior that's outside of that is in a sense 'unnatural'. It's like cells in your body being able to freely choose whether or not to adhere to the behavior mandated by the DNA code. At any point each cell can potentially behave like a cancer, endangering the body as a whole. Salvation comes through willfully choosing to respect the DNA code (God) as the authority so that the body doesn't do what it has to do to survive and fight against us.
I think God made us creators, in a sense. We're able to create decisions and actions that are not 'of nature'. Existence consists of everything made according to His one will, as well as every decision and action we make or do. We create incredible art and music and poetry and architecture. We're creative, but we're also incredibly destructive. it's in the very same age and region in which early Genesis is set that humans first began to behave contrary to nature. That's when we first began to willfully control nature rather than be controlled by it. The natural world maintains a cyclical balance. We're constantly at odds with that balance. We destroy environments unlike any other species. Create waste, pollute the air and water and soil, create chemicals and materials that don't break down naturally. We're a destructive force capable of destroying this planet and everything on it despite our limited lifespan.I'm confused. Have you not told me many times that God does not have our sense of time? He is everywhere and anywhere? He is in the future and the past?
Yes. And without God's involvement (flood, Abraham thing, Babel, etc) that influenced the behavior of free-willed humans, every action and decision made by humans is engrained in the timeline of existence and only plays out one particular way. You make each decision in each moment only once. So, from God's perspective, everything played out just one way. That's why the story of Abraham is significant. That's why God intervened here and there. To realize the desired end-game, so to speak, which He can see, He had to take action to alter behavior, which altered how events played out in the timeline.
It's like a programmer tweaking a program. The program code itself is stagnant. Only during 'run-time' is there a timeline. So God, like a programmer, intervened in specific moments and places, influencing the behaviors of humans through commandments, punishments, floods, sodom/gamorrah, etc., that would have played out differently if He had not, which altered the outcome.Sorry, all creatures make their own decisions. You may want to study animal behaviour.
Right, that's why they're so predictable across the board. Don't try to muddle this up. Just step back and take a look around. It's pretty obvious.
Besides, animals aren't a very good side-by-side comparison. Just compare 'civilized' humans to indigenous/tribal humans to see what I mean. Same physical brains and bodies, same capabilities, yet vastly different behaviors based on their willfully propelled desires.Actually our willfully propelled desires and very similar to the chimps. We are just smarter. You should look into it.
I have. It doesn't even compare. You need look no further than overall behavioral patterns. Chimps are chimps. Indigenous humans are indigenous humans. Their behaviors haven't altered much for tens of thousands of years. Behavior only alters, in the case of chimps, when the environment mandates it. Indigenous humans are a bit different because they did alter things, like tools for example, where no other hominid ever did. But their behavior is much the same across the globe as well, and unchanged, again, for tens of thousands of years.
But he did ask. Didn't he? Why are saying he didn't ask when he did?
That's my whole point. He had to or He'd have no way of knowing how Abraham would respond. Abraham's will is independent of His. God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is what created the situation that made Abraham make a decision. If somebody within time-space had asked this of Abraham, and not God, then yes, God could have just looked to that time and seen his response because that all happened within the one existence during that one timeline.
Remember, to God there is no past/present/future. It's all one point. There's only one existence and only one timeline. It all only played out one way. So you can't know Abraham's response AND not create the situation for Abraham to respond to.Dang, Rad Man, you really are struggling with this aren't you? I understand, it's a complicated thing to grasp, tethered to time as we are. It's hard to wrap your head around. Just think about it, and try not to assume it's the 'God-believer' that has it all wrong and is delusional. Maybe give me a little credit and try to grasp what I'm saying. It all really does make perfect sense.
I think I've got a good understanding of how time works, but I am struggling to understand how you can wrap an omnipotent and omniscient God into one that has to ask a mere person to kill his own son to see what he would answer? Are you saying God is not omniscient? Is that how you get around this? He can predict the future because he can see it, but he doesn't know what Abraham will do when ask to murder his own son. I'm perplexed by two things really, the above mentioned and the fact that you think such a God is worth your worship.
Free will is what you're not grasping. That's the key. Abraham, you, me, our behavior is not dictated by God. God is omniscient in regards to all of existence that is 'of Him', or 'of His will'. Just as we see through science, matter, energy, living creatures, it's all predictable as long as you understand their nature and the natural laws that govern them. That's all nature/God. Predictable. And He is all-knowing where that's concerned. But us, we're the unpredictable element, by design. That's the whole point to all of this. So that we can exist, live eternally, and with our own wills and own minds.
God went through a whole lot of trouble just to give you the capability to argue against Him and doubt He's there. To allow you to live and behave of your own free will and mind. Without even realizing or acknowledging it you're currently utilizing the independent will He gave you as a gift to speak against Him. To me, He is very much worthy of worship. I'm just sorry you can't/won't see it. It really is a beautiful thing.Interesting, you may be the first to believer to admit to me at least that your God is not all powerful and all knowing. I do admire your independence. I also wish you could see it from my perspective.
I know you won't believe me, but I can and do see it from your perspective. That's how I got here. Your perspective, or the causal/scientific perspective, made a lot more sense to me than what I was taught growing up in a church. But it didn't address everything. You have to buy into the idea that it's either that we're just a fortunate accident that resulted from the exact right conditions and the exact right timing and inter-play of non-related events way too numerous to mention that resulted in us being here as we are, or you have to consider the whole countless parallel universes, each varying slightly from the other, scenario to explain the exactness of the conditions in this particular universe that led to us being here. Then you've got the intelligence resulting from non-intelligence thing. As well as reducing everything we see as meaningful and purposeful in life to just being an illusion we reasoning beings manufactured to pacify ourselves, when actually nothing any of us do really matters because ultimately humanity's time here is the equivalent of a tiny flash in a gigantic pan that burned bright for an instant before disappearing into nothingness.
I have too much respect for humanity and the human intuition that has gotten us to where we are to dismiss the higher power/spiritual aspect of life that the majority of our ancestors so strongly believed in and lived their lives by. Our scientific understanding is still very new to us. Humanity now is like that cocky teenager who went off to college, read a couple of books, then came back convinced that everything their parents ever told them was completely wrong. I think many are jumping the gun, eager to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater, where God and religion are concerned. Based more on what misguided/flawed humans have done with it than anything else.
And then there's my own life. I live way too recklessly to still be alive, in one piece, and doing as well as I am without guidance. Many of the most defining moments in my life were not orchestrated deliberately by me. I'd usually reach a point where I'd find my haphazardness had gotten me into yet another seemingly insurmountable situation, only for stars to align just right so that I could then get out of one jam, start over, and eventually get myself into my next jam.Existentialism, I can't tell you how much time I spent think about this a child and into my teenage years. Why am I stuck in this head? If my parents were to tired on that particular night I would not be hear. How many generations have come and gone to get me/us here? We could have easily have been different, perhaps never getting out of Africa. But here we are anyway. In another 50 years or so we most likely will be gone, enjoy the ride.
If you did in fact have respect for humanity you wouldn't need a higher power to explain us. Respect is given when earned. When someone accomplishes something great we give them respect for their hard work. It would be disrespectful to tell them they didn't or couldn't have done it on their own. Humans simply needed intelligence to survive in the open african savanna. It's simply how evolution works, the cheetah needs speed, we need tools. tools and weapons require intelligence, and here we are. If you respect humans you will give credit where it's due.
I too could have been dead a few times. Consider yourself lucky, sooner or later your luck will run out. Only the good die young. I've seen to many young people around me die for no reason what so ever. This last summer three girls who just days after graduating from high school with one of my sons rolled a car on the highway and one was killed. A few days ago a 16 year old boy from the area (know by my friends) died skiing. Just like that. I'm not even going to get into my own family. It's just random. The only ones saying they are alive because of God are the ones alive. I've watch 2 brother's in-law die before they hit 40 leaving behind small children. Am I next? We come, we stay, we go.Regarding 'respect for humanity' and giving credit where credit is due, think about what you're saying. From your perspective the majority of human actions that resulted in us being here as we are came long before full fledged reason and self-awareness, so it wasn't a conscious effort on the part of our ancestors. Once we did reach the age of awareness and reason it's still not really us, is it? Our actions and behaviors are determined by our biology and our experiences and our freedom to choose our actions is merely an illusion. We can't justifiably hold someone accountable for their actions or give credit for their accomplishments because it's all just mechanical biology, right? Yet, from my perspective, it really is you. There really is accountability and reward for behavior because it's you behaving according to your own individual will that is something more than just the biological machine you participate in this finite life through. In that light, great accomplishments through hard work really does warrant respect because you freely chose your actions of your own will. That will, in itself, being a gift and accountability/reward being a result/consequence of that.
A kid graduates from Med school. Do you congratulate him for have the means, intelligence and desire or do you thank God for giving him those abilities. The guy who picks up his garbage only has the desire. Does he thank God? Reality is a bitch. You could thank God for that or you could look at reality for it is.
Clearly, in a free will scenario, the kid who chose to stay the course and finish what he/she set out to do deserves congratulations. In your scenario it's his/her biological makeup and his/her previous life experiences that determined the outcome. So, is congratulations really warranted? I do think God provides guidance and opportunities where He sees fit, but the whole point of life in this perspective is how you choose to live it. Otherwise there'd be no point. We'd ultimately just be going through the motions. Live for a while, struggle, triumph, laugh, cry, love, lose, die.
Headly wrote:
"I do think God provides guidance and opportunities where He sees fit."
Where he sees fit? I love that. I wish he would see fit to feed starving children. Instead he see's fit to make sure some lawyer gets another Porsche defending murderers? I wish he saw fit to protect those 20 children in their own classrooms. Nope, doesn't look like anyone is looking after us.What would be the point of us having free will if God 'nerfed' the world and there were no consequences for our actions?
What would be the point of god if human beings just acted according to their own innate morality?
We don't need God to have consequences for our actions, we have prison systems for that. Tell me what have people done in Africa to deserve their children to starve? What did the 20 children do to deserve being shot in their own school? What did the wealthy harvard student do to deserve that education? Consequences?
Ah, so you're guessing, just say so next time.
How's that a guess? It's pretty straight forward. Are you saying that time-space exists beyond the universe? If so then I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it. And if that's true, and God created the universe, then Him existing outside of it is just a logical conclusion.
Obviously, because it does not say that in the Bible. Your claim is not supported anywhere.
Whether it is or not is still guesswork on your part.
And, please don't use the term "logical conclusion" when talking about invisible sky daddies.Uh, yeah it does, and no it's not guesswork. It says 'God created the heavens and the earth'. It also says that from God's perspective a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. Until Einstein that didn't really make sense. Now it does. Much like numerous other examples that make more sense the more we learn. It's a logical conclusion that's supported by what the bible describes and does not conflict with our understanding. Our understanding actually clarifies it.
And an 'invisible sky daddy' is a much more logical conclusion than suggesting everything, including intelligence, 'came about on its own'. So, clearly, you're not qualified to be the logic police.I don't think we needed Einstein to explain that the God of the bible has a different perspective of time.
The more we learn the more sense the bible makes? I don't know what your learning, but the more I read the bible the more I'm perplexed as to why anyone would buy into it.
An invisible sky daddy is a completely illogical conclusion that is used as a pacifier. The only evidence for a sky daddy is series of stories that don't hold up under examination.Depends on who's doing the examining. Time-space being relative makes sense out of the whole 1000 years = 1 day = 1000 years thing. Big bang makes sense out of universe having a beginning and coming from a single point. First 11 chapters make sense out of how behavioral changes actually spread just like described in human history. All kinds of things. The more we learn the more it all lines up. Sooner or later, you'll see it too. It's just a matter of time.
Sorry, you got to be a very good spin doctor to make that work. Tell me where in the bible does it say it all came from a single point? What does the bible say about evolution?
In other words, the idea that the universe had a beginning, and came about from a single point, is much more consistent with the creator God of the bible than the previous idea that the universe was infinite. Genesis explains that the will that drives life to be comes from God. It's the one thing not accounted for by evolution. Some, like you, suggest the will to live is just one of the first genetic traits that then propagated on. Whatever the case, living things are obviously driven to survive and procreate, which is a vital trait that drives the process, which is exactly what life was told to do in Genesis. That and the fact that all life did in fact originate from the sea. And that the age of mammals (synapsids) came after the age of reptiles and birds (sauropsids). The more we learn the more consistent existence is with what's described.
Just because we currently think this universe had a beginning we don't know what was before it. Is it just a pulsing universe? Are there parallel universes? You're bible doesn't say the universe came from a particular point. It states God make in all in a week. Evolution answers our will for survival, I've explained that as well. Mammals came before birds. The first mammals lived in the Triassic and the first birds lived in the Jurassic. All originated from tetrapods. To suggest that birds came first because the bible says so is ridiculous.
Right, we don't know what was before it. All we do know is that the universe most likely had a beginning. Before it was thought the universe was infinite. All I'm saying is that the universe having a beginning is more in line with the creator God of the bible than if the universe were infinite.
You explained what you think about the will for survival. You may be right and you may be wrong. Doesn't matter. What does matter is that living things have a will to survive and procreate (be fruitful and multiply), which Genesis described way before we knew any of that.
That's why I said the 'age' of reptiles and birds and the 'age' of mammals. We categorize all vertebrates the same way it's broken up in Genesis. Sauropsids and Synapsids. You asked what the bible had to say about evolution, I answered.Where in the bible does it say the universe is expanding? Where in the bible does it say the earth is round and we revolve around the sun?
Genesis does not describe evolution. It clearly says God made them all in the form or something to that extent.
The bible doesn't mention reptiles at all and you may be aware that mammals evolved from reptiles. The fact that mammals did that before birds should be a clue as to how precise the bible is. Remember the bible says things in water and birds are first. That simply is not the case. The first birds appeared after mammals. The ancestors of both birds and mammals were reptiles.Look, I'm not going to argue semantics with you. You asked, I answered. We've been through this. Like it or not, agree or not, ignore it if you like, but the more we learn the more we find out that Genesis had it right all along. The behavioral changes in humans, how they spread, and where they spread from is probably the most compelling newly learned information. Like I said before, it's just a matter of time.
YOU, not arguing semantics? Mammals first, birds second. The expanding universe is NOT explained in the bible.
Why would the bible need to mention the expanding universe? How's that relevant?
Sauropsids then synapsids. It's really simple.No it's not that simple. The bible says birds first. Birds are not first. Mammals evolved before birds. Where in the bible does it say Sauropsids then synapsids?
We need to mention the expanding universe because you are claiming the bible explains the universe, I'm showing you it does not. God made this and that, does not explain the universe.It really is that simple. You're right, the first mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles 205 mya during the end of the triassic, the first known bird about 50 million years later. Sauropsids dominated the jurassic, which is where birds come from, as the first mammals were no larger than a small rodent. Then, in the same age that modern birds begin to appear, Cretaceous Period (145.5 to 65.5 mya), you begin to see signs of the first modern mammals, with true placental mammals appearing at the end. Then, of course, came that mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. That's when mammals really began to come about.
Which is exactly what Genesis says. First, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth" - (Sauropsid) ... then, the following age/era/"day" ... "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind" - (Synapsid) And that's, of course, where those first evolving mammals were, on the earth, or, not in the sea.
I never said the bible explains the universe. I said that the idea that the universe had a beginning and came from a single point is much more consistent with the creator God of the bible who it says created the universe, where before the consensus was that the universe was infinite. And I've also said in previous conversations that creation is described from a surface perspective describing the creation of everything familiar to humans in the order they appeared from that surface point of view. An expanding universe was not observable from the surface.But it was not the waters that brang forth the birds, that was the earth. No matter how you look at it it's wrong wrong wrong.
Once again, tell he where in the bible does it say the universe came from a single point?Sauropsids - Synapsids.
They all ultimately came from the waters. But there's a direct lineage straight through to birds that's not so direct for mammals. The changes that led to mammals were much more of a 'left-turn' in the process. Hence, how they're categorized differently. Just look into the evolution of proto-mammals. Birds are simply evolved dinosaurs that still lay eggs with very similar skeletal features. Mammals are a whole different story.Right, but the fact remains, mammals before birds and both evolved from the same ancestor. That's not what the bible says Headly. No matter how you try to spin it. The original birds were not like the ones we see today, just as the original mammals were not like the ones we see today. Mammals were mammals millions of years before the first bird.
Kind of, but not really. They weren't placental mammals. We don't even know if they had fur. They're called 'mammals' mainly due to the skeletal structure of their skulls. The point is, creation is describing it all a particular way. Basically, what you'd see if you were standing on the surface watching it. From there, you'd see the sauropsids then birds in the sky, then you'd see the mammals. They were there before, but it was not yet their 'age'. Not until the dinosaurs were wiped out.
Nope, you'd see placenta mammals millions of years before any bird, especially a fowl.
Phanerozoic Eon (542 mya to present) | Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 mya) | Jurassic Period (199.6 to 145.5 mya)
* Flying reptiles (Pterosaurs) appeared
* 150 mya: First birds like Archaeopteryx appear
Phanerozoic Eon (542 mya to present) | Mesozoic Era (251 to 65.5 mya) | Cretaceous Period (145.5 to 65.5 mya)
* Modern mammals and birds developed
* 65.5 mya: Mass extinction of 80-90% of marine species and 85% of land species, including the dinosaurs (K-T or K-Pg Extinction Event)
Phanerozoic Eon (542 mya to present) |Cenozoic Era (65.5 mya to today) | Paleogene Period (65.5 to 23.03mya)
Paleocene Epoch (65.5 to 55.8 mya)
* Appearance of placental mammals (marsupials, insectivores, lemuroids, creodonts)
Eocene Epoch (55.8 to 33.9 mya)
* Modern mammals appear (rhinoceros, camels, early horses)Look this argument is futile. Both Sauropsids and Synapsids came from Amniotes and Amniotes came from Tetrapods. Why the bible days birds came at the same time as Tetrapods is because they lacked the knowledge.
The tetrapods evolved from the lobe-finned fishes about 395 million years ago in the Devonian. You will notice that the linage that created the mammal came before the linage that created the bird.
Yes, I know, and you're right. Mammals did come first. But it wasn't yet their age. First came the age of the sauropsids when they were the dominant beings, which is how we got birds, then came the age of the synapsids, which is how we got mammals, and then, of course, us. That's the order it actually happened in and that's how it's described. Not a scientific breakdown for eggheads like you and me, but a simple explanation for bronze age (or earlier) humans sitting around a fire listening to a story told on a level and from a perspective that any human who's ever walked this earth would understand.
You don't think they would have understood it if it were explained properly?
Define properly. What should it have said? What level of detail would be sufficient? From what I can tell it does describe it properly. As we've learned through science, the mechanistic nature of matter and the conditions created by the natural laws that govern it perpetuate creation. The creation account describes that everything familiar to humans came about because it was driven by the will of a creator who set it in motion and commanded it to become the result He desired. From that perspective, science overwhelmingly supports this by showing how existence basically formed on its own due to the exact right conditions and the mechanistic nature of matter and how it behaves in these conditions. Maybe if God were more actively involved in the minute details of creation then the creation account could have been more descriptive in that regard. But, instead of a creation that requires His constant attention and physical manipulation, it describes a creation that became what He willed it to be.
“By any reasonable analysis, evolution does nothing to distance or to weaken the power of God. We already know that we live in a world of natural causes, explicable by the workings of natural law. All that evolution does is to extend the workings of these natural laws to the novelty of life and to its changes over time. A God who presides over an evolutionary process is not an impotent, passive observer. Rather, He is one whose genius fashioned a fruitful world in which the process of continuing creation is woven into the fabric of matter itself. He retains the freedom to act, to reveal Himself to His creatures, to inspire, and to teach. He is the master of chance and time, whose actions, both powerful and subtle, respect the independence of His creation and give human beings the genuine freedom to accept or reject His love.”
- Ken Miller, Cell Biologist/Brown University Professor/Christian, from his book 'Finding Darwin's God'How about a spherical earth that spins around the sun and why not give exact dimensions? That would have been mind blowing. Distance from the sun, diameter or the sun and planets? 14 billion years ago would be nice. Instead up until that last few hundred years people read the bible and thought the earth was flat and everything revolves around earth and we still have perfectly good people think the universe is 6000 years old. There is no reason to not include these informations, other then they didn't have the information. The Koran attempted to describe the shape of the earth, but failed miserably by stating it's shaped like an egg. But for the life of me I can't understand why muslims think that's accurate. How many times have I had that conversation in these forums and heard the muslims say that it's an accurate description. Even when I show them the below picture. You description the universe given by the bible is the same thing, but you hold onto anyway.
Why does any of that matter? The point of the account has nothing to do with informing everyone about dimensions and distances and such. And no, I'm pretty sure the majority of humanity throughout history wouldn't have any concept of things on that kind of scale described in billions of years or that the sun is X number of cubits from the earth. It simply describes how everything humans are familiar with got here and that they're the result of God, and it tells it in a way that any human who has ever walked the earth (past/present/future) would understand.
Besides, I find the fact that the description of the condition of the earth given in verse two matches the actual condition of the earth before the oxygenated atmosphere/land/life pretty mind blowing. Not to mention everything else.
Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
"In fact, the primitive Earth long remained covered in darkness, wrapped in dense burning clouds into which continuously poured water vapor from volcanic emissions. When temperatures finally cooled sufficiently, the clouds began to melt into rain, and the primordial atmosphere produced storms of unimaginable proportions, under which the Earth groaned and flowed. At first, falling on incandescent rock, the rain evaporated, but the evaporation gradually cooled the crust until the water could accumulate in the depressed regions of the Earth's surface, forming the first oceans."
http://palaeos.info/hadean/hadean.htm
Then, of course, the next thing it says is that God, from 'the face of the waters' perspective, said, "Let there be light".Yup, that just what I thought you'd say. You're just like the Muslims claiming the earth is egg shaped.
We don't have to think hard to understand how significant it would have been to have a proper and accurate description of the Universe. Sure from a Jewish perspective a proper description would be irrelevant because there intention was to instil entitlement in Jewish men. The fact that it was not intended for us a few thousand years later is another indication of what it was intended for. Why try to be accurate and leave doubt? If your going to describe the universe and earth then do it. Never mind this 4 pillar nonsense. Tell me, if you were a Muslim would you be looking at that egg and thinking "yup, that about right"So, nevermind the fact that the one place in the creation account that it actually takes the time to describe the setting, it's absolutely right? That's pretty significant. Or that it lists 13 specific events and 6 major eras in the correct chronological order from a surface (human) perspective? You're demanding it be something it was never intended to be, and refuse to acknowledge the accuracy in what it does say, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter what it said. You still wouldn't acknowledge it. You wouldn't even acknowledge that the bible depicts Israelite men being punished, even though the whole point of the Jewish people replacing the texts they had lost by re-writing them while in exile was to explain to the younger generations how their being in exile was punishment. Doesn't matter. You're going to see what you want to see.
The description of creation is so far out of whack you have to retranslate the entire thing to make any sense. You seem to be about the only one who thinks it accurate. You tell me it's accurate and then tell me you have to see it from their position 3000 years ago. Sure it may seem accurate to people who didn't know better, but we know better. I've never ever seen the translation day say era. To make matter even worse is that it describes the first mammals as livestock. Livestock were man made/breed wild animals. You talk like it common knowledge that it's accurate. Just like the Muslims and the egg shaped earth.
Show me where God punishes the specifically. By them, I mean the prophets. Sure eventually he gives them rules and expects them to follow those rules, but where in Genesis specifically does he punish his chosen people. He treats them as equal and even takes advice from them. Sounds like propaganda to lead Jewish men to think they were descended from Gods.If the creation account was 'so far out of whack', and if I had to 'retranslate the entire thing', then it would be simple to pick that apart. Instead, we get into long, drawn out discussions that focus on the sauropsid/synapsid thing, the sun/moon/stars on day 4, and the whole 'day' thing. Out of 4.54 billion years of history, with 13 specific events and 6 major eras specifically talked about, the three things you constantly hang on make it clear it's much closer than you want to acknowledge. As for the livestock thing, I'm sure you realize 'livestock' is not what it says in the Hebrew text. Just like it doesn't say 'great whales'. Remember, the people doing the translating make assumptions too. But your mind is already made up, so it's not like you're actually going to give any of this any real consideration. You've dismissed it before you even began. For instance ...
"Show me where God punishes them specifically."
And here we are at this again. Clearly you're more interested in arguing than actually having a discussion. I did show you where God punishes them specifically, and you called foul because it wasn't in Genesis. Remember? The Book of Judges? 1st and 2nd Kings? Exile? The temple destroyed? You know, when they lost their land and were taken captive? Like what 2 Samuel says about Solomon (son of God) being punished by the sons of man? "I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands." It's kind of a major theme of the OT. But it doesn't agree well with your 'propaganda' argument, so you gloss right over it.
Also ... "I've never ever seen the translation day say era." The Hebrew word translated as 'day' in Genesis 1 is 'yom', or 'yawm'.....
"It can denote: 1. the period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness), 2. the period of twenty-four hours, 3. a general vague "time," 4. a point of time, 5. a year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)." - The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (1980, Moody Press)
Other Uses of Yom
Day is not the only translation for the word Yom. Here are some other uses.
Time
It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.
In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?
Year
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.
Age
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." These range from sentences like "stricken in age," meaning old age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1; Joshua 23:1 and 23:2), and other times it says "old age" (Genesis 21:2, Genesis 21:7). Genesis 47:28 refers to "the whole age of Jacob," therefore yom here refers to an entire lifetime. In Zechariah 8:4, it says old men and women will sit in the streets of Jerusalem, "each with cane in hand because of his age."
And I thought it was me who doesn't understand, but I do understand. If I know the future and the past then my knowledge of the past will be changing, but I will be unaware of the changes. If God had intervened and given him another option, then the me in the future would still be aware of that decision.
I personally think we should be teaching people that if we hear voices telling us to kill people or family that we should get help immediately. Too many have killed people because of the voices in their heads. Stories like this are no favour to anyone.
That sounds just like something Hitler would have said and followed through...
Are you suggesting that's not the case? Would you rather live the life of an Aborigine or any other indigenous tribal lifestyle? With no scientific discovery, no physics and mathematics, no accumulated knowledge? Because that's the alternative. Unless you live like that now, you're the product of a very atrocious history just like the rest of us.
Your God and Hitler are a perfect couple.
Survival of the fittest? Is that what you get from the bible? We can't just all get along? You should not kill, unless of course you suspect your neighbour will attack first? Is that your religion causes so many wars? Sorry, couldn't help it.
I'm sure you really could have helped it if you wanted. Whether or not your delicate sensibilities can handle it, that's what it was in that age. You have to understand that society as we know it now comes from this. These were the first societies and it was rough going at first, and only those who found a way to survive it are still represented today. There were many others who didn't fair so well who are now forgotten. And compared to others in that region in that time, what's described in the bible was revolutionary in how the Israelites were to handle it. Like in the way they were supposed to give the people who inhabited their land the option to continue to live there as long as they conformed to the idea that the Israelites were in charge.
And you have to understand, God was operating in an existence that now includes beings behaving of their own will, and not of His. That's what these stories are describing. Whether you think there's any truth to them or not, whether or not you think it's all fiction, you at least have to understand the context of the story. What would morality be if everything conformed to God/nature? Is it immoral when one animal kills another? Morality wouldn't be a question without individual wills. Commandments wouldn't be necessary. It's the introduction of free will that's the story here. That's exactly what's described in the Adam/Eve story. And it's these behavioral changes that can actually be seen in the historical record that brought about one of the most violent ages we've ever known. And it's that incredibly violent age that is the setting in which these stories are set. It's described in every written history of that age/region, not just the books of Moses.Sorry but you are completely misunderstanding the OT. It has nothing to do with free will. It's merely a series of stories the Israelites told themselves to justify and rationalize what they were doing. A merciful God would not have given any particular group these instructions. Hasn't anyone caught on yet that God's always say what people want to hear?
Did you not notice how the OT paints the Jewish people in a rather bad light? Completely incapable of behaving in the way their God wanted them to? Is this what they wanted to hear?
How can you say it has nothing to do with free will? The very first story describes a man and woman given one rule that they broke. Abraham being tested to see if he'll 'willfully' follow God's command/will. Commandments that were given and then described as being repeatedly broken. The God of the universe says 'let there be light', and then it says 'and there was light'. Then He says don't eat from that tree, then they do. How can you possibly miss the theme of 'will' throughout? Thy 'will' be done? It's clearly about behavior that was not in line with what God 'willed' to be.
And your whole 'the OT is propaganda' argument is absurd. You're suggesting a text that's made up of multiple independent texts written by numerous authors over the course of many centuries, including the first five books that we still don't know who wrote, when, or for what purpose, centuries after the fact much of it re-written while the Jewish people were in exile and no longer had a nation of their own, was deliberately written as propaganda?
Then, you're telling me how a merciful God should behave. According to...? You? Do you not see a problem with that?No, I don't see the problem at all. The OT doesn't paint the Jewish people in bad light because God never disciplines them. He treats them as special, just as how people would describe themselves. God confronts Sara's slave and tells her to go back to the people who enslave and rape her, but the same God says nothing to those who enslave and rape her. God constantly tell Abraham that certain land is owed to him.
You keep bringing up that we don't know who wrote the texts, as if that has some significance?
I most certainly will tell you how a merciful God should behave. If he is described as merciful then merciful he should be. Tell me does the God of the OT resemble the definition of merciful?
merciful
adjective
1 God is merciful: forgiving, compassionate, clement, pitying, forbearing, lenient, humane, mild, kind, softhearted, tenderhearted, gracious, sympathetic, humanitarian, liberal, tolerant, indulgent, generous, magnanimous, benign, benevolent. ANTONYMS cruel.God never punished the Jewish people? Now I know you know better than that. The whole reason it says they spent 40 years in the wilderness was a punishment. They were to wonder aimlessly until the disobeying generation died. The whole book of Judges is a repetitive theme of them disobeying, being punished, righting their ways, repeat. Like 20 times. It describes Israelites being struck down by God in plain site of everyone as punishment. And remember exile? Remember the whole reason the Jewish people recited and rewrote the books of Moses and all the other texts? It was to teach the younger generations why they ended up losing the land promised to them and to explain why they were then in exile. Even in the example you gave, according to the Jewish people, the nation of Islam was the result of Abraham and Sarah's lack of faith. A nation that has been in direct opposition of the Jewish people ever since. Your statement couldn't be further from the truth.
Yes, not knowing how old they are or who wrote them is significant. Especially when you're talking about knowing the intent of the authors. Wouldn't you first need to know who the authors were before making an informed assessment of their intent?
The God of the OT was working within the confines of a world where free will existed for the purpose of bringing about a savior for all the world. A savior needed because of free will. A savior who said to forgive others and God will forgive you. To love Him and love one another. To not kill each other or steal each others stuff. To turn the other cheek when others wrong you. The whole point of existence was so you and I and everyone else could choose whether or not to acknowledge Him as the creator, or whether or not to acknowledge Him at all. How you don't see a merciful God in that tells me you probably just don't want to. Like in the way you're reading the OT the way you want to see it, allowing you to completely ignore the whole point of the whole thing and just say "God never disciplines them".Just like he disciplined Lot and his two daughters by saving them form the city he destroyed. His favourites first. Lot offering up his daughters shows what little respect he has for women and for the two angles and their ability to defend themselves. Lot's daughters planing and executing incest meets no words from God. But he certainly shows no mercy to the rest of the inhabitants of the city. Nope, written by someone trying to give entitlement to Jewish men. Right down to God telling Abraham how to mark Jewish men by physical abusing babies. To date I've never meet a man you says he doesn't want his foreskin and yet God want's it removed for this particular group.
So, everything else aside, the 40 years wondering aimlessly, the entire book of Judges, exile, the whole point of writing all of these stories down while in exile, none of that counts because Lot and his daughters didn't get reprimanded? Those Lot/Abraham chapters, these fractured stories that happened before the 400 years enslaved in Egypt, passed down verbally a good fifteen generations of so, long before the exodus, before the commandments, before the Mitzvah laws on who and who not to procreate with, because these stories didn't specifically explain that these people were somehow immediately punished for what you view as completely immoral and reprehensible actions in spite of the horrendous conditions in which they existed, that's what you key in on and decide the specific God you're looking for as you understand isn't what He's made out to be? What about Job losing his family and livestock all while nursing boils on his skin? For doing nothing but being faithful? Does this not completely fly in the face of the God you keep claiming you don't see? Are you sure you're looking for the right God? Or are you looking for a particular version of how you see Him?
And are you really comparing circumcision to child abuse? Are you accusing the entirety of the Jewish faith, as well as countless others throughout the world, including practically every doctor, of child abuse? Not to sound dramatic, but come on. Out of everything I've brought up, these are the things you key in on to pass absolute judgement on an ancient document you clearly have little more than a surface-level knowledge of? And you don't think there's maybe just a little bit of bias in that assessment? Are you sure you're not just seeing what you want to see?Circumcision is an absurd and barbaric practice. And the fact that the God you believe in demands it of his chosen people is ridiculous. The removal any piece of the body without consent is abuse. My Jewish doctor removed mine at birth without my consent. But I guess I can now eat passover?
Exodus 19
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”
Propaganda?
I'm still reading to see if I can find any Hebrew male being disciplined. Not yet. Let's see... Hebrew slaves... Personal Injures... “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. That's a particularly nice one.
Let's see what else... “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. That's nice. No mention of paying your slaves and giving them freedom?
Any more... “You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.
How nice, let the first born stay with their mothers for seven days before...
Reading... 31 “I will establish your borders from the Red Sea[a] to the Mediterranean Sea,[b] and from the desert to the Euphrates River. I will give into your hands the people who live in the land, and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.”
More entitlement.
Still reading... The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
Yup, that makes lot of sense.
“‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.
Well, it's about time!!!! Didn't say anything to Lot's daughters?
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
What the...
“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
Harsh?
It appears to me God doesn't punish his chosen group, he tells others to punish individuals. I can't read any more. Please show me where God punishes his chosen people? In the mean time I'll show you how Moses has to straighten out God. God's got a bad temper.
9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.”
11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” 14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Please show me where God punishes his chosen people?You're still looking for a particular version of God. You have this idea of what you think God should be versus what you're seeing. Yet you won't acknowledge the obvious point to the story. The obvious goal here that all the laws were made to accomplish. The portions of the bible you're reading, it's the laws themselves that are the primary focus. And they're for the purpose of controlled breeding to realize a particular result.
But punishment of male Hebrews is all throughout the old testament. Just read the book of Kings. You'll find plenty of examples of what you're looking for there. For example, one of the kings of Israel (or Judah, not sure which), King Jeroboam stretched out his hand to have a Man of God arrested for protesting against an unauthorized altar the king had built, and God "withered" Jeroboam's hand. But the Man of God later was disobedient himself and the Lord delivered him to a lion, which tore him apart.
That bit is from a hub by martygoldengate who has a well written hub that sums up all the stories of the two books of Kings. Over and over again it tells the story of kings of Israel/Judah who sinned or lost faith and were punished.
Or this ...
2 Samuel 7:14 - I (God) will be his (Solomon's) father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands.I'm not looking for any version of God. You should notice in 2 Samuel 7:14 that God makes men inflict the floggings. This makes it easy for the men to flog as they are no accountable. God commanded it.
Tell me, do you really believe in a God that would kill a child for getting angry with his parents? Mercy me!You're missing the point. I'm giving you examples of Israelite males being punished. We can now change gears and talk about something else, but that's the whole reason I pointed this out. It's what you were looking for.
That's not really fair because originally I was only speaking of Genesis. Here we are way past that and God is threatening and further dividing his chosen people, just like he did when Moses was on the mountain.
Sorry, didn't realize that was a requirement. You said "Please show me where God punishes His chosen people". It's kind of important to note the purpose and focus of each book. Maybe what you're looking for isn't there because that wasn't the purpose of that particular document. That would be like reading the US constitution looking for examples of people being punished by the law. That's just not the purpose of that document.
here's another thing on the idea of free will.
A lot of christians will claim that the reason god does not provide evidence of his existence is because it would interfere with a human's free will to choose him. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Satan, according to christian theology knew full well that god existed, and he chose to go against him anyway. Therefore, if god were to show himself to mankind in mass-form (and not through a several thousand year old book) humans would still be capable of choosing to not follow him.On Numbers 5, what do you think the consequences were for the woman if the herb-infused "bitter water" caused her to abort her baby? It was proof of guilt, and she would most likely be taken out and stoned to death - unless she was a woman of the Levite tribe, in which case she would probably be burned alive.
There are no records existing, but how many times do you think this little god-mandated "trial by abortion" turned out to declare the woman guilty? This is an early version of the inquisition. No proof was necessary of her infidelity - her husband just had to suspect that she had been sleeping around. Then he brought her to the priest, and he made her drink a dirt/water mixture and for some reason played with her hair.
These types of trials were notorious in the middle ages. There was the trial by fire, the trial by water, the trial by boiling, etc - and almost always the odds were stacked against the person who was accused. In the inquisition itself, all it took to be arrested, tortured and questioned was an accusation. There was hardly ever proof, unless you count a confession under torture as proof. The philosophy was "if they're innocent, god will protect them". He never did. Does that mean that all of those thousands of people were really jews or witches or muslims or anything else? Of course not. It means that if you stick your hand into a boiling pot of oil, you're going to get a serious third-degree burn, and you're likely going to face the consequences - especially without any medicine to treat the wound. If you dunked a suspected witch in water and she drowned - oops, she was innocent after all (but still dead). If she floated, however - it's proof of witchcraft, and you can lug her out of the water just in time to burn her to death! Everybody wins!
How can you justify this kind of superstitious nonsense?First off, I think it's fair to say that your comparison to witch trials and such is a bit imbalanced. The chances of a miscarriage, or a distended belly, of a woman also accused of possible adultery and put the through the test, is hardly the same as sink and drown as an innocent or float and be condemned as guilty and get set on fire.
And though I realize you put no stock in the story being told, there is the whole bit about this being in the tabernacle where God's presence was with them in the ark and all of that. I don't even pretend to understand all of that, but I'd say that's one thing the inquisition lacked. That and the fact that they came long after Jesus who specifically saved an adulterer with the whole 'let he without sin cast the first stone' thing.
See, the context of the story is really important here. I know this sounds barbaric to you and I, but you have to at least acknowledge what's being described here. This is a particular group given very specific commands. A particular bloodline promised to a particular man. And all of this done for a particular purpose. Breeding was strictly controlled and enforced. Their diet was strictly controlled. And these people had a tendency to do whatever they wanted. After all, why make a law about not sleeping with your mom if that wasn't something that could potentially happen? Like it says in Ezra 9 I believe, the goal was not to delete the 'holy seed'. The spirit of God that He said 'would not contend with humans forever' in Genesis 6. The spirit of God breathed into the nostrils of Adam. Breeding with humans, if not strictly controlled and kept 'in the family' (as long as it's not too close) would dilute that spirit. The same spirit that then was made available to all through Jesus. And that's when it all changed. Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulterer by pointing out nobody was without sin. The inquisition should have really paid attention to that part.Is it? After all, a "proven" (and I use the term loosely) adulteress would be put to death, and it's a known fact that there were several herbal ingredients that could force a miscarriage - which would, by definition, be considered to be an abortion. The woman in question, should the test prove her guilt, be killed - and also, incidentally, cause the death of her innocent child. After all, even if she WERE guilty, the child would be dead.
You do understand that the passage in John that you're referring to was added later by scribes - in the mid 2nd-3rd centuries, and the majority of biblical scholars do not believe that it ever happened at all, right? In fact, if you open your bible to that passage, it probably has a note in the footnotes section that says as much. Jesus did NOT say (if any of the story actually happened) that the woman was not deserving of death. He never proclaimed her innocence, and never even said that she should be allowed to live. He just deflected the just, legal punishment of someone actually "caught in the act"
Here's a question. The Isralites experienced god first-hand. He fed them. He gave them water. he lead them through the desert. He delivered them rather violently from the hands of slave-holders in egypt. He parted the red (or reed) sea. He talked to them, protected them, commanded them. If all that is the case, why on EARTH do you think that these "chosen" and "special" people have SUCH a bad memory? Moses leaves for a few days, and they've already created an idol to worship. They experience all these miraculous things, and then seem to forget them by amnesia at the drop of a hat. If god were to give me food for 40 years, I couldn't deny that he existed. I wouldn't have to WORSHIP him, but I couldn't just forget that he was there. Don't you see the problem here?So now you're saying they probably gave the women an herbal concoction to force a miscarriage? And what do you think the alternative would be for suspected adulterers in this age of human history without this test? Looking at this in the 'no God' framework, excluding of course the malice act of forced miscarriages due to herbal inducement to I guess save face for the male accuser, this gave an accused woman a rather strong chance of being found innocent of the accusations. And if human history of that time and place can attest, that was a much better chance than what most would have gotten. Of course, the only reason I even frame it in that light is because I know you give no credence to the whole tabernacle/spiritual/presence of God element.
I don't think the problem was a bad memory or even a lack of belief that God existed. The problem was that they were humans. Free willed humans who behaved contrary to God's will no matter what He did. Whether He punished them, fed them manna from the sky, or water from rocks, they still didn't comply. Is that so strange? Do children always behave even though they know full well their parents exist? Do they really appreciate what their parents do for them and provide for them? Human behavior is a major theme throughout these stories. If it weren't for humans knowingly behaving like they know they shouldn't, there'd be no reason for establishing laws and affixing punishments to those laws. It's not like knowing something or someone exists curbs behavior. The entirety of human history could basically be summed up as people trying to control the behaviors of other people. Trying to control human behavior is like trying to nail jello to a tree. As the story of the Israelites attest, even God could not control them.
I've read a lot of posts in these forums, but this one takes the entire cake.
Let's see, the Israelites justify the slaughter, rape and slavery of entire tribes by saying they had to because God commanded it. And you sit at you computer thousands of years later and say the slaughter, rape and slavery of these tribes was an ACT OF MERCY? I wonder if you were on the receiving end you would think the murder of your children was merciful? I don't believe anywhere does it say these peoples were doing anything wrong, except taking up space that the Israelites thought should be theres. Much like Hitler.
Hitler thought he was doing God a favour by his attempt to kill 11 million Jews. If he claimed God had directed him to kill them all would you feel the killing were merciful? After all he was trying to kill them swiftly and painlessly.
By "proper understanding" of course, you mean YOUR understanding. I don't care what your website has to say about anything, to be honest. You have admitted that you have no background in the bible, archaeology, scripture as literature, early christianity or science. Why should I listen to ANYTHING you have to say, when I can focus on people with a background in knowledge that actually study this crap - who, incidentally, disagree with your "interpretation"
Hey, I know that you are trying to make your point....however, the interest in finding real answers to these folks are only a ploy to get you angry and in an argument.....or, perhaps try to sway you to their way of thinking. It is simply not worth the effort that you are putting forth....plant a seed and let the Holy Spirit water and harvest it. If all they want to do is pat them self on the back about how smart they think they are....in the end they will find heartache and tears as they have cheated their own self.
If they are truly seeking to know if God is real....truly all they have to do is to ask God with their whole heart to reveal Him Self to them....God is faithful and His desire is that no one person goes to eternal damnation. However, if they don't have the courage to ask of God.....the truth has been presented and your hands are clean.
Truly, I don't believe that people don't believe or acknowledge God in some part of their thought or being....I believe the problem is anger....bitterness and resentment of God. Until they are really seeking the truth they will not find it. Be blessed in Jesus name and quit wasting your time and breathe here....they are not really interest in truth....but, frustrating you and belittling those that have found the truth. The one to best explain God and make Him personal is God....and, all they have to do is ask Him!you do not speak for everyone who disagrees with your way of thinking, and you certainly do not think for me. Whether or not you believe people actually DO believe in god, but claim not to, the fact of the matter is that I was a former christian who is now an atheist - and i have years and years of bible college where I learned theology, archaeology, Greek, Hebrew and Latin under my belt so I can have these conversations with other intelligent individuals, whether we agree or not.
If you don't like it, why do you bother posting in a forum that clearly isn't up your alley? I'm not angry. i'm not bitter. i'm not egotistical and I'm open to ALL of the evidence. I am open minded enough to change my mind if the evidence goes against what I currently think. Are you able to say the same? With statements like "these folks" "these people" etc, you're only proving the point - that believers are able to lump everyone without their shared belief into a tiny little box and dismiss them without cause, just because they don't agree with you.
What you seem to fail to be able to understand is that, since I don't believe in god (anymore) I can't be angry at him. Are you angry at unicorns? Bigfoot? Aliens? no, you just don't believe in them. You cannot conceivably be angry at something that you don't believe exists at all. What would be the point?
there was a fine if someone assaulted a woman and she miscarried. if she died, the assaulter was killed. therefore it seems that god does not consider a fetus to have the same worth as the woman.
That is ridiculous to the fact that there is no hard evidence for the existence of God and liking or disliking God has absolutely no bearing on that fact.
Absolutely false.the mere existence of the Earth is proof itself. How can you explain life originating from a primordial soup? It takes more faith to believe with that fairy tale than to believe in the creation story.
Even scientists admit that life will only originate from other life which result to the law of biogenesis.Pure nonsense, the Earth is not proof of any god.
That can be explained with science, didn't you know?
That would mean you know nothing about science or any explanations it would have in that regard, hence you are not in a position to comment intelligently.
Sorry, but it's blatantly obvious you are fabricating stories. How very dishonest.you are funny troubled man.
so you have the answer on how the earth or universe begun? Feel free to explain.Gravity caused the Earth. Why do you say there was a time the Universe did not exist? Proof please.
I take your question to mean that you are one who adheres to the assumption that the universe is eternal. (forgive me if I have jumped to a conclusion) What proof would there be for that? Or any assumption for that matter? Aren't we all currently shooting in the dark when it comes to questions such as this one?
Assumption? The Universe exists - you have proof that it didn't at some point - please show me the proof. The default is that it has always existed. If that is not the case - please explain why you claim to know other wise.
I guess it just doesn't make sense. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but is there any other instance you can point to where something just appeared from no where? Even a tiny atom?
What does that have to do with the question I asked you?
I see the Universe exists. You claim that there was a point where it didn't. Show me please.I make no claims. We lack any evidence to come to a conclusion and consider it the only option.
I simply don't see how it would make any sense to assume that the universe is eternal. It sounds rather miraculous to me. I'm sure I don't understand your position fully.
I guess, if we assume the concept of time did not exist at some juncture; we can assume that there will come a point where the concept of time will again cease to exist. And, I guess it isn't far fetched to imagine that the universe existed prior to the inception of time and will continue to exist once that has passed. From that viewpoint, strictly between the beginning and end of time, I could see claiming that the universe is eternal. But, don't you ever wonder what was before that point? How it was, before that point? What would be beyond that point? Do you think it serves no purpose to wonder?Sorry - you lost me. I thought you said that the Universe was not eternal and started at some point? Not so? We have evidence that the Universe exists. Your assumption that is has not always existed is what I question. Now Time had a beginning as well? Can you show me this claim also.
I can't prove anything and you can't prove anything. Other than that we have different ideas of how this reality came to be. I'm not here to convince you of anything. I am simply attempting to understand the logic behind a claim that the universe just is...and has always been.
I can only go by conclusions based on observations; as can you. So, let's back up. We'll forget everything I said about time since, if the Universe is eternal, it isn't pertinent. I see no evidence to lead me to the conclusion that the universe could just 'be'. I am led to this conclusion by the fact that things don't just appear out of no where. To say that they have always been sounds like something I would say to the kids to blow them off and convince them to stop asking questions.
I'm sure you would agree that you can't get something from nothing. But, you are attempting to tell me that something just 'is'; which equates to the same thing. There has to be more to it than that. You seem like an intelligent guy, please explain.So - you claim that the Universe did not exist and you think it was made? created? majicked into existence? - please explain. Your assumptions so far are that: 1, it did not exist, 2, it was made/created/majicked/?, 3, it was made out of something as things don't appear out of nowhere.
Please explain your claims. I made none other than the Universe exists, and I have no data to suggest that it did not. That is your claim.Have I really claimed all of that, or have I simply raised an eyebrow at a claim you won't support. I suppose I'll let you have the floor.
I don't think the universe was created. I can only assume that the lack of information skews our perception. I, like everyone else, don't know the answer. I do think that saying it simply is is a dangerous statement. How and why are questions we will always ask and until we find natural answers magical ones will always pop up. Magical is an irritating answer. Since none of us truly believe in magic.Universe exist is a fact.
Time is a human construct, a concept as you said.
As the universe exist and as there is nothing called time, but the motion of objects in relation to each other, we have to conclude that universe is eternal.
Otherwise one will have to explain what time is and how and where it ends.Yes - you claimed all that.
I have made no such claims. The Universe is. I have no data to support any other statement and must therefore conclude that it has always been. You are the one claiming an awful lot based on your observations. Please back them up. I have nothing to back up with. I have no data other than the Universe is.
This is why I was not able to offer the correct word to describe your "beginning."OK. So, it is. Can't argue that point, now can I?
But, saying that I made claims that the universe was created isn't entirely honest. I made no claims, other than such a simplistic approach as 'it just is' was pointless. I still think that.In a dichotomy if one is not possible then the other should be. Either the universe is always there or it was not. So when you say it was not always there the opposite, that it came out, created must be true.
Is is present. Without time there is only present, eternal present. Where do you put 'beginning' in present?
If you can resolve YOUR contradiction, that is time is a concept and time is an integral part of the universe, you can solve the riddle.
Either time is a concept or is an integral part of the universe, it cannot be both.No. I don't think the universe was created. But, I don't feel the need to make simplistic statements such as 'Existence exists..so there.'
I see no reason to assume that the appearance of the universe we inhabit couldn't be part of a natural progression. Sure, there will come a time where we bump into the wall of something from nothing; but that wall is so far removed from our collective horizon of knowledge that it seems silly to try to sidestep it, pretend it doesn't exist, or make up answers that we can't support with proof.
Yes - I understand you think that. Sorry if it is too simple for you. Notice the question marks I added to your majick/creation/beginning/whatever word you want to use. I see you have not actually backed any of it up other than to tell me that my explanation is too simple for you.
Odd - you agreed you made the claims, then go on to deny making them.Your religion causes too much conflict Mr. Knowles. I asked a simple question. So sorry you resorted to lies and innuendo in order to hide the fact that you have no answers.
Ah - back to the Troll. No surprises there then. Oh well.
ciao.
Isn't a concept a human creation, an idea conceived by humans or other sentient beings? So what has universe got to do with a human creation?
Well, look at evolution. Things appear to have evolved prior to our appearance on the scene. A large percentage of the scientific community considers the universe to be around what? 14 billion years old? It appears that things were changing well before we decided to keep count.
Yes, Man measures time. But, it is not a human creation. It is an integral part of the reality we live in. The universe we live in.Man measures time therefore the measurement of time is a human creation.
I'm going to side with Emile on this one. Yes, "clocks" are a human creation, and we have constructed various ones throughout history in order to create a standard 'measurement' of time.
However, time as a concept in physics is considered very much a characteristic of our universe; a dimension that is part of a matrix we call "spacetime" in which the laws of our universe are governed.
A very good example of how this matrix affects our universe is with electromagnetic radiation and the speed of light. The speed itself is not so much determined by the ability or capacity of electromagnet radiation to propagate through space as it governed by the properties of this matrix; specifically, the permittivity and permeability of spacetime. These properties act as a sort of "speed barrier" for which anything in the universe is able to travel beyond.You will notice I didn't say time was a human invention, I said the measurement of time is a human invention. Does any other creature measure time?
So things were changing and that change we measure as time.
So things were just changing in form, that is the change occur within the universe.
So the universe as a whole is timeless that is eternal?
If the universe always existed, then you wouldn't have changed your avatar. It flies in the face of the "Eternal Universe" theory. It is proof positive that ugly faces always disappear, and therefore existence is not a constant.
You do realize you can get banned for continually insulting people?
Is that your game? The "Ban Game"?
This is no insult, it is reality
Please, don't ban me! What will ever come of Driveby Quipper? I don't want to go to HubPergatory. Nooooooooooooooooooo!
By the way, those jeans make your ass look fat.- Don't worry. I don't report people. But, there are those who do when they run across insulting posts whose only purpose is to insult.
Edit: I thought my avatar was naked except for the socks. If you think she is fat I guess you'd call me fat also. That's ok. I don't think I'm fat so your opinion doesn't carry any water.There is always a fuddy-duddy kill-joy whit a puckered pooper hanging around waiting to drop the hammer.
He was here before under so many avatars that got banned.
Hi mark,
Do not tell me that gravity caused life to exist? Come on, be real. If it did, all planets should have life on them.
Scientists have an explanation called the Big Bang Theory. All the evidence to date fits the theory well. Sorry, that you have not heard of this theory, but that would explain a lot.
Okay, lots there to object to, but indulge me:
" divorce is wrong,"
Experience has shown us that it is wrong to stay in a relationship that is not based on mutual benefit. Marriage is subject to this observation. No matter what a book says that was written by men in a culture where women were property and did not have the rights that men had, in which men could and did marry often at the same time, our experience has shown us that such realtionships are destructive to humans.
That trumps a book any time. And any god I can believe in is better than I am not worse.
I'll hold my personal morality up against Leviticus to any god any day of the week and come out morally ahead.
The bible was clearly the word of Man. Doesn't matter who inspired it.
cheersGod did not mandate that men should marry many times because He instituted Marriage for only one man and one woman. Women are not considered to be a property in the Bible. Please READ THE BIBLE and know what it says. do not just believe on what people say.
the concept of marriage was not adopted by the church as a union before god until the middle ages. Marriage was never between one man and one woman - the woman was the property of her father until she was sold to her husband, and then she became HIS property. I have read the bible. I went to theology school. I seem to know it better than you do.
servantofgod,
Look at Revelation chapters 2 & 3 where the church digress away from Jesus' teachings and knowest not that [they] art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, yet you call yourself a servant of god?
Do you know that according to the Tarot Cards that there is the ignorant fool and the wise fool. Before one goes through earth's learning process they are fools not believing in god but after they have gone through earth's classroom they are wise for not believing in god but appear as fools to those still going through the learning experiences. Look at Isaiah 7:14-22, which Christianity uses to prove Jesus is god's son, he had to {forsake} the belief in the 2 kings {god and devil} of the land man-in-mass abhor {death} before he chose to live by the laws of honey {the self reproducing environment} over {civilization} called butter. Yet you call yourself a servant of god without having done it?
Don't you realize, according to Genesis 2 & 3, the only reason we have civilization is because we began to judge things good and evil which, for everyone expecting to be {raptured}, we'll have to go through the flaming {purifying fire} sword {become cut away from all attachments including family (Matthew 19:29)}. So how are you a servant of god and haven't been purified from the belief in good and evil (Daniel 12:10)? Be real!
I think the most exact evidence that I can offer of the creator is that each one of us have our own fingerprint and there is no other with it. It can not be produced in a test tube, and with all the millions and even billions of people who have been born....one's fingerprint is uniquely one's own! I am a creative person but could not even begin to imagine trying to create all fingerprints that have already been assigned to those who have been born and all that are yet to be born.
I am not religious....but, I do believe in Jesus Christ and my heavenly Father-God. I can only tell you what I know and believe....the best way to find that God is real is to ask Him to reveal His self to you....and, then have an open mind and heart to receive....acknowledge and accept His Son-Jesus Christ. Not much point to argue or debate this issue....I am sure you can find many reasons or excuses to put your mind to rest about your knowledge. But, one thing I do know.....is when God reveals Himself to you....it will be enlightening and you will never be the same.
Personally, I would not want to live my life without God the Father, Jesus Christ-His Son or the Holy Spirit in it....They are my strength, help and comforters. Be real and ask God to reveal Himself to you in a way that no man can do...He is faithful when you ask with your whole heart.
Be blessed in gaining truth...wisdom....knowledge and understanding.Of course you are religious. Weird that you need to lie about this - why is that exactly? There is no way you can claim the things you claim here without being religious. Perhaps you could define the word "religious," for us as you are using it?
You think you have wisdom, truth, knowledge and understanding huh?
Do yourself a favor - Be real.Being religious comes with laws that no man within him self can keep...belief is based on what has been revealed....having fellowship through prayer and the written word. Again, as I said before....you will make up any excuse or try reasoning within your own intellect....are you afraid to ask God to make and reveal Him self to you?
You call me coward because I don't believe the same stuff you believe? I don't believe you have fellowship with anything but your own self righteousness.
This is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
Point of fact here, it is well known in legal and scientific circles that fingerprints are actually NOT unique. Fingerprint ID systems have had to be rethought as they would need to be able to catalogue and correctly identify millions of prints, without error, yet the current federal fingerprint database usually produces three or four matches for every print sent. In the case of a crime, it is usually easy to narrow this down to the suspect (if his prints are one of the matches) as the other matches can be ruled out using other evidence (i.e. geographical location etc). This would not be possible if a fingerprint ID system were used to gain access to a bank account or an airport, for example.There is also the fact that Koala Bears leave fingerprints which are impossible to tell apart from human ones.
This seems to be part of the age old argument between science and religion. The thing that always tips it for me is the scientific method. Science actively attempts to prove itself wrong in order to establish the truth. If science stumbled on hard evidence for God, science would change. If all religions were shown hard evidence that no God exists, they would not change, they would reinterpret the evidence to fit the belief. Though there is no solid evidence either way, there is plenty of evidence to show fallacies in every religious text in existence, without exception. Fallacies in scientific texts are usually discovered and reported by science, which then dismisses the theories and teaches them as examples of faults. Religious texts do not do this. Errors in religious texts are explained away and "reinterpreted" to fit the belief, as opposed to science, which changes the belief to fit the facts. This, to me, is enough proof that if there is a God (and I cannot be certain there is not), it is wildly unlikely that it/he/she would be anything like ANY of the current religious ideals. From this perspective, God, as religion perceives him, does not exist.The same could be said about snowflakes, yet we know crystals form randomly and are not created by an intelligence
Test tube babies have their own unique set of fingerprints.
Then, it would be sheer foolishness to conclude a God is doing that and more reasonable to understand it's simply random patterns.
Then, you are religious, by definition.
Many have tried and nothing happened. No gods showed themselves upon request. Are you going to now tell us that you requested to see God and He appeared?
i don't believe. That's why I'm asking for evidence. I thought that was abundantly clear.
You will have plenty of evidence, soon enough. Clear?
Not at all clear. Muddied and opaque, more likely.
I took that to be a veiled threat. "You will get what's coming to you soon enough," sort of thing.
I beleive it was Michael Servitus , who told of the christian church outside of the Catholic church. With all of your other reasoning, that the church is splintered and piecemeal in your thoughts, you would bring such a point of view that the catholic position was the only position? It is easy to "web" our own story and our own view , when it is convenient for our belief. Its showing very obvious that atheists do the same. ie.. at one point in time, there was only one (so called) christian group? There are very many texts, and historical records of the church. I find it amusing that one can dance and skip around just to make a statement. The Catholic church tried several times in history to corner the market, and to collect all the texts, but thhey were ultimately unsuccessful in doing so. They are also violators of Christian beliefs. they have a rather bloody political history and have married themselves to despot kings, and nations that beleive in human sacrifice. Their priests have blessed the offerings of babies in heathen idolotry. through the ages, they have offered doctrines of penance, of doing peneance for dead relatives. One was walking up and done the stairs of the temples on your knees in shatters of glass. another still is in existence that you can "pay" all of your relatives into heaven, with healthy size endowments. They have been very corporal and political through the ages and rife with corruptness. Abuse of young boys by priests by the droves. and I'm sure some atrocities on the female side. They offer at best a "universal" hope of majority rule religion to the masses. I'm not here to beat up the Catholics for you, and there surely are real beleivers within the catholic realm, but to say that they are the exclusive existence and only proponents of the faith throughout the ages? Your library is small, and your comprehension is dwarfed in this area. Maybe you didn't mean this.
I come from a perspective that you don't have to prove God to anyone. He can prove himself to anyone all by himself. ( you call that arrogant) , but indeed he says that NO ONE can come to the Father except the spirit draw him. but yet he said the call is Universal.. He hath commanded all men every where to repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. It goes against the kingdoms of this world. it sometimes goes against the agendas of organized churchs... Jesus said he came not to bring the "righteous" but rather the sinner to salvation.
I would liken this discussion to the oncoming train. you know sir, that all traffic laws defer right of way to the oncoming train. do you know why? dumb question huh? is it because the oncoming train carries its own authority? Its because unless the train( or an operator ) chooses for that train to stop, its not a gonna! Its big enough that you had better get outa the way!. and no one is dumb enouugh to try to push it around. No one even has a n interest. It is a known danger if you get in its way. thats another arguement against evolution as well, if you chose to believe. go ahead .. take that old train off the track and see how far it can go on its on.. random, huh! a few hundred feet is the farthest it can go on its own, at full speed and inertia: Man lives within a finite realm of physical law and power, yet the forces of creation and order of existence is evident, that their is a railroad track that it rolls on.. Though you cannot see how exactly how it happens, the very fact that it does happen. pick any element, pick any force, pick any thing at all that you want. the bullet from a gun will drop and fall at a certain point after it leaves the barrel, depending on the thrust "created" by the grains of powder. everything man makes, is determined by the creators limitations. Man hasn't created the perpetual motion he has sought for years and years, neither has he created the fountain of youth. But he keeps trying. ( and he has done very well at much of it).That is the way we are made. But for so many, it is a roadblock to them that God breathed the breath of life. however, my friend, the train keeps rolling. the force of life is greater than the train. Greater than the spacecraft. Greater than you can control, or handle. You have a certain size hand. it is limited by what it can do on its own. God has a large hand. HE is bigger than any church, any labratory, and bigger than any jar or box you can try to put him in. Man has destroyed more than he has created. that is sad. Yes it is sad that people fight in the name of religion. It is sad that the human spirit seems to give up when man has exhausted his own efforts. But God is still there when we give up. If you understand what I am saying, he is big enough to stop the train. Many times and in many ways he has shown his power is bigger than what any of us can comprehend. WE create, but we are limited within our knowledge and resources.. He is not limited, and his resources are unlimited as well.
The Train is Huge, and the bullet is powerful, but take the bullet out of the gun, and take the train off the track, and you will see.. someone made the railroad track fo the trian to roll upon. someone made the barrel and the firing pin. Man has done multiple experiments that even IF all the pieces were already "MADE" , dropping them ten million times on the floor they could not assemble themselves. So it was concluded that you have to ADD LIFE.
and then you have a different story.. God said in him was life and he is the light of the world. He is the giver of Life and the creator of all living things. -- keep trying to prove your case here. Gods drawings are in the brain, on the seascape, in the skies, he draws all over the place.. the stars are not randomly placed. they are there for a reason..
I recognize that man has done great things.. The dam over the Columbia river. was one of the earlyt great american engineering accomplishments. Also the dam over Niagra Falls. WE are very smart beings. The Rocket, the First trip to the moon, the first supercomputer. But the certain basic elements we use each and every time, Water, harnessed Hydro Power, weight, gravity, pressure, heat, centrifugal energy, the coil, electricity.the circuit, data flow, impulse, flow, friction, welding, and melting of solids through heat process, temper, atom structure, Man has only just began to understand how to harness and use these forces.
but let me point out.. every time a new born baby cries.. a new life is born. who are you that you can create life oh man? JM can you do this? God said, before you were in the womb, I knew you. How are you going to ever ever ever disprove that? and that my friend is my opinion of why you are still searching..
-and though I or even hundreds never convince you, one day you will look at him, and he will say, " I was there".
but what if he looked for our faults , like we look for his? How can man ever begin to even medically or physiologically discover how forgiveness between a father and a child can cause physical healing? but it happens. its in medical journals. Settling internal affairs create an environment for wholesome results. the "state of mind" is a scientific study. But more importantly it is a spiritual event.
They ARE learning of a medical condition including documented symptoms of a broken heart. who would have ever believed that! It used to be only the stuff of storybooks.. I am going to step out on a limb and say they also will eventually discover that health and life is sustainable through the power of Love. ie.. proven cases of sustaining life when love is present, and life lost when love is not present. does that make love a medicine? I don't know, but it is a powerful thing.
As many have suggested here, would you destroy all believers, with your activist "hate"? would you annilate all of humanity in your attempt to destroy faith? Somewhere you look and you will find that there is someone you have not forgiven. there is some void you have not been able to fill. Destroying others will never make you whole sir. Only what you are fighting can make you whole.. The lame, the halt, the blind, came to Jesus and he made them every bit whole. scared the bejeebers outa the religious, the scientists and the politicians. that was his credentials. Perhaps he is calling you through this forum and through someone here, to repent, to forgive , to love and to be saved? Perhaps you are being awarded a second chance.. You do believe that random events can cause order?, or that there is some sense in us being here? Perhaps this is your moment to believe.
"Choose you this day whom you will serve." will you choose God or will you choose to serve mammon?
respectfully;WOW! I was honestly moved by your comment. Very good points!
yeah, I can't muddle through your comment enough to respond to it. It doesn't make any sense. But yay, you have your own cheerleader, who ironically, already agrees with everything you believe.
Your argument seems to be based on a comparison between man and God. Man made the train, the tracks, the bullet and the gun, therefore there must be a creator because things have to be created? This is circular logic. X exists so it proves Y created it and Y is proof of the creation of X? This is not a reasoned argument. It is like saying "I prayed the sun would come up, and it did, therefore there must be a God because he answered my prayer". Using such logic, you could just as easily argue that you made the sun come up yourself. Never mind the fact that the sun would have come up anyway.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
0To the O.P. , perhaps if you'd pain a little more attention in class you might have learned a little more about the golden rule ! The loaded questions keep coming ! No one is going to change the mind of your're lack of faith ! Are they now .
genocide is certainly common, but i disagree that it's ever necessary.
~Headly, its no use. The one "flaw" with so called evolution (besides they can't find the perfect factors for its beginning) is that a certain part of mans brain has to be trained to function. An unknown factor has left some of us only able to use one side of the brain receptors efficiently. but it IS under study.. Make no mistake , we will get better with it as time goes on. In certain cases, help is needed. there are centers for brain study and male cognitive ability study. On the other hand, I don't think as much concern is directed towards the female brain, unless other extenuating factors are involved. just saying. I have tried several different ways to self program my own brain, such as using a randomly organized confluence of both rapid technical and sensory data transfer and voluntary brain imagerie integration techniques. The result was that the rapid data technique worked temporarily, whereas the voluntary image integration method stayed longer due to it adding the component of visual stimulation. Though inclusive at best was the fact that we better accept and believe what we observe, than what we're told.
There are three basic building blocks of human existence. what we see, what we hear, and what we can touch. God in Spirit form is not necessarily touchable. The physical evidence claimed by beleivers is Jesus Christ. Based on the exploration of the sciences, Since Jesus is not observable, (seeable), to them he doesn't exist. because he is is not making a sound they can hear, he does not exist. because there is nothing that they can touch except a bunch of old bones and old temples, there is nothing for the scientist to believe about Jesus except as a story with a few illustrations.
The problem I find with that is this. The light that scientists crawl through in space is indeed light. At the end of it is the creator and they know that and they are looking for certain aspects of that. The problem is the source of that light is not discoverable by this dimension, 3-D realm has lots to lose unless they discover the rest of the dimensions involved in life. The voice of God is lost to them for it extends its origins into another dimension as well. My friend JM is smart enough to know most of this. The only hopeful possibility is that these scientific minds, (give them due respect) are locked into only certain boundaries of exploration. But maybe they have not yet been brave enough to explore life outside the tangible. They cannot believe Gods existence because they cannot touch him. He's like the quarterback that took the ball and won't let them have it back. But yet in my mind he is as tangible as every little bit of brain, of bone, and of the spirit of life in a man. Life (breath) IS tangible, though you cannot hold it. you cannot examine it. it IS though. simple. period.
Let me get very primitive for the simple. for those who will understand. The apostle Paul was thrown ashore in a storm on the Isle Patmos But he walking into Athens, and in the midst of religious and atheistic worshippers of his day, he looked at all of the things they were worshipping, and realized the futility to say " look here, here's one more God you have forgotten". He was smart enough to NOT say "I have the ONLY GOD , and yours are fake". instead, he focused on the one God that they professed that they did not understand.. the one they worshipped in case they might have left one out; the one also that they were afraid of angering. and he said, "my message is about the "UNKNOWN GOD" this is what I will speak to you about!"
Just as in the Day of Apostle Paul, men are willing to believe in the unknown.. but pride and other things keep him from admitting that there is a supreme power that directs or lives within us, or has that possibillity. But perhaps that is a fallacy in that Man IS looking for other life source. He believes it is there. that there are other worlds hosting intelligent life, and that perhaps they will offer "clues" to our existence, and the scientist ARE willing to accept if this newly discovered life source has other dimensional knowledge and understanding.. IN fact most of the arguments about believing God are about semantics, and the desire for conforming to scientific conclusions. I personally find that the parts of science that are "conclusive" discoveries are well authenticated and accepted by both Christian and Atheist. The rest of it is inconclusive and unproven so is not even acceptable for evidence, so it really does not fit the realm of conclusive scientific study.
One can quickly become disallusioned whether he seeks as Christian or as an Atheist, until he's willing to accept all faults lie within humans. The recordings, the sightings and the experiments all are subject to human error. There is a dimension that ties both studies together, whether you beleive in natural existence, or created existence; it happened defacto. exacto, without element of error. without interference, and without outside intervention, and life is sustained through the flow of blood through our bodies. it takes breath, it takes the heart beat, it takes coordinated functioning nerves and receptor cells, and let me tell you something from the few years I have spent on this planet. ALL else is produced and manufactured simply for the humans existence and pleasure. Unless you accept the next dimension? There is a dimension of spiritual existence that science has only barely touched. and barely explored; It is the most misunderstood, yet most valuable of all energies and intelligence upon the terra firma.
I do think its funny in the movie where the apes study the human, but in my mind that will never be. There will always be a distinct separation between man and the lower life forms. The superiority of man as a species speaks for itself. I hope that many will learn to see , learn to hear, and learn where to touch the source of life. To more appreciate the course of life, and to realize our responsibility to discover the light that wants to shine within us. Find it, and you win, don't find it and you lose. Isn't that what someone else said once? If you are empty, you have nothing to offer. if you are full, it will spill over. You are evidence if God/ Christ lives within you and you are evidence if He doesn't live within you. Man does not get it, that you are an empty shell, you are only what lives within you. The life and the substance of you. who you are, is touchable, is tangible, is answerable and accountable. You are the walking and talking and touchable proof of who made you. You are the living organism. You are proprietary to a certain species, of which you are a sample. You are the hypothosis, and the experiment. The conclusion and the thesis is already there. No one actuarily or even in the pursuit or theory, can steal where and how you are made.
IF You accept Gods claim you are fearfully and wonderfully made. If you accept mans theory, you have no spiritual life or existence beyond what they give you, and you are little more than an evolved process of inevitable decay: But let me ask you, whats wrong with that statement? The remaining fact is; YOU STILL ARE A COMPLEX AND WELL MADE BEING: and it still remains, that IT IS AWESOME THAT SOMETHING can reverse the decay process.. the crumbling effect , the erosion effect, and the natural breakdown process. Man may call it evolution, and man with enlightenment may call it Creation, but It IS WHAT IT IS! It is the reversal of natural cause and effect. In my mind there is no possibility of being sedimentarily made. WE are not rock structure and if you dare suggest we evolved from a rock, then I think you are only one step away from those who believe we were formed from the dust. Therefore you have assserted yourself into the role of creationist, but yet too dumb to know. it.. sigh, but you know that is NOT what the argument is over.. the debate is over whether GOD put the dust together, or the already created matter of the universe itself put the dust together.
If one were doing an experiment, would you not find the opposite of the magnet is the other side of the magnet itself? If you are not drawn through Gods Magnet of His force, his Power, then you are being pushed away in the same method. "Oppposing force fields exist, Captain." JM, even, you have the same knowledge and skills that each of us do.. Choose you this day.. Maybe today is the day that you will find the evidence you need. The Bible Says that Satan is the one that has blinded the minds of the heathen. Perhaps a whole new world will open if you only deny Satan to be the thief of your destiny. Man has a destiny. Every Individual has a destiny. THAT is what we should be talking about.I'm brand new to this site and this is the first blog that I stumbled upon. Very intriguing, I must say. An issue that I have a definite opinion on, however, I think I'll ponder on the debate for a while. Nice to meet everyone and happy new year ... to the westerners, at least!
- buddhaanalysisposted 12 years ago0
Is it co incident or missionary planned this time for thier mission to spread their religion?
I am asking because two ladies came in morning which were telling about bible and how sorrows can be
removed if we believe bible.
I personally think that religion should be for personal use not for controlling mass and specially women. Are you referring to Christianity because if you are ,I would want to correct that statement ,that Christianity is not a religion, it a relationship with God
Oh, so religion is no a relationship with God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. It also considers the Hebrew Bible, which is known as the Old Testament, to be canonical. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.i think i understand what Jane33 refers to
just as there is a definition for Christianity, there is one for Christendom and for Christians...Grammar wise, christianity is a name, chriastian ; there are similiraties and disparities based on interests and interpretations
basing disbelief on the beliefs of others. is more disagreement and frustration . than it is individual idealism . i think. religion ruins the grand idea of god for many. just cause you dont buy into religions portrait of god does not mean you cant paint your own.
Let not fight,everyone has there own believes,and religion to follow, we have a choice in life to follow what ever we believe in as for me ,I know God is real and Jesus is alive as have I exeprience it myself,You see, you must experience it yourself to believe ,you cant be force to believe or not to believe is really up to individual.
I'd like to make a statement first that I think applies to you both. In this thread we're talking about 'proof' of God, or 'Reasons to believe'. We're talking about a logical understanding of whether or not God exists and whether or not you can logically arrive at that conclusion or in some way 'prove' it. If you ever hope to do that, then you have to see how having such a small perception of who/what God is, if He exists, undermines your ability of ever actually logically 'seeing' the proof. Much in the same way that dismissing the cause of something observable as 'God did it' undermines truly understanding the scientific causal perspective.
You're clearly looking for answers within this observable life, knowing full well a major theme throughout the bible has to do with our actions and behaviors in this life and the potential consequences that come after this life. You want to see that God is policing the world and fighting for the common man and protecting the innocent and smiting the bad guy. I know you have no respect for the whole idea of God in general, but you have to see how such a limited perception of what God 'should' be as far as you're concerned would hamper any hopes of you ever seeing anything presented as 'proof' as valid, short of pointing a telescope out into space and seeing huge, disembodied arms floating out in the distance molding a planet like a ball of clay. There's something truly profound in what Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” If you've already fit God into a box of your own making, then what God actually 'is' is never going to remotely resemble the God you've imagined/hypothesized. If you look for Him in the way a child just wonders, without the jaded/cynical preconceived ideas of an adult, but just honestly and openly, then you will fair much better.
In this world, right now, we as a species are fully capable of adequately providing for every single human on this planet. We have the resources, the know how, the intelligence to truly/fairly take care of everybody. To feed and shelter everyone. But we don't. The individual choices and actions across the board, no matter how large or small or selfish or selfless, the mean result is not just starvation and suffering, but murder and slaughter and rape and everything else. Everyone of us make both large and small choices, no matter how aware we are of them, that have far reaching effects. Each one of us choose how much to keep for ourselves to provide for ourselves and our families, and how much to share. And that's time or money. Some give selflessly until they have nothing left for themselves, some keep (or take) selfishly giving only to themselves, and most of the rest of us fall somewhere in between. This is all the result of free will. The good stuff and the bad.
Any other environment other than the environment we create for ourselves would undermine free will. Whether that be immediate divine punishment for behavior or absolutely every potentially 'bad' consequence of somebody's actions being undone by miraculous divine intervention, in either case free will would not truly be free. God standing over your shoulder, looming on the horizon, would affect behavior. Immediate consequences for behavior would affect behavior. Taking the 'teeth' out of life would mean there would be no risk, lessening reward. There's no perception of what happiness is without sadness, or good times if there are no bad times.
So, if that were the case, what would be the point of free will? Or even existing at all for that matter?I guess what you're saying is we should be looking for a God that doesn't answer prayers, because that would conflict with free will? He want's us to feed the starving ourselves, but he want's us to thank him for it. He wants us to put food on our own table, but wants us give him praise. He wants us to be good on our own, but is chosen people needed help and guidance? The God of the bible said prayers can move mountains, but we should move the mountains ourselves and stop praying?
No, what I'm saying is all the things you're pointing to are man-made problems. They're of our own doing. They're consequences of the actions of humans. If you're really going to address whether or not God exists, you're going to have to think bigger than that. You keep looking at it from your perspective, that's He's made up by Jewish men who wanted to justify what they did. So that's all you'll ever see. That's the box you've placed Him in. You've rolled up God, Satan, the bible, Christians, the Pope, the inquisition, the crusades, etc all up into one big ball like it's all the same thing. You don't apply the same sort of attention to detail and discipline that you demand of believers where science is concerned. You don't give the alternate viewpoint the respect required to really have a constructive conversation about it. You have what's obviously a cursory knowledge of the text, yet still deem yourself qualified to pass judgement on what it is, what it was written for, who it was written by, etc.
Headly, you are correct of course that my knowledge of scripture is sub-par. Remember I was a Catholic and Catholics (a least when I was young) were not told to read the bible. It's read and translated to them. This is probably for good reason, there is a lot of nasty stuff in there. Those who do read it completely sometimes become confused. I had someone once tell me never to hug your children and give me advice on when and how to beat them using information from the bible.
I will tell you this, a greater knowledge of scripture does not make you right. You read the bible under the assumption that God exists, as a result you try to make sense of the nonsense. I read the bible (believe it or not) looking for evidence of God existence. I would much rather know that when I die I go somewhere else then just cease to exist. I'm able to look at it critically. I'd compare it to my son's fascination with Greek mythology. Imagine reading about Greek mythology and discussing it with people who think those Gods exist. Would you think those who believe in Greek mythology are correct because they are more versed in the text?Of course I read the bible in the context that God exists because that is how it's written. That's the mindset of the authors, and it's a mindset you have to understand if you're going to understand what you're reading. But to say that means I can't look at it critically, you're mistaken. I do. Like I've said before, my faith doesn't hinge on what I'm presenting here. I do not doubt God exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean the God of the bible is THE God. If I had found that there was absolutely no legitimacy to these texts then I'd be more of the mindset of Jonnycomelately, or Einstein and Spinoza, who sees the harmony of this universe as reason enough to believe it's not just some cosmic accident that we conscious reasoning beings are here.
That's why I'm always going on about the anatomy of the bible, how it was put together, what we know about it. I know and understand it's man made, and I don't treat it as if it's the inerrant word of God. That's why I'm always stressing how the age and origin of the books of Moses are unknown and that its accuracy beyond the knowledge of the people of that age is significant. I try to understand, to the best of my ability, the history of the region, the beliefs and the knowledge base of the people in that age, what these texts are, how they were put together, etc.
Like I said before, I focused on these texts recognizing that the books of Moses originate in the 'cradle of civilization' and that they have had a significant impact on humanity for ages. And while the surviving manuscripts are by far not the oldest, the stories they tell closely resemble those found on tablets that ARE the oldest. I take into consideration every religion, every religious writing, and every civilization, and they all lead right back to here. So, taking all of that into consideration, I took a good hard look at the books of Moses, clearing away all pre-conceived notions about them, both others as well as my own, and set out to see if there's any literal (or even metaphorical) legitimacy to these texts when set against known history, considering our knowledge base of history is the greatest it's ever been. I don't dismiss your claims that it's propaganda purposefully and knowingly fabricated by Jewish men to justify their actions based solely on a blind faith in God or in the bible as His word, but due to that being logistically improbable, if not impossible.
Believe it or not I'm in the same boat as you. The scientific view of the world made a lot more sense to me than what I was taught in church, and I constantly find myself at odds with the majority of believers, which includes, family, friends, and nearly everyone else. But, like you, the idea that all we are is ultimately nothing because there is nothing beyond death, is not my preferred answer. So I took a good, hard look at this document in that context. That if there's not any truth to it then I don't want to continue to be a sucker and just believe something if it turns out to be completely false.Sorry, we are not nothing because there is nothing beyond death. Right now I'm a husband, a father, a friend, a brother, a graphic designer, a cyclist in the summer and a hockey player in the winter among many other things. Because it's not your preferred answer doesn't mean it's not the right answer. Look at all the rationalization and justifications you've had to do to make sense of the OT. You've started with the assumptions that the translators were wrong then you change the perspective and then assume the readers or listeners had a different perspective. When confronted with any information that is contrary to your perspective you quickly turn it around to help your cause when clearly it's no help. I have no doubt that you are one of those people who needs to believe in a higher being and to that I say do what you have to do to survive, but keep in mind that we are not all like that and you may not be right.
That’s why I said ‘ultimately’ nothing. As in, in the grand scheme of things. In that light, there is ultimately nothing of significance or importance to anything we are or anything we do. Humanity as a whole would be the equivalent of a tiny insignificant flash in a gigantic pan that ultimately had no affect or impact. What would be the significance of any of this if we were nothing more than a small piece of the universe that for a moment became aware of itself before dissipating back into nothingness? Sure, you’re all of those things now, but what does that really matter ‘ultimately’? What is 'now' really? All this means is that everything we care about, the purpose and meaning we assign to life, the things we love and feel passionately about, are nothing more than imagined contrivances that we invent because it’s important to us to be more than nothing.
This has nothing to do with me ‘needing’ to believe. I just have too much respect for humanity and all we are to dismiss us, and everything we do in each moment of this life, as the equivalent of a fart in the wind. There is significance to us becoming aware and our ability to reason that that mindset robs us of. Why do we even care to assign meaning? Our being aware of our eventual death makes us unique in the animal kingdom, and that awareness makes us behave unlike any other creature. Why does it matter to us? Why do we care?
And I’m not having to rationalize or justify anything. You can go back and look at every comment I’ve ever posted, every hub I’ve ever done, in the year I’ve been on this site, or on the blog I wrote on for the year or more prior to that, and you’ll see that my answers have not changed. No information that has been presented has ever been ‘contrary’ to my perspective, though what some have provided has aided in filling this view in and giving it further definition. The timeline remains unchanged. The general idea remains unchanged. You may think I’m ‘turning it around to help my cause’, or that I’m ‘spinning it’, but the fact is it takes no spinning or turning around. I’ve been consistent from day one. I’ve simply removed the fallible human element as completely as possible, and have applied our modern knowledge to give proper context. Nothing more.Oh, you just hours ago schooled by JMcFarlandposted on early Christianity and your words were
"Well, I will certainly no longer say it 'spread like wildfire', but the ultimate point is still the same. If anything, what you're talking about only stresses that point further because, well ..."
The truth is we may just be a moment in time. A giant comet could come crashing down and kill us all, just as happened to the dinosaurs. A few billion or million years later and something else could come along with traits similar to ours and contemplate death. Perhaps there are animals among us who already do contemplate death. Perhaps Elephants? They have interesting rituals that they preform when a family member dies.
I can tell you there doesn't have to be a higher love. And if I'm right and there isn't then what do you make of the bible? Tell me why the OT couldn't have been propaganda if you for a second pretend there is no God?
The above passage is spot on about the subject and uses very logical reasoning tools. voted up. one does realize that if you are pushing against a mountain, you need the extra oxygen that industrious prayin would provide. Sure the God mentioned in the Bible can move the mountain all by himself if he chose.. I've seen huge mountains in alaska excavated and chewed up until they look like molehills just by the machinery of man. why COULDN'T God? where's your faith guys/ besides there are several scientific defined components to prayer, and very observable. has anyone studied those?
Not all Christians believe in free will. And having definitive, pratfall proof of god would not negate free will. You can know that there is a god and still not follow him. Satan supposedly did. Did satan have free will?
satan got intoxicated with his own self, and fell off a very high ledge next to God, down into a very deep pit.. ( or so the story goes! )
"Satan got intoxicated with his own self", but all God asks for is our worship? Who is more self absorbed?
that was just my observation. but more right to the creator, I think/ lab tests would show that a builder of even a lavish inanimate box would claim the first right to accept or reject.. he perhaps would or could be pleased however if the box served its purpose well. depends on what he created it for.. notice satan was trying to both take over traits assigned to humans ( to free will per the above) and trying to steal Gods box, (undermining, per the excellent logic described) . VR.
yeah, and where is that story in the bible, exactly?
First off, if you qualify something by whether or not all Christians believe in it then you can rule out just about everything.
Second, we're talking about humans.
Third, you're talking about a human interpretation of Satan based on a very cryptic verse in Revelations describing a vision about a dragon swiping a third of the stars out of the sky with his tail. If you'll notice, Satan as described in the OT serves a particular task and has to be given permission by God, like in Job. According to the traditional Jewish understanding, Satan is a kind of accuser, like a prosecutor, like how he's described in Zechariah. Just like in the way Satan was the one who took Jesus to the wilderness to tempt him. That's his role.
I don't generally speak a lot about the NT simply because the further along you get the harder it is to decipher what's what. Like the bit you brought up the other day about the story of Jesus and the adulterer being added later. I wasn't aware of that. I don't doubt Jesus because He's what makes sense of the OT, among other things, but I also don't doubt there were human hands with human agendas involved in the process. For instance, the numerous texts that also claim to be testaments to Jesus' life that aren't considered canonical. That's why I work my way up from the Books of Moses forward and compare it to scientifically established history. Humans are the fallible element in the equation and it can really complicate the process. To me, it seems that Satan was turned into a kind of boogie man by the church, which I don't personally agree with.
The Satan of the OT clearly did not have free will.Why didn't Adam just say NO to his woman? "Eve - do not eat that fruit! " I bet he wished he could do that part over!
the fall was blamed on adam, not eve. Romans 5:14, 1 Corinthians 15:22 The fact that adam blamed her and tried to pass the buck to her is typical, but not quite in line with the rest of the bible.
That, as much, is true. I agree with you whole-heartedly.
Agreed. In the Old Testament, Satan is not "the devil" that he becomes later. He acts only with god's permission, and were he truly the "enemy" of the almighty god, he would not be able to meander into his house whenever he felt like it to make bets with him about his follower's loyalties. It's absurd. I've used the prosecutor argument a lot - and I'm impressed that you actually consider it instead of reverting back to the "enemy" role that so many christians dig themselves into. The Satan of the Old Testament is completely different from the satan of the new testament - much like god himself. The god of the Hebrews is vengeful, angry, spiteful, jealous and cruel. The god of the new testament, by contrast, is loving, caring, compassionate and merciful. I often say that the god of the bible as a hole seems schizophrenic.
Did you look up the adulterer story I brought up? I'm always glad to contribute to someone else's knowledge - even if we disagree at the most fundamental levels on other things. You say that you don't doubt jesus - but if you mistrust a lot of the new testament (or any of it at all) what do you truly know about him? no extra-biblical sources exist, although they should. Jerusalem was chock-full of historians that were both Jewish and Secular. they would have had a first-hand account of this supposed man of miracles. But none of them say a single word in his lifetime. None of them say a single word until long after his supposed death. They missed the grand entry into jerusalem. They missed the illegal trials, they missed the crowd calling for blood (the same crowd, incidentally, that welcomed him as a king a mere week before hand), they missed his execution - and his resurrection. They missed the earthquakes, the darkness and the jewish zombies roaming the streets. There are no contemporary sources for jesus at all. The new testament is all there is. Paul's epistles were written first, and the earliest gospel wasn't written until around AD 70 - the other three were even later. None were written by eyewitnesses. In fact, no one KNOWS who wrote them. There were multitudes of gospels, incidentally - and the four were chosen for purely political reasons. So if you believe in jesus, what do you base him on? Paul, who never met him, argued vehemently with his supposed disciples - the ones that wandered the countryside with him for years. the Jesus in each of the gospels is contradictory. The gospels conflict with the epistles, and there are more variances in the earliest texts that still exist of the new testament than there are WORDS in the new testament. While most of those are purely errors (or so biblical scholars have determined) some were not. It's these things (and more) that make me look at the new testament even more critically than the old.
agreed - but then how did he fall - if it was not something god WANTED to happen?I do not believe that satan ever fell, but still is the loyal servant of God portrayed in the Hebrew scriptures. The idea that he fell appears to come from a line in Revelation about a dragon sweeping a third of the stars from the sky. Of course the other possibility is that John saw a comet and its tail obscured the surrounding stars. He like astrologers interpreted a comet as a bad omen or a dragon and concluded this was satan according to cultural superstition. After all he saw the constellations of Aquarius, Taurus, Leo and Scorpio (Eagle in Babylonian astrology) and thought he was seeing visions of heaven. More likely he saw constellations and allowed mythology and superstition to get the better of his imagination.
I agree that's much more likely. It puts a damper on the christian belief, however, that the devil is running around tempting believers and they're going to fall into his snare, etc.
It does indeed and probably explains why the line 'deliver us from evil' in the 'Lord's Prayer' was changed to 'deliver us from the evil one'.
Another popular saying is that the devil's greatest trick is to convince people he does not exist. This is a cunning little device designed to sew insecurity into people's heads and keep them in bondage to a myth.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
lots of references, to lucifer, to satan the deciever, to the god of this world, being the prince of this world, the evil one.. need I go and pile up a list of all bible references to him? he is very real very real and the part he played in deceiving adam and eve was as a traitor, as a fallen angel, seeking to disrupt the harmony and the innocence within the garden. to destroy that innocence.. no, he was a mercenary with a mission by then. he was jealous of Gods autonomous power. he sought to drag down the
perfect intentions of God for man. yes I agree the sequence of events is not clear.. when Satan fell, when he became 'outcast' and how it played in to the role, or he became the basis of the oppositionary force or 'choice' upon which the human free will emerged. the question remains could God have given, or produced the result of free will by his human subjects without there being a satan? a punishment? punishment is relative in the biblical model to the curse of sin, created by the temptation of disobedience, and the persuasive role of the deceiver, ( I believe Satan had already been so banished from heaven, from the favored position he held originally, that by the time man appeared, he was intrinsically playing the part of boogey, by Gods design. Not mans concoction. ( contrary to at least one religion believing that Jesus and Satan were both brothers, (sic. journals, and as "sons of God" they were equal in the beginning and God in some way chose "Jesus" to be the Savior and Satan ( lucifer) to be the castaway, or opponent.) this is false through and through for Satans origin was as a created angel of light, and Jesus was the second man adam, the firsborn form the dead, and the Son of God by virgin birth as well as divine heir of heaven, and as being Emmanuel "God with us", of the divine nature as well as of fleshly ancestry from the bloodline of David.
( part of the interwoven proof of the two covenants that testify of each other. ) testament+ testator= of the subject of the book. the truth is that the God of the Old testament became the savior of the new testament and yes, a very different side of God appeared. Not God the judge and the lawgiver, but the side of redemptive quality. The Cross and the crucification and and the resurrection is the crux and the center theme of the entire bible, and proves the authenticity of the old testament BY the new testament, ( NOT the written word as much as the actual living word.).. the OLD testament had a central threaded subject of all sacrifice and offering for sin as a "rolled ahead" sanctification towards Jesus and the perfect living sacrifice. MOSES, and all the following prophets were commanded and taught by the law that each sacrifice was to be only an installment and partial payment until Jesus. Abraham sought even to see the "promise" ( the far better covenant).. The book of Hebrews interpretes much of the Old Testaments purpose. it is a beautiful apolegetic, or even more than that, an overlaid portrait upon the original. no one says every word is perfect, but God of the book we talk about claims that heaven and earth shall pass away but his words shall not pass away.. now we can spend out life searching for more cause to believe, or as he commanded the apostles go and tell all the world , before the end cometh..
I know in my own experience, that God does not disappear, faith does not die, truth does not escape, but the part of it that lays on a shelf , whether in our heart of on the mantle collecting dust, brings passivity towards the cause. men lose their vision, missions go unmanned or untaught, purpose is lost, disallusionment happens. 2013 life overtakes us, but whatever it is.. God did not stop being God. Love never gave up, sacrifice still demands a pardon. Spiritual callings are still being given. the voice of the one crying in the wilderness, ( the call of John the baptist).. the cry from within mans heart. THAT is the choice. THAT is the cause. THAT is the category of GODS science. with the heart. and mouth confession is made unto Godliness. The diabolical choice. can from the same one proceed both evil and blessing? who rules the heart? who lives on the inside? YES Satan can own your heart. it can be manifest in many forms. The christianity of one religion that says "kill all others" was rewritten at the crossroads of the Old and the New. Law no longer dictated the death penalty. LAW was superceded by grace. those who failed to accept the transitional and threaded evidence of the CROSS, its purpose, and its liberating power to deliver from the CURSE of Law. LAW killed, GRACE offered new life. "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" . Prophecy is a science of itself of dealing with what is truth and has its own laws of existence. it is based on this was said, and this is what happened. in courts of law today.. one of the most convincing proofs of guilt and innocence is whether someone did what they SAID they did; or someone else proves what they said was indeed true or not. and the circumstantial evidence appears to back it up.
sorry.. I should have posted all biblical references to the bad guy.There is only 1 Bible reference to Lucifer and that's Isaiah 14:12. In context it we find it to represent 1% of today's 1% the Revelation call beast. There are many for Satan and devil bur only a few concerning the prince of this world who may also be what is the 1% of today's 1%. The question is how long has that small fraction of people ween attempting to control the world's governments and people. I've found it goes back to at least the mid 1800 but I haves sought to follow it back any further.
As for me, I can't see how anyone can in any wise believe the Adam and Eve story is facts, there are to many things in the story that doesn't fit the pattern of things in existence, Adam's being formed from the earth although there were man already on earth, the operation to produce the other gender which the metamorphosis belies and instructions to leave mother and father to become one flesh with the spouse which I have never seen happen. But in looking through Jesus' teaching the serpent is a symbol of wisdom which suggest the eating from the knowledge of good and evil was the original plan and makes the story a metaphor.
As a matter of fact, most of what you said is only church doctrine, it isn't Bible at all making it wasteful to even go further, but I had to set those things in order.the passage in Isaiah is talking about the King of Babylon. it has nothing to do with the devil.
I agree with many things (mayby half) that Atheist are saying concerning the misconceptions within organized religion (such as the statement above)
And I agree with much (maybe half) of what organized religion teaches.
I fully agree with a 2nd Peter 1:20 "knowing this FIRST that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. None of these people which wrote the letters which were included in the cannon ever considered their own writtings to be scripture.
Eventhough we are not to have our own private interpret of prophesy in scripture. The church teaches us that it is OK as long as we FEEL like the holy spirit is leading us,
According to many believers there are evil spirits which try to lead us astray. Don't Ya think that these evil spirits would pretend to be the Holy Spirit? That is why we should not interpret prophesy to mean something other than what is clearly explained within itself.
Even if we think the Holy Spirit is leading us.I don't reject anything, what I would reject I put in my to be proven file for the possibility a logical interpretation to present itself to me. I have found nothing worthy of being called god or devil unless I use my own lifeforce for god and anyone opposing my right to be me is devil.
However, after experiencing the teachings ascribed to Jesus I now call myself a Christian Atheist saying the interpretation I have obtain because of living Christ like has given me an interpretation that's reasonably logical and since the only god I've found proof of is my own lifeforce it would make all man god therefore we have no reason to use it since all man are god. Looking at the definition of homo sapien as ability to become wise I generally say mind able to comprehend all things which is something god is supposed to be about.
There's much truth to what you said for which I agree, however, holy only means complete since they -- whoever they are -- changed wholly into holy to give is a religious meaning. Spirit simply means comprehension therefore, the meaning for holy spirit is the complete understanding of all things, therefore, if anyone doesn't have at least a cyclic vision of all things then I don't believe they have the holy spirit. Even Paul suggested that in 1 Corinthians 13:9-10
9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
That's what I was saying, it has nothing to do with the devil. However, when one i an atheist they recognize neither god or devil, when there's no proof of god there can't be any for its opposite. By the very definition of Lucifer, light or star of the morning, it does represent someone beginning something and may well have been Nebuchadnezzar.
then we've actually agreed on something. I think.
We actually agree on more that you think.
The original Hebrew term, satan, is a noun from a verb meaning primarily to, “obstruct, oppose,” as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as “the accuser,” or “the adversary.” The definite article “ha-,” English “the," is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus this being would be referred to as “the satan.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan
The word Lucifer is only used once, and it's in Isaiah 14:12...
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, who didst weaken the nations!"
This is often thought to be referring to Satan because of the bit in Revelation about the red dragon, but what it's actually referring to is the planet Mercury, which was often referred to as the morning star because it's the brightest star that can be seen on the horizon, rising in the beginning of the night and 'falling to the earth' as the morning comes. It was written as a rather poetic comparison to the dead king of Babylon.
The only mention of a war in heaven and Satan leading the charge, to my knowledge, is in the book of Revelation. This was the last book to be included in the bible and is arguably the most highly debated within the churches as far as being legitimate. Every other idea about Satan as a fallen angel and rebelling angels and a war against God come from books no longer considered canonical, like the book of Enoch. Disappearinghead has some really good hubs on the topic that I recommend.
I'm not saying he's not real, I'm saying that he did not choose of his own free will to rebel against God. As far as I can tell he is always serving a particular purpose for God, much like in the way he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, or in the way he argued against Job being righteous because he said Job had all a man could want and had no reason to reject God or be angry at him. In the same way he tempted Eve.
Personally, I'm not 100% sure what to make of him. The one thing that sticks out to me is his punishment in Genesis 3 after tempting Eve. And considering he's not referred to as Satan, but rather a serpent, in that text makes it even less clear. But what he does there, assuming that's him, fits with how he's portrayed everywhere else. He's the adversary, tempting free willed humans to follow their own individual selfish willful desires that conflict with God's will or to reject God as the authority.
If the story in Job is any indication, it would appear he's debating God, which makes me wonder if he's at least one of those referred to as 'us' in Genesis 1 where God says "Let US make man in OUR image...". In the creation account God seems to be setting the stage for the experiment in the garden with his first free willed creation by setting up a scenario with just one rule mandated by God to illustrate that this being is different than anything else in God's creation because of his ability to act contrary to God's will. And it turns out to be those humans created in Genesis 1 that God later 'regretted' putting on the earth because of the wickedness in their hearts that's explained to be the result of the 'sons of God' having children with them in Genesis 6.
I think that we are all living in our own fantacy while being the star character in it.
If I wanted to be, I would be the smartest person in my own fantacy.
This works until I try to share my fantacy with someone who is the smartest person in their fantacy.
When we struggle, we call it a debate. When I remove myself from the debate and return to my personal fantacy, I am the smartest again. This is the only way to win in a debate.
Come to think about it? We ALL win.
Just kidding (I think ?)Humor works well in all careers.. it has a scientifically measureable effect on the human psyche.. thanks.. I hope we all have some of it in our lives!
JMcFarland,
See, I don't think God changed between the OT and NT, and that's part of what this theory I'm describing addresses. It's also one of many reasons why I think Jesus is legitimate. I'll try to keep this relatively brief, but your question is a complex one to answer, so I'll apologize ahead of time for the length of my comment.
First, it should be noted that post-exile Jewish people were just as perplexed about the books of Moses as anyone else. Texts like the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees (roughly 300BC) are good examples of this. As I'm sure you're familiar, there were pharasees who were dedicated to figuring the books of Moses out as they were ancient history even to them. They had lost a lot of their history while in exile, and the disconnect between pre/post exile is apparent. This is the world Jesus and all the apostles existed in.
Texts like the book of Enoch offer insight into the kinds of ideas that had been formed around the books of Moses in the post-exile age. These texts took two of the more mysterious bits of early Genesis and built a whole very imaginative narrative around them. 1) Enoch, who Gen5 says walked with God and who is the one descendant of Adam listed in Gen5 that it doesn't say died, but that God took him. 2) Those really odd verses at the beginning of Gen6 that talk about the 'sons of God', 'daughters of humans', and the Nephilim. According to the book of Enoch the 'sons of God' were angels who rebelled against God and began empregnating human women, and the Nephilim were the off-spring of these. It then goes into this elaborate story about how Enoch travelled with angels to heaven, hell and elsewhere, going into all kinds of detail about the hierarchy of angels and such. The Book of Jubilees spoke in much the same way, offering a more filled-in version of the Genesis story that also states that angels bred with humans, and again showing Enoch as a central character.
The problem with this view is that everywhere else throughout the bible it makes it clear that the 'sons of God' were not angels. Yet, even today, some translations go ahead and replace 'sons of God' with 'angels', both in Gen6 and in Job. In the OT, the 'sons of God' are always Israelites post-Abraham; Exodus 4:22-23, 2 Samuel 7: 11. The book of Job is a fascinating text because it's considered one of the oldest books of the bible, if not the oldest, and both the Sumerians and the Egyptians also wrote a very similar story to what's found in Job. The assumption has always been that these meetings between God, the sons of God, and Satan happened in heaven, which in itself is dubious because who would the witness/author be in that case? The theory I'm putting forth puts an interesting spin on this as well, placing it, not in heaven, but here on earth, and being something that both the Sumerians and the Egyptians were aware of.
In the NT, the idea that the sons of God are humans, and not angels, continues. For example, in Luke 3 it says that Jesus was thought to be a 'son of God' by way of ancestry, then lists numerous decendants of Joseph all the way through David, Abraham, Peleg, Shem, Noah, all the way back to Adam, ending with, "..the son of Adam, the son of God". Following Jesus' death/resurrection, Gentile believers are then included in the 'sons of God' club as well; John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1, Galatians 4:26-29.
Then, of course, there's this ... Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?
Looking back on all of this from our modern perspective, the main thing we now know that these people did not is just how long (anatomically modern) humans have actually existed (roughly 200,000 years). Much of the confusion in deciphering early Genesis comes from the assumption that Adam was the first human to have ever existed. The stories built around Gen6:1-4 stem from this because there wasn't enough of a population in the Adam-was-the-first-human perspective to allow for much else. Realizing there was a population of humans already populating the planet when Adam was created resolves a lot, and grounds these seemingly mythological tales in actual history. They also go a long way towards explaining things we're still trying to figure out about that time and region. Namely the dramatic behavior change in humans that can be seen and confirmed in the historical and archaeological record in this time and place and actually traced from southern Mesopotamia out, as well as the explosion in human inventions and the birth of civilizations happening independently in multiple places all around this region in that same timeframe, coming just after those behavioral changes.
And it's these ideas and statements about the 'sons of God' that most intrigue me about the books of NT, because of other texts like Enoch and Jubilees. Though there were a lot of imaginative stories being written in this age, it's these that manage to stay consistent with a singular idea that connects the narratives of the OT to the NT, especially in the populated world scenario. Though the majority of people in this age had what appeared to be a very disconnected grasp of the books of Moses, there are also those that manage to stay consistent with an idea that they themselves may not have had a clear grasp of from their perspective. This is how I'm approaching the NT in an attempt to decipher what's what. If there's any truth to what I'm posing, then it could aid in sifting out what's legitimate and what isn't.
From the 'already populated with humans' perspective of Adam's creation, this redefines not just those Gen6 verses, but also the whole narrative about the Israelites, the 613 Mitzvah laws, the battles, all of that. In Gen6 it says that God's 'spirit' would not contend with humans forever. It also describes the 'daughters of humans' as being 'mortal', and only living 120 years. This comes just after the geneology list of Gen5 (which was added, spliting Gen4 and 6) where it says Adam and his descendants lived for centuries. Unlike 'natural' or 'mortal' humans, Genesis says Adam was formed by God, with the breath of life being 'breathed into his nostrils'. Then, it says God's 'spirit' would not contend with humans. In Ezra 9 there's a mention about the priority being basically not to delute the holy seed. If you imagine a world full of 'natural' humans who intermingling with delutes God's spirit, then you can maybe see a reasoning behind God's actions, like controlled breeding for example, if the desired end result was the birth of a savior. Especially in an 'immaculate conception' context, but even that isn't entirely necessary in my opinion. Deluting the spirit in this bloodline would be a very real danger in this world teaming with humans who have acquired 'free will' from descendants of Adam/Eve beyond the Abraham line. A trait that would bring about the kind of behavioral changes we see actually did happen, and actually did make humans violent, male-dominant, possessive, etc. Fighting for a plot of land in this age and region to survive was a real necessity. This perspective offers an interesting possibility regarding the 'spirit of God' that was so carefully maintained throughout the OT, and the transition to the 'Holy Spirit' found in the NT following Jesus. Something you'd attain through belief that would then make you a 'son/daughter of God' as well.
Beyond all of that, it's also our broader modern perspective that suggests to me that Jesus was legitimate. From our perspective we can see that there actually were dramatic changes in humans in the ancient world long before the fall of Rome and subsequent Dark Ages, another historical disconnect. These ancient civilizations were incredibly advanced, and as we can now see through the archaeological evidence, these advances didn't come within already established and highly populated settlements, but rather they came from nomads who came from southern Mesopotamia where the Sumerian cities specifically mentioned in early Genesis actually existed. One of which containing the oldest known zigguraut, or tower. A dramatic climate change, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event, transformed the Sahara into desert and displaced these people, forcing them to spread out in all directions and into those already established settlements where they sparked the changes that brought about civilization. Events that closely match what's described in the Babel story. Another story echoed by the Sumerians, who were the humans who actually lived in that region and time.
Prior to Jesus and Christianity in general, the Greeks, who already had a well established mythology of their own created independently of the stories of the books of Moses, were fascinated when they learned about them. The Greeks, like everyone else in that region from Sumer/Akkad/Babylon to Egypt, actually believed there were supernatural, or immortal, beings that existed in their ancient past. They saw this as their actual history. If each of these civilizations were actually spawned by descedants of Noah hundreds of years prior, then they'd all share a very similar version of the past, which of course, they do. For example they all tell similar flood stories, similar stories about behavioral changes from a golden age before human materialism and war, and similiar stories of these immortal human-like gods.
The other dramatic change is Christianity itself. This change is undeniable. Though, like you said, there's no known texts that cooberate Jesus' existence and the events described, Christianity as a religion exploded like a wildfire throughout an already advanced and well established civilization. The Romans, like the Greeks and Sumerians, also believed immortal beings were in their ancient past, also had a similar flood story, and also spoke of a golden age before the behavioral change of humans. Following Jesus' time Christianity was taking off. The Romans, of course, persecuted Christians at first, then legalized Christianity, then eventually adopted Christianity as the only legal religion. And, as history shows, it's been a driving force in every age of history from that point forward.
I'm sorry this turned into a novella, but hopefully this will give you a sense of where I'm coming from, how I'm looking at this, and can maybe give you an idea of why I think (beyond faith of course) the stories of Jesus and many of the texts of the NT are legitimate. While Jesus is said to be the son of God, or God in human form, I don't think that means he had any knowledge beyond his human form that he did not adopt and earn himself. If he did, then living a 'perfect' life as a human wouldn't be as significant because he would have had the leg-up of divine knowledge. And I don't see perfection in the apostles or any other author of these texts. They're fallible humans just like anyone else. So, while I do think there were events in that age that really did have a significant impact, I don't hold these texts to the standard of being straight from God and therefore infallible. So I'm approaching it from that perspective to try to reach a better understanding.that's the exact problem though. Christianity did NOT take off like wildfire. Anything but, actually. The early church followers in the 4th century rewrote history to make it seem that way - but nothing could be further from the actual history of the early church.
According to the gospels and acts, the writers wanted the readers to believe that Jesus began the movement and shook up the entire region with his teaching, miracles and so on - and the faith began immediately following his death and resurrection. it shows the disciples converting multitudes at a time, and Paul following suite. The first 3 centuries of the christian "church" was not a united church at all. It was a bunch of little factions that all had varying beliefs about who jesus was, what his message entailed and what he did throughout his lifetime - if he had an earthly lifetime at all. Eventually, one sect beat out the others and became the "one true faith" that claimed to descend from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles directly.
the early church was full of conflicts, and writers like Luke try to minimize them as much as possible. There are clues, however, to point people in the right direction. Then the writers of the early church history themselves glazed over the matter even further and made these incredibly large disagreements into minor squabbles. The growth of Christianity was not immediate - or far-reaching, contrary to what the early church apologists would like you to believe. Instead, the various "christianities" coincided and were considered "fringe" cults on the outskirts of Judaism and Paganism. They barely survived. Some of them, like the gnostics, didn't survive at all. Acts 1:15 itself claims that there were only 120 believers total. Then, the number suddenly jumps to around 3000, then 5000 (in acts 4:4) where Stephen becomes a martyr and everyone flees - minus the apostles. Those figures, however, are not substantiated, and are highly suspect.
"all we get is a general impression of winning converts here and there - but whenever anything more precise is said, we rarely hear of more than several households per town. Even at our most optimistic, that doesn't look good. We could perhaps imagine a hundred christians per city by year 100 (but this is out of an estimated total population of 2.5 million for all of first century Palestine. Even by the most optimistic estimates, the christians had then penetrated fewer than 70 towns or cities across the whole empire - and that only makes for a total of 7,000 people. Again, that's socially microscopic" Richard Carrier.
Those estimated numbers include all versions of christianity - or any group that had some belief in the figure of Jesus, including the groups that the later church considered to be heretics. Additionally, a lot of converts left the faith when faced with real persecution. Although some took the faith to their death, many did not.
Historically, we have the letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan, which was written around 111 AD - and it proves that christianity was relatively unknown. Pliny had been a govenor in Asia Minor, and before that post, he had been a lawyer and a Consul. In his letter, he admits that he doesn't know anything about christians. He doesn't know how their crimes should be punished, or even what their crimes are. He knows nothing about what they believe. He had never attended a trial of a christian, in all of his years of service to the emperor. Piny had decades and decades of experience in the Roman legal system. If he had no idea what a christian was - or why it was illegal to be one - the implications are severe and significant. Christianity was a minor presence, and nothing more. It certainly didn't come to the attention of the Roman elite until after the first century had already passed. Roman history is well-documented, and no one contests that fact at all. However, the term "christian" or any reference to those believing in Jesus is practically non-existent prior to 250 AD. Even one of the early church fathers Origen (later deemed a heretic by the church) admits in the mid-third century that christianity only was a subset - a fraction of the population at large.
"Any conclusion that actually has evidential support, even if we start with 5000 christians in the year 40 must still fit projections for the 3rd and 4th century, and when we do that - when we use the evidence we have - we never even approach 1% of the population by 100 AD. In fact, we can barely pass 0.1%. The evidence simply does not exist to push the numbers higher. No matter how we try and tweak our growth model, the actual evidence permits only one conclusion: we cannot prove Christianity was attractive to any more than one out of 1000 people in the first century. That's simply not miraculous, or even surprising" Richard Carrier
Put it into context and compare the growth of christianity to the concept of spiritualism in the 19th century. Spiritualists were a little wacky. they believed in seances, ghosts, etc - but in ten years they had over 3 million followers in the United States alone. Christianity, on the other hand, took over 200 years to get anywhere close to that kind of growth.
Additionally, given all the archaeological evidence in existence for both a Jewish and Pagan presence in early Palestine, there is no material evidence for Christianity in Palestine until the 3rd century - and only then is it comparable to even the most minor fringe pagan cults.
I could write more, but the research is killing me. I appreciate these discussions with you - hopefully I gave you something else to look up and do some research on.Well, I will certainly no longer say it 'spread like wildfire', but the ultimate point is still the same. If anything, what you're talking about only stresses that point further because, well ...
"The triumph of Christianity is actually a very remarkable historical phenomenon. ... We begin with a small group from the backwaters of the Roman Empire and after two, three centuries go by, lo and behold that same group and its descendants have somehow taken over the Roman Empire and have become the official religion, in fact the only tolerated religion, of the Roman Empire by the end of the 4th century. That is a truly remarkable development, and a monumental historical problem, trying to understand how this happened."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … ation.html
It began as a very grassroots kind of movement. And being that it was made up of humans, you of course have conflicting opinions all across the board. Initially it began as a kind of Jewish sect, then slowly separated from traditional Judaism and into its own thing. There's no doubt it ultimately became the major religion of Rome, which is the main point I'm making. Your comparison to the growth of spiritualism isn't a particularly equal one, considering the 19th century was a very different age where 'spreading the word' is concerned.
You are clearly much more educated on the topic than I am, and I appreciate what you've provided as I find it endlessly fascinating and much more in depth than what I was aware of. But what you've pointed out, to me at least, stresses even further the significance of Christianity's impact, in that age as it first began, as well as throughout every century since. It goes back to my statements (to either you or Rad Man, or both, I don't recall at the moment) about human intuition. This is something that clearly spoke to people. Christianity isn't like switching cell phone providers, it's an adoption of a belief system and philosophy. And, right or wrong, true or not, has had a significant impact on humans since it first began. Whether legitimate or not, it clearly fills a need in people. It means something.
The other point of significance is the fact that Christianity is what extends the creator God of all the world and all its inhabitants as portrayed in the Jewish texts to the entire world, beyond the Jewish people. It's what makes sense of the rest of it. Without it the OT speaks of God being the creator of everyone in the world, yet only being the God of the 'chosen ones', excluding all others. So, in this way, Christianity to me is further legitimized by the accuracy I see in the OT, by extending the God it speaks of beyond the realm of just being the God of the Jewish people, and giving His actions throughout the OT purpose by showing that they were a means to that end.I'm just catching up before going to work - will respond to this later tonight in more depth.
I'm glad that we can reach a common ground, even though we fundamentally disagree on many aspects - and thank you for the recognition of my hard work. So many people just dismiss all of my work in the subject because I don't believe. It's refreshing to interact with someone who actually recognizes it for what it is.
Sometimes the size of a situation is lost in the politics of time.. I disagree that the life and times of Jesus and the disciples was a small thing. it certainly could be clssified as regional, however the journeys of the apostles were widespread (Asia and all of the known world) and they did command the attention of the prevailiing rulers. It WAS big enough that the Roman Pagan church system felt compelled to launch an offensive against it, and study out and implement vast reaching and totally doctrine altering steps . this WAS no small thing in the then present world. sorry. JM. you can't downsize it. it was what it was. It was big enough.
not necessarily to compare the two subjects... but WW 2 and the holocaust was NOT a small matter. but as i ponder THAT, my parents never mentioned it to me as a child or teeneager. ( and it had only been approx 20 years before I was born.. politics and media and entire national agendas can sweep other ongoing major catastrophes and big huge events (in or out) the doors of our lives. one comes to mind the ongoing and recent african tragedies.. Uganda and others (widespread slaughter of their people) what we call humanitarian tragedies to soften the hard reality of it.
it saddens me that america is so passive today that we are in the situations we are in. But much of it is due to overpopulation and due to mainstream media and our dependence on it. also due to things discussed here like churches having lots of powers to control how history goes down and how they want their particular brand to carry the mail. ( yes I agree with ya there.) But Jesus came outsside the realm of religions. but he came as the rogue, He WAS big enough to alter history for all time for all people.. THAT is unquestionable and undeniable. so a lot of the arguments otehrwise are pointless except to assuage someones own ego or fears of being effected by this reality.
thats my position.. and that Real Christianity is as others have attested; A relationship with God. not just a theory or a science, or a thing to debate. A relationship has ongoing casue and benefits relative to the one who you are in relationship with. self explanatory to those who understand relationship. You may not like me for saying it, but this is not a dead or simply "what happened back then" subject. not by far! that my friend is perhaps why it is so relevant to all of us. it effects and impacts all of civilization today. and individuals especially. it is at the core of our humanity this God claims to make himself real to you, and many milliions claim that he has. - regardsyou can believe whatever you want, but I just provided documented, historical evidence that directly contradicts your beliefs. The fact of the matter that CANNOT be disputed is that christianity was little more than a fringe cult until it was granted power under Constantine.
No biblical scholars debate that anymore. They bring up sources that claim to support the mass-growing of christianity, but they're easily shot down. Why don't you back up what you want to believe with some evidence. I provided a whole slew of documentation - none of which you actually refuted. You just went with what you were told, or what you WANT to believe about early christianity - none of it with documented sources. I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough.It's my understanding that Christianity was big enough of a deal AND troublesom that it had to be dealt with. After all attempts were made to inialate Christianity had failed, Constantine decided to simply gain controll over it in 326 AD when he organized it into an orginization which he was ultimate authority. In 380 Christianity was officially designated to be "THE" State religion.
I'm not sure how long it took before the religion controlled the state.it wasn't troublesome enough to be dealt with. It was a fringe cult. Go back and read my earlier post. It was dealt with because when "christians" were captured, they sometimes refused to sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor. There are plenty of documented sources (many of which I mentioned) that explain how little of an impact christianity had - for over 300 years. I can expand on how it gained control of the state, but constantine did it for political reasons - not religious ones. Until his deathbed, constantine was still very much a pagan - he was Solus Invicte - the sun god of the roman empire. After his death, he was declared to be a god. Some say he was baptized on his deathbed and converted - but that is a hotly debated subset of his history.
You say it wasn't a big deal. Is that why so many of them were hunted down and fed to the lions in the arena to show everyone else what happens to YA when you profess to be one?
If it was insignifigent they why did they bother?
You can find a book somewhere that substanciates any claim that you or I want to make.
You aren't looking for answers with a shovel in your hands ready to shovel untruths upon any attempt anyone has for believing in "A" God.no, I'm actually interested in finding out the TRUTH - the truth that so many believers blatantly ignore, rationalize or justify away.
Sure the christians were persecuted - just like any other fringe cult that refused to make sacrifices to the emperor or the gods.
I'm sorry you feel that way about me, especially since I thought we were at one time having a meaningful and informed decision. You seem to suddenly be taking all of this personally instead of approaching it from a reliable, historical background. I don't know what I said that upset you so much - maybe it's just a difficult concept for you to accept. I'm sorry for that, but I'm not sorry for expressing the truth - the actual verifiable truth.
The accounts of early christian persecution come from mostly early-christian sources. Do you think they reported things accurately, or did they have a built-in bias? Have you read the book of martyrs? most of the stories are not relayed by eyewitnesses. They, like the gospels, are oral traditions that have been altered, miracles added, etc, etc. Perhaps nero found it convenient to blame a fringe cult for the fire - although even the roman historians of the time have been shown to be writing with bias since they abhored nero, and wanted to paint him in as negative a light as they possibly could.
I suggest reading some more history, and then examining what you find. Knowledge can't be a detriment. It can only enhance things that you claim to be true. If they are true, you have nothing to worry about. If they aren't - well then you have some more thinking to do.
I could provide scores of sources that back up the things I say but you don't take those sources seriously. I don't know what else to tell you. If you're unwilling to examine the evidence, there's nothing more to say. For me, it ultimately came down to a decision. If I cared about the truth, then I had to examine my beliefs with the same rationality and skepticism that I was willing to apply to everything else in my life. If it didn't matter to me if my beliefs were true or not, I'd probably still be a christian. But I do care.On Persecutions:
(not that you'll care, because it's obviously skewed to hold up my position, of course, since it disagrees with yours)
The persecution of Christians by the Romans was minor compared to the persecution of Christians by other Christians. One day of the Albigensian crusade wiped out more Christians than nearly three hundred years of intermittent Roman persecution.
Second, persecutions rarely occurred, and only a tiny number of Christians ever were martyred – only “hundreds, not thousands? According to W.H.C. Frend (1965:413). Indeed, commenting on Tacitus’s claim that Nero had murdered “an immense multitude” of Christians, Marta Sordi wrote that “a few hundred victims would justify the use of this term, given the horror of what happened” (1986:31).
The truth is that the Roman government seems to have cared very little about the “Christian menace.” There was surprisingly little effort to persecute Christians, and when a wave of persecution did occur, usually only bishops and other prominent figures were singled out. Thus for rank-and-file Christians the threat of persecution was so slight as to have counted for little among the potential sacrifices imposed on them.
According to H. B. Workman, the average Christian was not much affected by the persecutions. It was Christian "extremists" that attracted the attention of angry Pagans. "Earthly institutions should not be judged by their averages, but by the ideals of their leaders", Workman adds. Persecution of Christians only became significant, curiously enough, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, on the eve of the Christian triumph.
The Roman persecutions were generally sporadic, localized, and dependent on the political climate and disposition of each emperor. Moreover, imperial decrees against Christians were often directed against church property, the Scriptures, or clergy only. It has been estimated that more Christians have been martyred in the last 50 years than in the church's first 300 years.
Reasons for persecution
The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their one god, were generally tolerated. According to the Catholic writers, and even the official liturgy of their Church, the Roman community of the first three centuries was so decked and perfumed with saints and martyrs that it must have had a divine spirit in it. Now the far greater part, the overwhelmingly greater part, of the Acts of the Martyrs and Lives of the Saints on which this claim is based are impudent forgeries, perpetrated by Roman Christians from the fourth to the eighth century in order to give a divine halo to the very humble, and very human, history of their Church.
This is not merely a contention of "heretics and unbelievers." It is not even a new discovery. The legends of the martyrs are so gross that Catholic historians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries frequently denounced them. Cardinal Baronius and Father Pagi repeatedly rejected them. The learned and pious Tillemont, in the fifth volume of his Mémoires, slays hundreds of them. Pope Benedict XIV, of the eighteenth century, a scholar who by some mischance was made a Pope, was so ashamed of the extent to which these forgeries permeate the official ritual of his Church that he entered upon a great reform; but the cardinals and monks obstructed his work, and the literature of the Church still teems with legends from these tainted sources. In fact, many of these forgeries were already notorious in the year 494, when Pope Gelasius timidly and haltingly condemned them.
These forgeries are so gross that one needs very little historical knowledge in order to detect them. Large numbers of Roman martyrs are, like the Pope Callistus whom I have mentioned, put in the reign of the friendly Emperor Alexander Severus, who certainly persecuted none. One of these Roman forgers, of the sixth Of seventh century. is bold enough to claim five thousand martyrs for Rome alone under the gentle Alexander Severus! Other large numbers of Roman martyrs are put in the reign of the Emperor Maximin; and Dr. Garres has shown that there were hardly any put to death in the whole Empire, least of all at Rome, under Maximin. The semi-official catalogue of the Popes makes saints and martyrs of no less than thirteen of the Popes of the third century, when there were scarcely more than three or four.
No one questions that the Roman Church had a certain number of martyrs in the days of the genuine persecutions, but nine-tenths of the pretty stories which are popular in Catholic literature — the stories of St. Agnes and St. Cecilia, of St. Lucia and St. Catherine, of St. Lawrence and St. George and St. Sebastian, and so on — are pious romances. Even when the martyrdom may be genuine, the Catholic story of it is generally a late and unbridled fiction.
A short account of the havoc which modern scholars have made of the Acts of the Martyrs is given by a Catholic professor, Albert Ehrhard, of the ViennaUniversity, and will cause any inquiring Catholic to shudder. [4] Dr. Ehrhard mentions a French work, L'Amphithèâtre Flavien, by Father Delehaye, a Jesuit, and calls it "an important contribution to the criticism of the Roman acts of the martyrs." It is a "criticism" of such a nature that it dissolves into fiction all the touching pictures (down to Mr. G. B. Shaw's Androcles and the Lion) of the "martyrs of the Coliseum." It proves that no Christians were ever martyred in the Amphitheatre (Coliseum). The English translation of Father Delehaye's Legends of the Saints (1907) gives an appalling account of these Roman forgeries. Another scholar has, Professor Ehrhard admits (p. 555), shown that "a whole class" of these saints and martyrs are actually pagan myths which have been converted into Christian martyrs. The whole literature which this Catholic professor surveys is one mighty massacre of saints and martyrs, very few surviving the ordeal. These fictions are often leniently called "pious fancies" and "works of edification." Modern charity covers too many ancient sins. These things were intended to deceive; they have deceived countless millions for fourteen centuries, and in the hands of priests they deceive millions to-day.
According to Darrel Doughty (a professor of New Testament Studies) Evidence for persecution of Christians during the reign of Domitian is slim. acitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians. Annals 15.44.2-8
This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for persecution of Christians by the Romans. It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination.
On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero blaimed the disastor on the Christians.
ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.......Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt.......
"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)
Tacitus continues:
"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."
Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360.
The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over.
It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to, arson or Christianity?, or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another.
But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information, i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes!
Jm. you don't see , do you.. No one believes for a minute that if something was "so small and insignificant" that constantine would have even been bothered to wipe his nose in the presence of what you call 'the littel cult". sir.. you are using your own "retro reasoning" to try to refit or redo and give history a makeover of your own word spool:
I suggest to you as a fairly bright human. it would "really" put me in the fragile box you attempt to place Jesus in, say if I "bought " the personal slants coming from your spool: sorry.. but we part company ..
I'm saying I would REALLY be gullible if I took YOUR word for all of this. LOOK at the post by Jerami: I AND others HAVE refuted many propositions you have made. Its CLEAR and ITS HISTORY , JM I'm sorry but no, your "slant" just ain't good enough. IT doesn't change the FACT of the way it actually HAPPENED either. you know that. So why the great spite towards it? You dont have to answer all of that out here, but Sir, you're showing up pretty empty on this one.. JESUS did NOT NEED of asking for Constantine's permission. You ain't even close to the right story even. Josephus, Hillel letters, Letters TO Phillip. Essennes history. Foxes Book of Martyrs. "the history of early church" writings of Michael Servitus. most of all but not least.. "the Book of LIfe".I'm not expecting you to take my word for it. It's all out there. All of the history - even the history by the earliest church fathers admits that the spread is miniscule at best. I listed sources. I listed references. I mentioned historical texts by NAME. I'm not hiding any "secret information". this has been studied by biblical scholars for centuries, and they're almost all saying exactly the same thing that I am.
I'm sorry that you're so uncomfortable with the truth that you can't even continue to talk about it. It must be hard for you, and trust me - I understand. These were part of the reasons I started to question the faith i was taught, and eventually became an atheist. The evidence AGAINST the god of the bible is overwhelming, even if you only take the bible as a source.
Peace out. I wish I could say it was all pleasant, but your departure is just what I've come to expect. I was hoping that you would surprise me. Of course you can't just leave - you have to preach first.
Oscarlites and Rad Man,
I am going to address both of your comments, but just completed a book's worth for JMcFarland (sorry!) and am going cross-eyed. I'm going to stop neglecting my wife and spend some time with her, but will be back to respond. And I'd also like to say how much I'm enjoying the discussion here. It's not often that you get to have such engaging conversations in these forums, so I appreciate it when it happens.one of the oldest civilizations that I can remember, ( but there there are more) .. the Chinese trace their ancestry back to a singular man, namely Lamech. to me this is significant. lamech was the farther of Noah.. most of, near all of the arabs trace back to abraham. Jewish (Isrealis) trace back to both Noah and Adam.
I hear you on the proposition of other people before Adam. but in my mind there could not have been more than a few, and those well integrated into the biblical named races. otherwise, we would have proofs and references of actual civilizations ( besides mythology) .. I believe mythology can and do have their (roots) in civilizations since Adam and creation. (traceable origins). So in my opinion , for whatever worth, if there WERE a small colony in existence before ADAM and EVE, then they were quickly absorbed into what we know as traceable race origins. Certainly any extant Pre-Adam age are not as certifiable and credible as biblical origin, not by virtue of recorded historical accounts. ( like - tales of Atlantis?) but even that could have occured within the era of recorded civilization. Attempts of Science to attribute archeological discovery to prehistoric man - ie.. here is a stone hammer along with dna samples 30,000 years old, I confess as a christian, I do not know what to do with. If that stone hammer were indeed the oldest, I do not know that it solidly opposes anything in the Christian , Arab and Chinese beleive of our biblical origin. I suppose its Gods business if modern DNA is true in the aging accountability and there WERE men that along ago. But
on my previous thought. Now THAT would be a search for science, to test all living humans for a trace of a separate origin. I hope I didn't just open a new door. that would also eventually reveal some authenticity to one or the other beliefs if you want to live that long to find out. the problem that SPIRITUAL based christians would impose is that there is a GOD DNA in us once we are reborn in CHRIST through Holy Spirit Death, Burial and Spiritual New Birth. One that would allow us to elevate in flight once the trumpet sounds and we are drawn by Him as steel towards a magnet. The Rapture is the hope of the Christian. And before that, the deliverance of the spirit into Gods presence upon death. But having been identified as the one scripture sets forth, by baptism into one body. by being obedient to the death of the old man, having our concious and our minds purified by the washing away of our sins. even literal baptism being not for the literal washing away of our sins, but for the answer of a clean conscious towards God. having the Name of Jesus called over us and then being supernaturallly anointed / baptized with the baptism of the Holy Spirit as it happened to the disciples AND the 3000 on the day of pentecost, giving them power, as Jesus's final debut at Bethany proclaimed. and ye SHALL recieve power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me both in jerusalem and judaea and all the way to the farthest places of the earth!. repentance and remission of sins is also a prerequisite to enjoy the gifts of God , claim the evangelists of yesterday.. but where are they today? its harder to find those that still preach a LIVING gospel.. is this further proof of the age? and the world events that herald a new age? a new millinial and more bible prophecy very soon occuring such as the inevitable mark of the beast? the battle of the middle east not jsut popularly marked as the Battle of Armageddon? what if a world religion is annouced? what if all the atheists AND all the christians are commanded to accept the new world order, an age of prophecy, come full circle, will charge us and judge us and all will have severe consequences. A dark evil sphere of control will sweep the globe.. will it be in the name of UNITED NATIONS? in the form of WORLD PEACE? and will we all be subject to bow down to this "GOD" of the world power that has been formed and implemented around us, and that heralds a "RELIGIOUS" man of stature who fulfills the bibilcal described Antichrist? the son of perdition, who once he is through, will show his terrible power to (attempt to)destroy all who oppose him? if by that time, no one believes in that prophecy was real, then what about when the REAL Christ comes against him, and they fight it out.. and the vultures circle the valley of Meggido and all the nations of the earth are marching back and forth.. could those vultures spoken of in the text mean airplanes? jets? drones? But the final significance is that it says blood will flow.. and that a mighty host will rise up to destroy the powers of evil. the evil , does it equal = all those who stand AGAINST God today? all those who turn their backs on ISRAEL? does it mean all those who have sided with the SONS of the earth , who have opposed GOD? who do you think will win? Just as sure as the belief and the hope and the existence of a man called ADAM, and the hope and the existence of a man called moses, and a man called David and a man callled JESUS and his roots are traceble in the jewish ancestry back to a man called david and to a man called noah and a man called moses and abaraham, and then back in a pretty accurate text called the bible name by name and perhaps this IS the reason, of ONE strong ancestry given, to a man called Adam, and to a reference to a Heavenly creator and to an angel of ligth fallen from grace and his being called the GOd of THIS world.. and then .... the story goes on.. that then SATAN is put in chains and locked up for one thousand years , while there IS peace on earth, and yet its peace negotiated by God not by man. -- according to the septuagint.. according to the Books.Haha.. You're a trip sometimes, Rad Man. You seeing that exchange as me being 'schooled' explains how you could think I 'turn things around' in the face of 'contrary' information. My mistake was in my wording. 'Spreading like wildfire' is a bad analogy. But knowing Christianity had been established as the only legal religion by the end of the 4th century (399AD), combined with the statement she specified that said, "the term "christian" or any reference to those believing in Jesus is practically non-existent prior to 250 AD", means in less than a 150 years it went from practically non-existent to taking over the whole of the Roman empire. While a 'wildfire' analogy probably isn't the best analogy, the ultimate point I was making is only stressed further. I was thinking in terms of it being gradual over the full four centuries. This just means it started slower than I thought, but that it actually happened quite a bit faster. So, how is that in any way 'contrary' to my original point?
Exactly. That viewpoint reduces everything humanity is down to insignificant. That just means that everything that is the human condition can be boiled down to a bunch of individuals trying to lessen all physical and emotional discomfort as much as possible, which in themselves are only chemical and biological happenings in our brains.
If there is no conscious, intelligent creator who purposefully created existence for humanity's sake, then everything it means to be human is a manufactured product of our own collective selfishness. By that reasoning, if the extra cells that are formed during the process of forming a human embryo were to each decide for themselves that they don't want to just serve their purpose and die like they're supposed to, and were somehow able to overcome that fate, then each human at birth would have a hideous growth between all their fingers and toes and blocking nasal passages and everything else, basically rendering the design of the body impractical and possibly unable to sustain life once separated from the umbilical chord and brought into the world.
Or, in other words, our self-assigned self-importance would ultimately lead to our own demise as it's, in the end, a detriment to the species. For example, you could look at all of our efforts in medicine or dentistry as hampering our own evolution and increasing our dependence on those practices for survival. That would mean that anytime we're able to overcome the pre-procreating death of a person due to hereditary reasons, our efforts only really rob future generations of a better evolved body where the process of evolution itself would normally remove that hereditary defect from the gene pool. Opening the door for higher functioning, further evolved elephants to take over.
Do you see what I mean? There's just no good way to look at it in that context.
Propaganda means it was knowingly and purposefully fabricated by someone to influence perception. Knowing just what we know about the texts, how old they are, the number of authors, the span of time between this portion and that, the likelihood of it being purposefully fabricated propaganda is, as I said before, highly improbable, if not impossible, just logistically speaking. That sounds more like the opinion of a man who lives in the 21st century, looking back on the collection of books as a whole, with his modern perspective and a healthy dose of cynicism towards that collection of books and the religions associated with it, trying to dismiss the whole thing.Perhaps you don't fully understand how, why and when propaganda is used to persuade the masses. Read how Hitler used it to persuade his people that they are special and couldn't fail. Read how the American's used it to demonize the Japanese. Notice many American's state that they live in the greatest country in the world, but many have no reference. If you think for a second that telling stories that their people are descended from Gods could not be propaganda you may want to consider how the German people followed Hitler into war against the world and the Jewish faith. Many Germans knew what was happening to the Jews but did nothing. Propaganda.
I'm saying if for a second you take God out of the scenario you have propaganda. It's either the word of God or propaganda.Do you not see the difference? According to the bible everyone descended from the same guy, and only the descendants of Jacob/Israel were 'picked on' by God, and the story illustrates their inability as a people to follow their own God's commands, causing them to lose their land due to exile. Are you suggesting they're using reverse psychology?
Plus, in both examples you gave those tools of propaganda were administered within a single generation to drive a certain desired mindset to push forward a very specific agenda in a very specific scenario.
As I said before, your theory makes very little logistical, or logical, sense.Yes, some had inability to follow Gods commands because they themselves were descendants from Gods. They were special. And within these specials God had his favourites. They were taught what could happen if they went against God. Both Abraham and Moses negotiated with God. God gave them respect and he listened to them. A single genetic line was drawn. It doesn't sound like propaganda to you that God commanded passover was only for the Jews and should not be shared, but only for a few circumstances one being circumcision?
There you go, Rad Man. Good example. I didn't think about that. What other example of propaganda can you think of that self imposes cutting off the foreskin of every male? What does that accomplish in your 'the bible is Jewish propaganda' scenario? What's their deliberate game there?
And what are you talking about 'descended from gods'? According to them, they, along with everybody else, were descended from the same person, Adam. And what age exactly are you suggesting this was all written? During Moses' time? During the age of the Kingdom of Judah? Or the Kingdom of Israel? While in exile? Because the ages between when these laws were established and when these books were compiled together spans a very long time. Do you even know? Or are you just making sweeping allegations about a particular race/religion of people out of (self-admitted) ignorance?I must be hitting a nerve.
I have no idea why the God of the bible order all Jewish boys circumcised. Does it make any sense to you to permanently mark his chosen males?
I am doing nothing different then you are doing. You have a theory and you are exploring it for truths. I am doing the same.
Gods, yes. You said your self Adam was different, the whole line of them were living more then 800 years and God didn't like them mingling with humans. Hitler didn't say his Aryan race were descended from Gods but he did announce them as being superior and the Germans and Italians bought into that.
All I'm saying is there is either a God or there is not. If there is not then the OT was merely propaganda. What if, for example there were no records of the Jews being held as slaves by in Egypt? What if for example there were no evidence of a world wide flood? You being under the assumption that God exists has lead you to think a certain way, I am no different in that regard, but that doesn't make you more right. Do I take myself seriously with this propaganda thing? Not completely, but it does explain a lot. You do recognize that the entire OT was directed only towards this particular group. The laws he gave them were not directed towards any others. What land they are entitled to, what they should do with there own bodies, what they should eat. This was the only lineage God cared about? That doesn't sound suspect to you.
Interesting, in all the time I've entertained your theories I don't believe I've ever called you ignorant, I think I've even refrained from calling you delusional while other haven't.You said yourself you were ignorant of the material. I'm not name-calling. Ignorance, as in lack of knowledge. Which you yourself admitted to and that I'm alluding to. If someone were speaking this haphazardly about evolution you'd be all over it, and would probably be siting all kinds of reference material.
If you're talking about the Jewish people, descendants of Israel/Jacob, then that's just one of many lines 'of Adam'. According to their texts, everyone was 'of Adam'. The Egyptians, the Moabites, the Anakites, the Philistines, everybody. Remember? Every single nation that the Israelites battled against, their every neighboring nation, everyone, according to Genesis, came from Adam. Whether it be according to my theory or in the traditional scenario, this doesn't change.
You're definitely hitting a nerve because this discussion is pointless and getting on my nerves. And what I think is most annoying is you're usually better than this. This is more Mark territory than you, driving something into the ground like this, no matter how many ways I try to show you how absurd it is. Even with a limited knowledge of the bible you should know that every nation, according to the bible, comes from Adam. or that the whole thing is about the Israelites being punished. Now you're sticking to this one argument that is completely baseless and keep going back to it, no matter how many times I try to illustrate it simply, logistically, doesn't work. God or no God. And it's not like you listened intently to my objections, researched a response, and got back to me. This is all clearly from the hip.
Meanwhile, you won't even give me the satisfaction of admitting you were maybe mistaken, or that I was maybe even right, about other objections you brought up earlier. Instead, they just don't get mentioned again and we just return to beating this dead horse.
If you want me to 'entertain' your theory, then give me some specific information, some evidence, that backs up what you're saying. Like in the way I provide all that information that actually backs up how I'm interpreting the bible (Ubaid/Uruk culture, archaeological data, climatological events, a corresponding timeline, etc.). Because as of right now, half of what you bring up touting this particular theory is inaccurate even with the most cursory knowledge of the bible. Stuff I know full well you know, yet seem to forget when you get back on the propaganda train of thought.
I wouldn't bother just arguing biblical interpretation without all the corresponding evidence, especially with non-believers, because, as we're illustrating here, it's a fruitless discussion that goes nowhere.I said sub-par, you spoke of ignorance. At one time or another I've read the entire bible. Do I remember it all? No.
"Do you even know? Or are you just making sweeping allegations about a particular race/religion of people out of (self-admitted) ignorance?"
I guess according to you I should bow down to anyone with a greater knowledge of the bible or the Quran. Should I except that the Quran is the true word of God because many people with more knowledge of it then me say it's the true word of God The Quran stats that Jesus was only a prophet so should we all dismiss Jesus as the saviour?
I'll let this go. You are clearly misunderstanding what I'm talking about.Are you saying a sub-par knowledge of scripture is somehow different than ignorance of the material? To be clear, I did not mean that as an insult. I was just referring back to what you yourself said.
It should be clear that I am not suggesting you should 'bow down' to anyone with a greater knowledge, or that you should take their word for it that it is true. Understand, what you're saying goes beyond simply saying you don't believe it. You're accusing the writers of deliberately lying to manipulate behavior or justify actions. And I do understand how and why you might think that. But I would think that you would agree that if anyone were to actually accuse someone of that kind of behavior, that you'd expect them to have taken the time to really know the material they're criticizing, especially when they're making allegations against the authors. Do you not agree?
I think the bigger issue I have has more to do with you asking me about it directly, then dismissing my responses about it. I don't mind the statement in and of itself. I just take issue with you engaging me in a discussion about it, yet giving no credence to my responses. You didn't address anything I had to say directly about why I see it as improbable, or impossible. You just go on assuming you know my mind and why I think what I do. Especially in this case when my responses had nothing to do with my belief in God, but was more based on what I know about the source material.
I put a lot of time and effort into these discussions to ensure I know what I'm talking about and can back up what I say. I don't necessarily expect that of everyone, though it would be nice, but I do expect that of someone who's going to engage me in a discussion about something, especially if that discussion is about something they are putting forward.I understand, but we both know the word ignorant is more apt to be seen as an insult.
Again, you're not understanding. I'll try again. The mere fact that I don't believe in God means I don't believe the writer and think they were lying. What else could I think? Do I have to get to know the material to not believe them? No, I take it you don't believe Mohammad was a prophet. He was either a prophet, a lier or delusional. If you think he was a prophet then that would pretty much nullify the NT. Do you think we need to spend years studying the Quran before we can dismiss it? I using the Quran to help you see it from my perspective because you have to much invested in the bible to look at it critically.
Same back at you. You always dismiss my responses and I have brought up examples that you completely ignore.
Once again, in this case you have more knowledge of scripture is not part of the discussion. This discussion is about who is telling the truth, not who said what. Remember we have no idea of how said what. I've been engaging in conversation about your beliefs for a long time and while I don't agree with you I tried to give you respect as I try to give everyone here respect. I think I'm entitled express my thoughts as well.Okay, see, I think this helps illuminate where the disconnect is here. Though I’ve tried to make it clear in the past, I don’t think you realize that when I’m discussing this stuff, especially when talking to a non-believer, I discuss in terms of factual knowledge. I will sometimes try to put the facts in the light of a ‘God existing’ perspective, like all of that talk about free will versus God’s will or the whole thing about God existing outside of time/space, but even that corresponds to factual provable information. My focus is often to illustrate how the facts and information used to support one view, your view, is no different than the facts and information that support mine. I know you deal with a lot of believers who reject facts or who only speak from the perspective of a believer, and I think you project that assumption onto all believers, including me. Despite our numerous lengthy discussions.
Your example of the Quran is a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about. In that scenario we know the author and we know his motivations. His reasoning for re-writing the Torah (and other bits of the OT) was that according to him the text had been altered over the ages, so his prophetic vision was to write it as it originally was, or restore it. So, in this case, you’re right, either that’s what really happened, he lied, or he was delusional. But the OT itself, and most definitely the Books of Moses (or Torah), existed in oral form long before they were written down as we know them, and probably existed in written form even earlier than what we know in texts that have not survived. And this information comes from what historians and scholars say, not on a ‘God exists’ perspective. The authors were numerous, the times they were written varied. And before being written, while still passed along orally, there’s literally no telling.
This is why your ‘propaganda’ scenario doesn’t fly. For it to be propaganda it has to have been knowingly fabricated to achieve a particular end. This is why I say It’s logistically improbable, if not impossible. For this to be the case with the books of Moses, or really all of the OT, would in and of itself be a monumental achievement. By your reasoning, leaving only the options that it’s true or a deliberate lie, then that would mean all mythology is either true or a deliberate lie. Yet to those societies, like the Greeks and Romans, they believed that was their actual history. Technically, if you just say it’s a lie then you at least have the possibility that it’s not truth, but not deliberately false either. An accidental lie, maybe, if you take ‘lie’ in the strictly non-truth sense, and don’t see it as deliberate. But to say it’s propaganda, that’s a whole other story.It actually makes perfect sense to me. I have done my best to discuss things with most as if God exists because I see what happens when I don't. People react just as you've done and the conversation stops or I get call the anti-christ. That's happened a few times. What I'm doing with this is trying to get you to look at it as I do for a moment. I did think you would take it better then you had to be honest, but I most likely didn't articulate what I was doing very well and most Christian's indoctrination prevents them from doing so.
Let's not forget that Mohammad told people he was a prophet. He either believed he was or he purposely lied. If he believed he was then he either was a prophet or he was delusional, It's really that simple. There is no reason the same logic can't be used against the OT. Sure it was a different time and the stories were passed down and changed, but from the perspective of there being no God it certainly fits well when you read the text. I know because that's how I read it.
I do agree that this free will thing is very difficult. If one doesn't believe in God then free will could be seen a impossible as we are biological creatures and make decisions based on our biology. We then pretend to have free will for the good of society. I one believes in God and that God gave us free will the the fact that it was given negates the free will. All interesting stuff."He either believed he was or he purposely lied. If he believed he was then he either was a prophet or he was delusional, It's really that simple. There is no reason the same logic can't be used against the OT."
All of that is fine, but none of that necessarily equates to propaganda. That takes it to another level entirely.
I'm not sure what you mean about how I reacted. Is this about the 'ignorance' comment? I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. That was not my intention. I did also say that this discussion was getting on my nerves, but I'm pretty sure that's a normal human response to an at times tedious discussion. I wasn't being snarky, if that's how you took it. Actually, that comment had more to do with trying to make you realize you were slandering the Jewish people and that you were doing so based on what you admitted to be a limited knowledge of the material in which you were using to base your accusation.
But you're right in that the word 'ignorant' is often taken in a negative way, and I probably shouldn't use it, especially in written form where tonal misunderstandings are common. Much like a comment such as 'the old testament is Jewish propaganda' could be taken the wrong way. Especially in this case where it really doesn't apply, even when compared to the examples you gave. Generally, propaganda isn't self-depricating, where the Jewish bible most certainly is if it is indeed purposefully fabricated. Your demonizing of the Jewish people as propagandist villains much more closely resembles propaganda than the old testament.
The truth is I can and do see it as you do. And considering I was a bit of a troublemaker in the congregation I grew up in, and have since gone out on my own finding my own answers, I'd say I'm the antithesis of indoctrinated, if that's what you're suggesting. A particular traveling "expert" that once came to town to talk to my church's young people about 'devil music' comes to mind. He wasn't very happy when a 10 year old called him out on his inaccuracy that REO Speedwagon was not a drug reference, but was in fact a name taken from an old fire engine, and that Kansas was actually a Christian band, pointing to the word 'know' in his slideshow as he was showing us the evil dragons on the album cover "Point of know return". Nowadays, by most church's standards, I'd be labeled a heretic, and have even been called one a time or two.
But enough about all of that. What most grabbed my attention in this last statement is your claim that God giving humans free will negates it being free will. I would appreciate if you'd elaborate on that as I'm not following your logic there.I've been ill lately and have been called sensitive and grumpy, so if misunderstood you I am sorry.
I brought up Mohammad not to show you his propaganda (It of course is, religion keeps society in line), but to show you I'm not at all insulting the Jewish people. Much like I don't blame the German people for Hitlers doings. What I'm trying to articulate is if you look at the OT just like the Quran, it's either right or wrong. It's not an emotional thing for me, but it is for others. I don't think Mohammad was a prophet, so he either lied or was delusional according to me. Do you think Mohammad was a prophet? If you say yes then you must believe Jesus to have been only a prophet. If you say no the you also believe him to be either a lier or delusional. The very same can be said for every holy book.
Free will is a most interesting and complex concept. If God gives us the ability to make our own choices is that the same as Gods ability to make choices? Was his ability to make choices given to him? How's ultimately in control? A mother and child got to the corner store to buy milk. At the cash the mother says "Son, pick any chocolate bar you want and I'll buy it for you". Two things happen here. 1. the ability to make the decision has been give to the child and 2. the decision was limited. Those two things together negates what is truly free will. Follow?I think I saw a few days ago that you had mentioned to someone else that you've been sick. I'm sorry to hear it's been lingering. I can get pretty curmudgeony when I'm not feeling well, so I can certainly understand.
Basically, I think spirituality in general is a subjective thing that results in all kinds of different conclusions. It's an internal reconciliation that doesn't lend well to reaching objectively verifiable conclusions that everyone can agree on. It's only in those ages where critical thinking and philosophical ponderings are prevalent, like in the days of ancient Greece, or in the past few centuries beginning in Europe, that atheistic leanings even exist. Elsewhere spirituality and the belief in a higher power in some form or another is the standard, or default state, of humanity.
In the case of Muhammad, he and his people believed in the same creator God of the books of Moses, as these were their ancestors too and it came from the land they inhabited as well. But according to these stories as the Jewish people told it he and his people were descended from Ishmael, the son of Abraham's wife's handmaiden, and not the promised son, Isaac. Being that the Israelites were the descendants of Jacob/Israel, son of Isaac, and they were said to be the "chosen ones" according to the Jewish version, this excluded Muhammad and his people, though I'm sure they felt the same kind of spirituality and connectedness to a higher power. Not seeing Jesus as an extension of that same creator God of the bible to all the world, I can certainly see his motivations.
Now, to further complicate a seemingly simple question, I don't necessarily think it's so simple as to categorize as 'truth/delusion/deliberate lie'. Whether he had a vision, or heard a voice, I can't really say. But I do understand and recognize how spiritual reconciliation in the face of seemingly contradictory information, especially information from a finite object such as a book that offers what seems to be objective, verifiable information regarding a very subjective experience such as spirituality, can be a difficult thing to come to terms with.
As for the Quran itself I do not see the accuracy when laid against known history that I see in Genesis, so I can definitely say in that regard that I don't see his text as having any sort of extra-human insight where the natural world is concerned, though I do see quite a bit of spiritual wisdom. Because spirituality is subjective, I don't generally like to pass judgement and deem somebody else's conclusion right or wrong, as if my own conclusions are somehow better, just different. I don't personally agree, because in both cases where Judaism and Islamic views are concerned, their view of the God that created the universe and everything in it limits that God to being too small and not extended to the whole of creation.
As for your assessment of free will, I get what you're saying. As far as God being eternal and what He's capable of, not being created Himself, I really don't know. I think the God of the bible as described only really addresses it from a perspective where humans are concerned, and doesn't really address it other than alluding to there being more to the story going on beyond this existence. Like the whole bit about God's will being done here 'as it is in heaven', the existence of angels and such, and the 'let US create humans' bit.
But free will on a human level I don't see as being as limited as you're suggesting. It's a capability that apparently took some goading, if the whole serpent making a suggestion to Eve story is any indication. But as I read it, free will was a fairly unpredictable element that resulted in God 'regretting putting humans on the earth' among other things. Once it was introduced into existence it was a game changer that required much more direct interaction by God to realize the desired outcome. That would be like that mom telling her kid to pick out a candy bar, and that kid instead setting the store on fire.I remember there was a time that I was much more diplomatic like you are now. It's still very simple however and I'm not just picking on Mohammad (that could be a guy killed) I'm simply trying to help you understand how I see all religions. You admit to seeing Mohammad's motivations and the lack of extra-human insight where the natural world is concerned. So while we can't conclude that Mohammad was not a prophet, we can admit that we don't think he was a prophet. If he wasn't a prophet he either lied or was delusional. If as you say he was having visions then that qualifies as being delusional. If he was not delusional then what were his motives for lying? Was he lying for his people or lying because he liked the attention?
As for the free will thing, If you believe in God and that God gave free will, you'd notice we have limited options as compared to him. The little boy was not given the option to burn the store down. I can't feed every starving child on the planet. I can't step outside our universe or see the future. It's not really free will then is it, it's limited will. My dog has the very same will then, he could if he decides to crap in the living room or steal a sandwich (he's done that as a pup and he knew he was in trouble but did it anyway), but his will is limited because he can't steal my car or rob a bank. Free will may just be a necessary illusion.You're looking for true/false, right/wrong, answers in something that is inherently subjective and relative to perspective. That's what happens when you try to define something in a finite/material existence that's simply not finite/material. Free will, among other things, means a limited/individual perspective where no two perspectives are exactly alike. Everything you've ever heard or read about God or the soul or anything of a spiritual nature from sources outside of yourself, or external, has already been through the translation process of somebody else trying to put it into a material context that can be conveyed from one person to another. It's like trying to explain a complex idea in your mind to somebody else. Just the process of putting it into words or creating an image or music or whatever cheapens and simplifies it. It's never quite what it is in your head, so nobody outside of you will ever really 'see' it like you do. And what little they do get out of it gets translated through their own relative experience that fills in the blanks where words or images failed to, but the differences between you and them means what's filled in is never exactly like what you had. It's subjective.
In the case of Muhammad I think it simply has to do with his spiritual self feeling one way internally that this external source doesn't match up with, and trying to reconcile that. You can call that dishonesty or delusion if you like, but I see it as having an intangible element that then leaves everything else in the process that we can see and read and debate over, the tangible fragments, insufficient for reaching any kind of concrete conclusion that can adequately be deemed true/false/black/white/right/wrong. It's like including an intangible variable in an algebraic equation. Everything else that you calculate once that element is there in itself becomes intangible. His reconciliation was changing the source that conflicted with his spiritual self. How he went about reaching that I have no idea, but purely based on what can be verified against the material world, again assuming I'm right about anything, my perspective says its not "right".
I think you're looking for a will that is "free" in the context of there being no limits. I mean "free" as in apart from God's, which to you would be the equivalent of nature. It's humans behaving contrary to nature. In spite of it. There's nature/instinct, then there's what we do. A dog weighing the pros/cons of taking that sandwich has everything to do with learned behavior of reality versus survival instinct. What we do, putting a rover on mars for instance, has nothing to do with that. Ours has the instinctual/survival element as well, because we are of course mammals, but then there's that other part. That part that wants to figure out nature and how it works so we can exploit it, control it, and bend it to our will.Headly, I've read this over and over trying to understand your perspective. I truly do try.
What confuses me is that you say humans go against God's will/nature but other animals do not. I'm really having a difficult time wrapping my pretty little head around this. I don't see how sending a rover to mars is against God's will or nature. It seems to me humans are trying to ensure our survival by not keeping all it's eggs in one basket.
I can't conceive of anything that humans do that would go against nature or anything that other animals don't also do. Even war makes perfect evolutionary sense and we are certainly not the only animals that fight over land. Ant's, lions, wolves, bears and just about every territorial species.
My question is... Can you give me an example of humans doing something against nature or God's will that other animals don't do as well?
Rad Man,
You are attempting to follow the Bible literally which leaves many things unanswered, such as circumcising all boy man-children. If you take what happened to Nebuchadnezzar as a symbol of how man live between civilizations, hairy as birds are feathery and without the mind of civilized man (Daniel 4:32-34), realize Adam was like that prior to having his hair removed leaving him and Eve with our coats of skin and, if you understand they mated prior to Adam by pulling the hairy foreskin back like a condom would prevent the boy from enter deep into the girl which gives them equal pleasure as boys obtain, then the circumcision was for the boys to give girls pleasure in the mating act.
There are 2 major differences in Adam's descendants.
1) They were incomplete man (Genesis 2:24), or woman as Adam renamed them, because they didn't develop their femininity or masculinity once the supposed operation took place.
2) They brought death to man because of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and none of them lived a spiritual day of 1000 years with the life expectancy being now reduced to less than 100 years.
If you understand the definition of Egypt is place of bondage and the people who put others in bondage would not give themselves that name, you would realize someone had been enslaved in that place. That is why it's also written in Revelation 11:8 someplace {The USA} is called Egypt in the spirit. And I don't believe there is proof that it rained for 40 days and the whole earth was flooded with water for over 6 months, I believe that flood is like the one in Revelation 12:15, a flood of ignorance which made the Genesis 1 hairy man become as ignorant as the hairless and fair or light skinned descendants of Adam.
Just my interpretation.
Cheers to you guys.. I have enjoyed a lot of posts here.. I have even learned some substantial and interesting points.. But one I cannot do is go around the merry go round again and again to hear someone so intent on just going around the merry go round again. all I hear in answer is rhetoric. I'm parting company from this forum. I have been sincere and have not hid what I believe.. but there comes a time to wipe ones feet.. hmm did I partially quote the man from Gallilee? maybe will see ya on some other post. The callings of God are without excuse. I find the wisdom of Jesus claim to wipe ones feet is that once someone has "heard" the truth, it DOES produce a result. "My word shall NOT return void, but shall accomplish the work that it was sent to do.. "... Not like our words.. not like jms. not like mine, not like rads, not like headly, or nature boy or jerami, jane, aware, servant, or the gal that ((insulted?)) at the very first post. MAYBE she was spot on, instead, and had the pulse already.. maybe things ARE as they appear at first glance.. I'm outa here.. God IS good all the time.
- Deepes Mindposted 12 years ago0
Ok.. This whole conversation is a debate that has raged on for years and years.. J M, You are absolutely correct.. There is no physical unimpeachable evidence of the existence of a God of any type. Just like there is no physical evidence of half of the things that are written in the OT. The OT is full of myths (definition: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.). In other words, these are things that have not been confirmed or disproven. One of the biggest flaws is that they are described and taken literally instead of what they are: narratives that provide a simplistic explanation of things that cannot be fully explained. Such as the Big Bang. We all know that it happened, but we don't know what the catalyst was that set it all in motion. But just because there is no physical proof of something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Take love for instance. What one person describes as love, someone else might call gas. Basically some things just come down to what you feel on the inside. Once your mind and heart are set on a specific ideal, then there is no need for anyone else to be able to change your mind because, As you eloquently put it, you can find an argument to deny what anyone tells you. A lot of what is taught in the churches is taught INCORRECTLY (DID I JUST SAY THAT?). As a result, people that are getting saved are getting saved for the wrong reasons and then leaving the church. I saw homosexuality mentioned. The church beats it over people's heads that being homosexual is an automatic trip to hell (which is false). It is considered a sin, yes, but no more of a sin as lying, fornication, murder, etc.
I've said all of that to say this: every person, ideal, and philosophy is like a thumbprint.. No two are identical. You continue to believe what you choose to believe, but here is another secret for you atheists (especially the former christians that got saved as according to their prior beliefs).. Keep living the best life that you possibly can live. Most of man's laws were fashioned after the laws in the bible. Keep living according to the law and show remorse if you do something wrong and you will still make it into heaven (if heaven exists). Whoever is right is right and whoever is wrong is wrong.. Once we pass on from this earth, we may never encounter each other again.
(Disclaimer: I am a Christian. I merely tried to post an objective and unbiased message not saying anyone is right or wrong for what they believe.)while I agree with a lot of what you said, (and this debate has existed for thousands of years, not months), I disagree with one point.
Most of the laws we have today are NOT based on the bible, although a lot of people would like to believe they are. Most of the 10 commandments were plagiarized from earlier societies (and consequentially not even based on a religion at all). They're just simply good for a society. Morality is dictated by society, not a scripture. When people started congregating together, they realized that in order to survive they had to stick together - and that meant not stealing all of your neighbor's stuff when you may have to rely on him to help you out down the road. Perhaps its not great to kill a bunch of your own people and weaken your tribe against an invader. They're not biblical - they're just common sense.Which basically in itself is not common. It's just based on what a Majority of people decided on. In either case, your reply reinforced what I stated in regards to beliefs and understandings and the acceptance or denials thereof. I applaud your thirst for proof and the knowledge, but at the same time there are some things that just cannot be proven. But just because it cannot be proven does not mean it does not exist (in my opinion). We cannot fully prove the big bang theory and how it came about, so does that mean it did not happen? no there is evidence that suggests that it happened but the Hows and what happens cannot be explained. I wish you the best of luck in finding what you are seeking in your life
I know this can be difficult initially. It's kind of an odd time for me right now because people I've discussed this with weeks and even months ago are starting to come around to it all at once. People who were at one time strongly opposed to it or even threatened or offended by it. I think it's just kind of a slow burn. It's like it just has to marinate for a bit, which is understandable because it's quite a different view that manages to redefine a familiar story without really changing the fundamentals of it. Now these same people are beginning to approach me about it all enthusiastic and wide-eyed with questions like it's all they want to talk about, just as my enthusiasm is beginning to settle. Used to it's all I could talk about. It's strange. Not that I'm counting you among the ones 'coming around', I just say that more to stress that it's not something that others I've talked to seem to see so clearly right away.
It's not that free will means everything we do is going against God's will. It just means it's our own will that's separate from His. It can be both good and bad. It's 'knowledge of good and evil'. Free will is a gift, but it can be both creative and destructive. Not everything we do of our own free will is in conflict with God's will, it just means that because it's 'free', we're capable of behavior that conflicts. Like my mention of the rover on Mars. Not everything we do is sinful, or evil, or whatever you want to call it. It just means we're capable of behavior that is not 'of ' God, or nature, or mere instinct. It's our own actions and decisions born of our own individual wills. All the best and worst things humans do are because of it.
Rather than looking at the animal kingdom, I think the best side by side comparison is between indigenous humans and us, because they're physically the same as us, yet our behavior is dramatically different. All humans, both indigenous and 'civilized', evolved from the animal kingdom physically. We're all ultimately mammals and have the same drives where survival is concerned. Indigenous human behavior is much more in line with what I would consider to be determinism. It's not so much brain functionality or capability that differentiates us. It's our desires. Our desires go well beyond simply surviving and procreating.
Think about it from the sense of what creation describes. If God were to imbue a will in all living things to simply 'be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and the seas, become this and that, etc.', that's what propelled living creatures to become what they are physically. That's His will being carried out, as if it were programmed into our make-up. Then, once the planet was populated, he introduced that other element. The one that made Adam and Eve want that fruit, in spite of what God said, because they "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise." Even though everything else did exactly as God said, these two instead did what they wanted because of what they personally desired, in spite of what God said. Then 'the eyes of both of them were opened' and they suddenly became self-aware to the point they realized they were naked where it simply hadn't occurred to them before.
Being that every living thing is compelled to survive, and that they all cohabitate in the same physical world, there will surely be conflict from time to time, but nothing like the conflict we so called 'civilized' humans have proven capable of. What we do different than any other living thing that I think can be most clearly seen is in how we fall outside of the natural circle of life. Everything else lives in harmony with nature. Things are born, take only what they need, and die. And in doing so they don't destroy the environment. We do. Rather than living in harmony with nature, rather than just going with the flow, we try to control it. We alter the landscape and bend it to our will. We impose our will on everything around us. We create waste that doesn't break down naturally, or chemicals that can actually harm the delicate balance of the ecosystem. While indigenous humans have the same physical brains with the same capabilities, they simply don't. They're content with just living. They don't even see the earth as something they own, but rather as something that is itself alive and that belongs to all living things. We take and claim land for ourselves as if we have some sort of right to do so. But we do really cool things too. We make beautiful art and music. And we're constantly compelled to understand everything and our place in it. Free will is a kind of separation from the natural world. It's a separation that makes the world around us and even our own bodies seem foreign and strange. It makes us react adversely to completely natural things like natural bodily desires and functions. Like sex or menstruation. A trait that indigenous humans do not share. And it makes us possessive and materialistic. Also something foreign to them.
Not to carry on and on like I know I can and often do, but I would like to address one more thing in anticipation of what I'm sure will be one of your objections to this. It's about the statement I made that we take land as if we have a right to it, which of course sounds like a contradiction to the whole 'holy land' thing in the OT. But as I've said before, what was commanded of the Israelites in the OT shouldn't necessarily be looked at as what we're all supposed to do, or how we're supposed to behave, to be in line with God's will. It's simply what was necessary in that environment. Because free will had been introduced and was spreading, humans all around the Israelites were busy fighting each other for land, taking what they wanted from one another, attacking, killing, raping, and everything else. Behaviors that were practically non-existent in prehistoric humans. To survive in that environment, what was commanded of the Israelites was simply what was necessary. That's why I stress that this is God working within the bounds of free will. He's continuing to respect the free will He had given us, except in making the necessary provisions to ensure this one chosen line survived to realize what must be done. He's not imposing His power as the God of the universe to take over and force everyone to behave to protect the Israelites. He's allowing them to continue to behave of their own wills, and only intervening where necessary to protect the chosen line that Jesus was to ultimately be born of. Those who did not claim a plot of land in that era that would then allow them to defend themselves and make it through this tumultuous time did not survive and are not represented in the population today. If God had not intervened in the way He had, the Israelites would not have made it either.Thanks for taking the time out to explain that once again to me. I appreciate your effort.
I was hoping for specific examples however because for the life of me I can't think of one example that is not mirrored with both indigenous/first nations or the animal kingdom and ourselves. Sure some indigenous people with a lots of land behaved differently towards that land, but when you take that land away they behave just as we do.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 … eting.html
Many animals are territorial and fight for a given spot, right down to squirrels or ants do we are no different in that respect.
Yes, we change the environment to suite our needs, but that again that is nothing new in the animal kingdom. Look at what the beaver does and how destructive they can be to the environment. The locust is another example of a species devastating the environment. What about the carpenter ant? I can list animals that are destructive to the natural environment all day so I guess this is where I'm having trouble finding a specific example of us doing something that isn't natural for us to do.I can understand that. In our attempts to understand how we came about as we are today, there have been many extensions drawn on as comparisons, much like you have here, to show that modern humans are basically mammals with more capable brains doing things that are mirrored in simpler terms in the animal kingdom. That's been our general mindset.
This is why I repeatedly stress the importance of what we've learned in recent years involving human behavioral changes. For a long time there was this logical assumption that the discovery of farming was ultimately the catalyst that brought about behavioral modernity. It makes sense. But what's being discovered when you step back and look at all the evidence on a more global scale, it's becoming obvious that this isn't exactly how it came about. It wasn't the larger settled communities brought about through farming, and evolved social activity through these newly emerging environments, that changed humans. There were significant changes that can be seen, but not fundamental behavioral changes. No matter the size or population of these settled farming communities, no matter how abundant or sparse the resources, human behavior remained unchanged in how they worked and interacted with one another.
The behavioral changes that can be linked directly to the most significant advances long after the discovery of farming are what are most significant. Male dominance, social stratification, materialism, an inherent negative view towards bodily sexual needs and functions, these can all be traced back to first happening in a very specific time and place. And everything else that came after, the significant leaps forward in inventions, the rather sudden appearance and rapid advancements in organized warfare, the emergence and rapid spread of urbanization, the changes that can be seen as depicted in carvings and art that glorify violence and great warriors, these all followed the propagation of these behavioral changes and where/when the spread from southern Mesopotamia out.
It's hard to isolate specific examples in the way you're requesting on such a small/individual scale, as our whole way of thinking has been formed around assumptions that we are just higher evolved mammals. While the examples you gave have logical merit, they're not quite the same. Slavery is one that comes to mind as a specific example more in line with what you're asking for. Social stratification, while it's practically non-existent in humans prior to this age, could be argued to exist in examples like ants or bees. But, of course, you can see the 'social' organization we see in those examples are evolved traits that made them successful, and thus are not something that came 'later'. While in the case of humans, we existed 'successfully' long before this came about. It's the other way around. Your territorial argument is another one. Most territorial behaviors have more to do with just trying to exist where ever they are, and defending themselves and the environment where they live and protect their young when encroached upon. Where humans in the age I'm speaking of expand this well beyond just their environment, but actually establish land as belonging to them. Not reacting to attacks in a 'territorial' defensive way, but as more of an offensive effort, forcing their will on all of those who exist within it.
Your example about how indigenous/first nation people react when their land is taken away should be a clue. They're reacting to a threat, much in the same way you'd expect nearly all living things to react, just in a higher evolved way. Even in indigenous cultures throughout history this can be seen. They existed in much the same way as all early humans did generation after generation, but in those cases where 'civilized' human encroached on their established ways of life, we see behavioral changes as a result. The more violent American plains Indians are an example of this. But if the behavioral changes we see that spawned civilization were simply instigated by environmental changes, whatever they may have been, if they were simply a reaction, then you'd expect to see behavioral changes in much the same way in indigenous cultures where 'civilized' humans ARE the environmental change. But we don't see them reacting this way. They don't themselves become more advanced or 'civilized' as we did. And while the environmental changes that are often thought to be what brought these behavioral changes out in us that then spawned civilization are by no means unique to that time and place, that reaction in humans is unique. In fact, they propagated and spread much more like a genetic evolutionary change than as a reaction to changes in the environment. And the result, with indigenous cultures making up a smaller and smaller percentage of the global population, also mirrors genetic evolution than simply being a survival instinct to modify behavior in the face of environmental change.Let me get this straight, the only example you can give of humans going against nature/Gods will is slavery? Slavery has been endorsed and enforced and promoted by the God of the OT? It was you who said Humans are the only species that goes against Gods will/nature. All I ask for are examples, because I can't think of one example of humans going against human nature or Gods will that would imply we have free will.
That's an example of something humans do that has no mirrored examples of anything similar reflected in the animal kingdom or even in indigenous humans because that's what you asked for. It's humans carrying out their will through others. Trying to equate slavery to God's will, or trying to equate what God told the Israelites to do in the OT as what God expects of us or intends us to be, is completely missing the point. As I said before that was a human behavior that came about once free will was introduced. God's actions, laws, and commandments were all about realizing a particular outcome in an environment where human free will existed without conflicting with or overriding it. That doesn't mean God 'promoted' it. It's man's will being carried out. Just because God didn't say 'don't do that' doesn't mean He's promoting it. He's operating within an environment that includes it.
Those behaviors I pointed out, the very same ones that can be demonstrably shown to have emerged in a very specific place and time and that can be demonstrably shown as directly related to the human advances that led to civilization are the key. And they are psychologically tied to modern human self-awareness/individuality/ego. This is the emergence of free will, and it's emergence and the way in which it propagated and spread around the world can be seen in the evidence, and matches right up with what's described in Genesis. And it's a change that came about and propagated, not as learned behavior in reaction to the environment, but passed along genetically through procreation, thus closely resembling how evolutionary changes that give advantage to one group over others eventually pushes those that do not have it out of existence. This is why a vast majority of the world's population can be traced back to those who came from those first civilizations.
Asking for specific examples of humans going 'against' human nature or God's will you run into problems. One being that human nature is defined by human behavior, so there will be no examples of human behavior that conflicts because that too falls under the heading of 'human nature'. The other problem is you can't demonstrate something that goes against God's will if you don't know what God's will is. You're not looking at it in the right way. Look for the emergence of human individuality. Indigenous humans are observably less individually minded, and are more of a group/tribe mindset. Which is why you don't see class stratification or materialism. And it's the same reason why they have different views towards their own bodies and sexuality. That stronger individual ego separates us from the natural world and from our own bodies. That's the emergence of free will and that's what differentiates us.Sorry slavery is perfectly reflected in the animal kingdom and we both know I can show lots of scripture as reference that the God of the bible endorses it and even sets laws that gives Jews a slight advantage against slavery. Ants, wolves, lions and just about every animal that runs in pacts or groups use the weak to do tasks they don't want to do themselves and their only rewards is the last piece/choice of food.
Slavery and polygamy are clearly natural human behaviours, most reading this will find them ethically and morally wrong, but that doesn't negate that they are natural behaviours that can be seen in more animals besides humans.That's an incredibly loose definition of slavery you're using to argue that it exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Most would just define that as alpha/dominance behavior amongst mammals, or colony behavior amongst insects, and would never compare that to slavery.
And considering slavery did not exist in human societies for 194,000 of the 200,000 years of anatomical modernity, or in any other species of hominid over nearly 6 million years for that matter, it's clearly not 'natural human behavior'. In every other example the same behaviors you're siting have been ingrained and consistent across the board for that species. Only in humans did it begin so late, in one specific region and time, and spread out from there.
You wanted to better understand free will as I'm describing it and I gave it to you, even illustrating how it can be seen in the archaeological and historical record. You can choose to not see it if you like, but it's as clear as day. If your goal is a better understanding, it would behoove you to not ignore the obvious facts of the case as these behavioral changes are a definitive turning point in human history. That would be the equivalent of believers arguing against evolution despite the overwhelming evidence.Your only example of human free will is slavery which was sanctioned and endorsed by the God of the bible and it's clearly not only a human trait.
Ephesians 6:5 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Colossians 3:22 (NLT)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord.
Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you.You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, 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 them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than 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, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.
If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.
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 satisfy her owner, he must 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. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter.
If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Please show me where the bible says that God says we should not keep slaves because it's immoral?
All that being said you have no idea if our ancestors ever kept slaves. How many men kept women as slave for both sex and food throughout the ages.Oh good, we're back to this. I'll try this again.
God's will ... for beings with free will to exist.
Those beings of their own will established a way of life that included keeping slaves.
In that age, historically recognized as arguably the most violent age in human history, if you were born into this age you would either belong to the people in power over a region, to the labor force for the people in power who your people worked for and who's protection you lived under, or out in the open as nomadic tribes where attacks were common. There were not yet established borders or established laws outside of those civilizations. This was the result of free will. It was a way of life established by our own making. God operated within that.
What should God have done differently here, in your eyes, that would have made it acceptable to you? Tell them don't? Do it another way? What do you suggest?
And, if you'll go back and read what I said initially, I specified slavery because it's a behavior that can't be arbitrarily associated with other behaviors in the animal kingdom as easily as others, though you tried anyway. There's plenty of examples beyond that; male dominance, materialism, war, social stratification. Nuclear weapons, mars rover, moon mission, computers, telecommunication, astronomy, mathematics, etc. And unlike the behaviors I'm sure you'll associate these with in other species as lesser evolved versions of, these developed in humans long after humans had already established a common lifestyle that proved beneficial and successful, thus allowing them to exist and survive.so your argument seems to be "well people were keeping slaves anyway, so god just fell in line and put in his two cents as to how often and how severely they could be beaten" Right?
here's the thing. god was not ashamed to tell his people NOT to do things - even though other people were doing them. Like worshiping idols, lying, coveting, etc. If god was a moral god, he would say "oh hey - don't own other people, it's not nice". He didn't. He just told them who could be slaves, who couldn't be. How long the could be slaves, and how to trick them into being slaves forever. He repeatedly said that they are your property and they can be passed down as inheritance - and the new testament is no better. Since god had no problem saying "don't you dare do that or I'll punish you" why didn't he do that with slavery?I think it's as simple as understanding the environment they were in and how life operated. I know this seems awful from our perspective, but it was a very different time. Think about it from the perspective of being in a land fully inhabited, where you and your people have to establish a place for yourselves. To not be out in the open where attacks were common, to establish yourself in a defensible region, usually by force, and provide for your people, you have limited options. And you have the people who populate the region to deal with as well.
Just look at the events going on all around these stories throughout the bible. Attacks out in the open, strangers arriving in towns being in danger of rape by mobs of men, the wars like what's seen in Genesis 16 between Shinar (Sumer), Sodom, Gomorrah, and others. Then throughout the later centuries you have nations conquering nations who are later conquered by other nations. Being forced into exile, then freed when their captors are conquered.
The life of a slave was not how we think of it today. It was a way of life. Except in specific situations, you could often buy your freedom, but what then? Serving a ruling class meant protection and provision. Shelter and food. The things God specifically dealt with as far as telling his people what not to do had more to do with what needed to be accomplished in the long term. Where slaves were concerned He established rules to maintain order. Reading it from our perspective sounds horrid, I know, but what was established was unheard of elsewhere. And in that age you needed a working class. It was a mutually beneficial system that worked. This was long before economies and established borders and laws in the open regions outside of the larger established budding civilizations who operated in much the same way. Those who didn't establish themselves and setup a working system simply aren't represented in today's population. In our time it's hard to even imagine what life must have been like then.
Just try imagining how you would do it. Imagine the climate of the region, the work that must be done to protect and provide for your people, numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The resources it would take and the value on land that could provide for that large of a population. Think of the logistics involved. The laws you must establish and maintain while in a mixed population, especially in the case of the Israelites where controlled breeding was the priority. Not mixing with the other inhabitants and the people of neighboring regions. Simply saying, "don't do that, it's not nice" isn't so easy.Tell me Headly, which of the following scenarios seems most likely to be the truth?
An all knowing all powerful God set forth laws for his favourite people allowing them to keep slaves rather then telling them to set slaves free and or pay them and warned his favourite people to not mate with other peoples.
or
The people who kept the slaves set forth laws to keep slaves so as not to be questioned by the slaves or neighbour peoples?
I seems barbaric because it is barbaric. I wonder if American slave owners used the same logic as you just did. There was a time not long ago when the south didn't want to give up slaves because they didn't think the economy could handle it. The economy did, and the truth is they just didn't think they could make as much money themselves without free labour. It was as you claim just their way of life. You think God would have said what Obama has said today. All people are created equal. Instead what you have is a small group of people saying "we are God's chosen people and God told us how to keep slaves.
The Christian faith was the biggest thing going and recieved massive political opposition as well as required distinct government attention and response in the years 30 BC up to 200 BC. It was not left to rest or blow away, both at Jesus Birth, during the three years of his ministry leading up to his crucifiction and ressurection, and in the following first and second century. History leaves no room for a mistake in this. you can't wipe it away. ask yourself WHY evolutionists would just like for the life of Jesus to diminish and just go away? why indeed. because there IS proof that he was the Messiah! because He Lives today in the hearts of the beleivers. His word is reliable enough to get you saved. further, Jesus offers his own living proof when you endeavor to serve him in sincereness. He will come inside your heart, your mind and live inside of you, and transform you. read merlin carothers book, "from prison to praise". read "The Story of Great Christians" read Azusa Street revival accounts. read the bible. IT DOES and CAN transform HUMANS. Complete changes. Proof Positive. Thousands. Milliions.
why don't you read some history - real history, not the fabricated crap of the early church. The growth of early christianity was a whimper, not a wildfire. We've been over this. You've got people of legal standing in the early 2nd century in Rome and they have no idea who this jesus person is. If it was so widespread, shouldn't the highest lawyer in the land instantly know what a "christian" is, or what should be done with them? Funny, but Tacitus doesn't. At all. Revisionist history may make you feel better at night, but it's not actually true. Do you care if your beliefs or true, or do you just want to read the fairy tales that help you sleep better at night?
By the Way, Oscar - I though this conversation was beneath you and that you were leaving? Or was this just another excuse for preaching in the guise of actual human concern.Every man is saved but only the chosen few {from the foundation of the world} will endure until the end of civilization called world in the Bible. The only reason Jesus lives in man's hearts is so we will be able to recognize the second messiah when he manifests.
There are 2 types of epiphanies called being born again, the one most man have are those which cause them to overcome a mentality which violates social laws is the first but the other is the one which causes man to integrate all things of existence into a common reality. It's only those who have the latter who will endure until the end (Isaiah 7:22, Matthew 24:23 & 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18) for reaping the salvation the Bible refers to.
That salvation doesn't manifest until the second messiah, the branch from the root of Jesse who incarnated about the time Israel became a nation in 1948[/i] (Isaiah 11:1 &10-12), has manifested to bring about the peace written in Isaiah 2:2-4. That peace is [b]the year of Jubilee which allows everyone desiring to be liberated from the slavery to money and material goods to be.
Can I get an Aman to that?
And here is another freaking thread I want dead.
"Play time. I've done it before. Try me.
THIS THREAD IS DEAD"- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
Let the last word be in that the O.P. isn't looking for proof , he's looking for someone to tell him its just okay to drop his faith into the bucket of crap that has become just so much attention grabbing for the anti- bible thumpers P.C. club !......don't believe anymore ? nobody really cares !
ahorseback - hardly. You can't really speak for someone that you know nothing about. Proof, it appears, is still illusive - just like it's been for a few thousand years.
Proof, in human standards is the biggest cop out. Do you really think a being capable of creating life and the universe as we humans know it, which BTW is still quite limited, is so concerned with showing us proof of His existence. I'm sure He has bigger things on His plate. Faith is the bridge to knowing Him. Humans have been saying this for thousands of years.
Out West,
According to Christianity's text, faith is finding substance and evidence to support unseen beliefs (Hebrews 11:1) and it tells us the supposed god and everything is visible by comprehending the things made (Romans 1:20) therefore you statement errors from the texts.Yes according to the Bible Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I was using my own words about faith. People have been believing in God for thousands of years and have been saying the same thing which is you need faith. Funny how you want to take the bible literally. So here's one for you. So you are without any excuse to not believe, since you like to take the bible so literally.
Romans 1:20 English Standard Version (ESV)
20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.That's not true. If they were clearly perceived then there would only be one religion - the "true" one. Not thousands of denominations within christianity, a multitude of other gods and no nonbelievers whatsoever. Maybe your god misjudged his creation - or he's hiding under a rock or something.
There you error, J Mc, it's because few people comprehend what they see, if they did they would not believe in a creation nor creator seeing everything we know happens in cycles, like Genesis 1:14 tells us. Existence has no actual, only a perceived beginning. Few, if any, people see seasonal trees as the symbol for reincarnation, evergreen trees as everlasting life, metamorphosis as new birth ending reincarnation for taking man into everlasting life, and the list goes on and on.
Our bodies are constantly regenerating it's self. Within about 10 years every cell in your body is replaced and when we do die our atoms with be regenerated into something else just as it does while we are alive, however our consciousness is not contained in those individual atoms therefore we do not keep our consciousness upon death just as our consciousness is not contained in the cells and atoms that we constantly shed.
Our bodies does regenerate itself, it's supposed to rejuvenate itself that we age not but civilized living has changed all of that, we now only regenerate our bodies while aging and discarnating. However, the bodies anyone is in will not be regenerated into something else, they will return to something like honeycomb cells awaiting another lifeforce to be born into them at this time in the next cycle. Existence is cyclic and repetitious exactly the same way forever.
For example, I have faith and hope to see a leprechaun riding a unicorn.
Yes, and like the many gods that came before your god was invented, people had faith in those gods, but now they're just myths.Out West,
I gave you Romans 1:20 in my post and http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/vision.htm will explain it.
I only accept at most 80% of the Bible literal and that's because the words are so that I can not find any other interpretation for them.I only accept at most 0% of the Bible literal and that's because the words are so that I can not find any other interpretation for them.
The bible can be taken literally, which works best for atheists to dispute it. Or symbolically for those who can think for themselves.
There are believers that take the bible literally as well and use that literal translation to make their case for belief
True but I'm not one of them. But do any atheists?
I'm puzzled. Is the bible meant to be taken literally or figuratively. Or are some parts literal, while other parts are figurative? Who is qualified to decide which ones are which, or does it come down to individual interpretation for whichever tactic is more beneficial in any given argument?
Isn't that the way most arguments are conducted?
The issue, JM, is that the only one being that is truly qualified to give that answer is the one whose existence is being questioned. The rest of us, however, are trying to understand it as best as we can. There are some that will say that the whole thing is literally what happened because there are some churches (That I have been to and never returned to) that say that the bible is the infallible written word of God (which I disagree with). There are also some people what will state that some stories in the bible are figurative or metaphorical (The creation story, Adam, and Eve, Noah's and the Ark.. and a few others). I can see the merit in that because these stories give a reductive interpretation to explain the unexplainable. But if you are able to get through the stories of the brutality, plagues, and other bad stuff of the OT, the NT does contain some decent points for living the best possible life that you can (even taking God out of the equation. These life application parts can be found in other books as well)
So finally, for me,I don't know which is which, but I tend to focus more on the NT life application parts of the bible and certain other principles (not judging, helping others, etc) and not worry about the bad stuff. If you keep your focus on the good stuff and doing good because it is good rather than out of fear of the bad people can lead a full and happy life.and I don't have a problem with that point of view specifically. The problem that you run into, however, is that they're all a part of the same book. You have the new testament (which I would argue is still immoral) that is the second installment of the old. You can take the good bits out of any religion and ignore the bad. If that works for you, then fine. But as you pointed out - the new "good bits" of christianity are not new at all. They've appeared in other philosophies and even other religions long before they were adopted into christianity. At that point you have to wonder if you are following christianity - or if you're following general principles that have appeared in numerous religions throughout time.
If some of the stories in the bible are parables or figurative tales, then fine. But I don't see it as a metaphor when the god commands people to slaughter men, women, children and even animals. I don't see it as a metaphor when god specifically tells people to put pregnant women's bellies to the sword and rip them open in order to kill their unborn children. I don't find his list of 613 laws to be metaphorical when he commands the stoning of disobedient children, homosexuals, and people who gather wood on the sabbath. I find it to be cruel and inhumane. You would have an incredibly hard time convincing me that those stories are "metaphors" and should not be taken literally.To your first point, I totally agree with you. I don't know if you read my earlier reply as to why I believe. I'm pretty certain that I'm following General principles, But I haven't known where or how to locate any books that pre-date the Bible. I know this doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that there wasn't something before that, just that I haven't found any.
To your second point, I did not specifically list any of the things you mentioned because they aren't metaphorical at all. They are literal.. very literal. But in my questioning of the bible as well, I wonder how much of that actually happened and how much of that was a projected idea of what the writer feels should happen in these situations.. If it really did happen, I'd then have a question as to whether or not God did truly tell them to do this stuff of if they were simply doing it in his name (there is a difference). God gets a lot of blame for things being done in his name without him having anything to do with what happened. Some take some things totally out of context. "In the name of God" is not the same as "God told me to do it".. the bible was written by men "inspired by God" is not the same as "coming from God". Ok.. now I'm Rambling...LOL1 samuel 15:3 -
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
Hosea 13:16
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword; their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.I am familiar with these scriptures, Though I am confused as to why you posted them.
I'm curious as to your take on them. Are they literal? Some of them claim to be direct quotes from god - so did god really command them and thus they become moral or good? I'm interested to see how YOU would take these verses, and how you would explain them, since you're more open minded than many of the other people I've encountered.
I'm going to tread lightly here because I'm not totally sure (yes I can admit this) and am going to try to answer as best as I can. As they were written, the meaning would be literal. There would not be any metaphor at all in this. One of the biggest issues with the bible (IMO) is the lack of cohesiveness in it as well as the contradictions. One of the biggest misconceptions that a lot of people have about the bible is that it only had one author... God. The truth (as you know, I'm just trying to educate those that may not know) is that the bible was written by several different people over the years and then rewritten and re-translated. There are some that say these people were "inspired by God" when they wrote their specific books and scriptures. As I pointed out earlier, "inspired by" doesn't mean the same thing as "coming directly from". With there being different people inspired by God, it leaves room for perspective interpretation. I think it is possible that in this case, the writer's inspiration was born more out of their own idea of what they think should happen to those who disobey God or don't believe. This may have been the writer's idea of justice. If (for the sake of argument) this did actually come from God, then i look at it the same as I view "justice" in general. "Justice" in itself is neutral. It applies to all who violate the laws. Now whether it is good or bad, moral or immoral is subject to individual perspective (sometimes determined by what side of the experience you are on). Personally, I disagree with killing for any reason (especially the death penalty) because it is taking a life. I may not always like people, But I like life..lol
So ultimately, do I think God really commanded them? I personally doubt it. If he did, that would greatly contradict other areas of the bible that my optimistic belief focuses on. But I could be wrong. There are a lot of unanswered questions in the bible altogether.
J Mc,
My finding is only maybe 20% is to be literal but isn't possible to decipher the difference without being what it calls being born again and I call being metamorphosed.
My findings are only some instructions, excluding the 10 commandments and most of the instructions to Israel although they may have been given them from Moses for establishing social harmony, are literal for becoming spiritual minded. That would include things like forsaking everything (Matthew 19:29), go into all the world ...observing all things... (Matthew 28:19-20), Trust in the Lord {one's subconscious mind telling one to go against traditions} with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding (Proverbs 3:5) and the like.
Just curious, are you saying that literalists are literally unable to think for themselves? And it's a serious question, slightly cutesy-poo phrasing notwithstanding.
That has been my general experience when it comes to religion. However it is only my opinion. I find atheists to be similar. They do not find the meaning in what is written but use it literally to then draw conclusions about God, or lack thereof as they feel.
For some literalists, the initial and literal context of what is written is what the real meaning is to them. This doesn't mean that they cannot think for themselves. It means that with their thinking ability they still found the same answers
what do you mean - "find the meaning in what is written". Do you mean they don't agree with your interpretations? I find it difficult to believe that every atheist you've encountered just takes the words at face-value and is incapable or unwilling to try to find out what these words mean. In fact, the majority of other atheists I've encountered KNOW what they mean or have studied religions. That doesn't mean that they have to believe in them.
I took this to mean that he believes atheists are unwilling to try to find the meaning. To me that means that atheists are (rightfully) not compelled to contort themselves into a frenzy to try to justify or rationalize brutal or inhumane verses to make them appear more palpable. Atheists see no reason to try to justify immorality in the bible or anywhere else. We don't need to make excuses for a god because we don't believe in one. That hardly means that we don't understand what it means.
Makes sense. I took it to mean that neither some believers nor atheists are able to understand what is written in the bible because they got one message out of the bible based on definition while he got something totally different. But I don't want to jump to too many conclusions, so could you explain your statement a little further outwest so that we don't get the wrong meaning?
That is simply not true. We do know there is some good in the bible, but understand it was not written by or inspired by a God therefore is just like any other work of fiction, sometimes fiction can inspire.
So, who is the authority on what meaning is supposed to be derived from the Bible? You?
I know from the perspective of a non-believer this will be hard to understand or accept, but you're not going to get external/objective confirmation through the bible. The bible is a tool for the believer. A relationship with God is a personal, internal, spiritual matter. If you could peer through a telescope and confirm God's existence, or objectively confirm the bible to be 100% accurate beyond the capability of the human hands that made it, then that in itself undermines the faith aspect, as well as free will. Knowing for a fact there is a God standing over your shoulder watching you would no doubt influence the true freedom of our will.
The bible is not perfect, yet it is. It's not objectively/factually perfect. It is made by human hands. But God, being the God of time and space and the universe and everything in it, made sure it's exactly what it needs to be and says exactly what it needs to say. It won't convince the non-believer as it cannot in and of itself prove itself objectively legitimate, thereby giving confirmation without faith, yet it will be a guide to the believer beyond explanation.
The spiritual connectedness is first and foremost. Then the rest comes. Without that, you'll only see it as you currently do, which is by design. We were spiritually disconnected from God through sin, and it's this physical/material world that stands between us and blinds us. Having free will, you must first accept by your own will, without objective confirmation influencing your willful choice, before you can then be reconnected. Without that connection willfully accepted, you will never see what we see. It's exactly as it was described thousands of years ago and it still holds true.I'm a believer and this didn't make sense to me. Please elaborate on how the bible is perfect but not perfect at the same time
As in, it says exactly what it needs to say, and it accomplishes exactly what it's meant to accomplish. It won't give the world objective confirmation beyond faith, yet through faith it can be an invaluable guide.
I thought it made sense.
The bible is not factually accurate or correct; we all know that. On the other hand, it isn't supposed to be: the purpose and the design of the bible is aimed at increasing faith, not providing a true picture of the actions and happenings of the time.
Much the same as a politician that will work hard to convince you of something that may or may be true (his own honesty, maybe! ). Or an advertisor. They will flat out lie to you to get your money; the objective is not to educate you about the product but to get you to believe in it enough to buy it. The bible "lies" in the same fashion in order to get you to believe without ever actually knowing anything.Not everyone knows that the bible is not factually accurate. There are some that believe in the bible exactly as it was written.
To say that the bible "lies" may not be an accurate statement either. If we know that the bible lies, then why should we still follow and believe it? The purpose of a "lie" in this case would be defeated because it would be totally idiotic to still believe a lie when you know it is a lie. This ideal is what makes some believers seem crazy and delusional for us to say that the bible lies but it is still the truth. That is an oxymoron that can lead someone to draw the conclusion that the truth of the bible is a lie..I should clarify it doesn't 'lie', and it's not nearly as flawed factually as many like to make it out to be. In fact, many of those old testament stories that seem to be the primary examples people use when pointing out biblical 'flaws' are proving to be way more on point than it's given credit for (adam/eve, flood, babel). But, as participants in these forums have proven over and over again, even if you point out in history where exactly these things happened, and explain in the context of real history how those more questionable bits (slavery, slaughter of men/women/children, etc) actually make sense, the non-believer will still not be able to see it or be willing to accept it. Even though science is slowly confirming it, and will continue to do so, that still won't be enough to convince the non-believer. It's perfect like that.
Much in the same way that it will not prove God's existence by being totally objectively infallible in spite of it being written and compiled by numerous individuals over the span of many, many years, at the same time it won't be proven false either. It's the 'living' word. Though it seems it's just a finite, man-made thing like anything else, it still manages to stay relevant throughout every human age and continues to be meaningful to countless people in every imaginable walk of life. There's a reason we're all still here talking about it to this day.I can point to many conflicting details in the gospels. They can't all be truths.
No they haven't.
If it actually made sense then we would believe it.
That is just the furthest thing from the truth.
I have been proven false. It's an old Earth and an even older universe which is not the description in the bible.Sure they can. Each of the Gospels are giving the details based on their own perspective of what they are saying
Apparently it isn't supposed to make sense. That's the point... I think
again that's based on perspective. One side says that science is closer to proving the existence of God while the other says science is closer to proving the nonexistence thereof. Truth is we won't know what science proves until science actually proves itHere is where we have to disagree. The gospels have Jesus being born in different years. They have conflicting genealogies. They have Jesus dying on different days. They have completely opposing accounts of the resurrection. Saying that these are just different perspectives does not account for these inconsistencies, and they cannot all be true. you and I can both witness an event and have completely different accounts of it, but if you say one thing happened, while my account says that the opposite thing happened, they cannot both be true.
I'm sorry, what do you mean? Do you think both can be true?
What I mean by that is that when you are dealing with specifics such as time yes one must be right and one must be wrong. I was actually speaking more about differing accounts of witnessing events. My statement wasn't clear in the beginning. I can recognize that now since you pointed it out. Thanks for pointing out my error in not clarifying what I specifically was talking about
It should be made clear that science will not, and cannot, prove or disprove God. This is something that seems to be completely lost on a lot of people. Think about it like this, if there were actual scientific evidence that confirmed the existence of God, what would that evidence look like? What is it that we expect to see in the evidence, that we do not, that makes someone reach the conclusion there is no God? Or there probably is no God? If we were talking about a being who physically forged the universe with his gigantic hands, then yes, there would be evidence. Maybe a huge finger print on the moon or huge disembodied arms floating out in space balling up a planet.
Science is the study of matter and energy. All the matter and energy of this universe is the product of the Big Bang. Science cannot see past that point. So, nothing we can see/observe/study/measure existed before the beginning. Plus, anything you do see/observe/study/measure is just based on what we know. All we know IS this universe. So, if God created this universe, there's no detecting that. And if God takes an action in some way, there's no way of detecting that. Because we don't know what to detect. What to look for. To us, it's all 'natural'. And as far as anything spiritual, or having a 'soul', these things are not physical and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the physical sciences. I always find it odd when someone says, "If there's a soul, show it to me." The bible made the distinction thousands of years ago that there's a physical world and a flesh and blood body, then there's a soul. Yet, here we are. Still.
To understand this whole 'science can/does prove/disprove God' thing, you have to understand the history of it. In the old days, humans would observe birth, death, sun rises and sun sets, seasons, trees growing up from a seed, and they thought the world had always existed as they knew it. It just regenerated itself. It kept repopulating. Out with the old, in with the new. In those days it was thought the universe was infinite and had always existed as it does now, and that's how God created it. Then came the industrial revolution and large machines started digging and trudging up our history. We found bones and fossils and we began to realize, the world used to be very different than it is now, and you can tell by looking at the layers of the earth. Then it was discovered, or hypothesized, that universe actually does have a beginning. And it all came from one point. Or that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. Or that the sun isn't at the center.
Now, what does any of that really say about whether or not God exists? See, what has actually happened is that science has illuminated some flaws in some long-standing assumptions. That's all.I don't think this has anything to do with perspective. Show me one scientific evidence that is getting close to proving the bible correct? Let's start with a flat new earth held up on pillars?
Wow, Rad Man, thanks for clearing all that up. Not sure why I bother with reading and researching and all of that. I could have just asked you and saved myself loads of time.
Headly--
With all due respect, your pet theory reconciling creation with evolution and ancient civilizations etc etc etc has been presented in multiple forums, but until you can provide concrete evidence for your own theory ( and by evidence I mean peer reviewed journals, archeological confirmation, historical confirmation, etc - none of which you currently have) your theory is simply one if the many similar theories that attempt to contort the biblical accounts with what science has proven to be true. You point to archeological evidence now, but its backwards. You find things that seem to fit, so you claim corroborating evidence and start with the conclusion not the premise. If there was significant merit to your claims, I would expect to find journals and research by people within the fields that you're discussing, and I'm not finding it - anywhere. What do you do for a living? Are you an archeologist or anthropologist? Are you a professional, tenured historian? I would like to see what response you get from professionals who are impartial in the form of peer review.
If your supporting documentation and evidence is substantial enough to pass the peer review process, I'd love to read the whole thing once its published. Until then, you're a stranger on the internet. Some of your points may make sense, and I understand the time and effort that you've put into it - but why should I listen to you?Don't listen to me. I just point it out, but want absolutely no one to just take my word for it. My whole thing is simply pointing it out. I'm saying, "Hang on a second, let's not make snap conclusions and throw this book or this ideology out because the people we associate with it are flawed, or what these people told us 30 years ago when we were kids isn't 100% accurate. Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong, but there sure are a lot of things that line up here. Things that, if true, go a long way towards helping ALL humans understand who they are and where they come from." That's the whole thing. It's a hypothesis that, at least to the limits of my own knowledge and access to resources, I can find no flaw. I just find more clarity.
I would love to go through a peer review process. I have no idea how to go about that. This is where I started. Well, I started with my own site. Then I found this place and engage in discussions with other knowledgeable people to see if it actually does hold water. I take up people's invitations like in this forum. If there's a proper channel to go through, if there's a particular format my write-up should be in so that it can be submitted for review, I just am ignorant of it. I will be happy to.you get peer reviewed by submitting a writeup of your hypothesis to a well established, reputable journal in the field - in this case it would most likely be archaeology. If they don't accept submissions from non professionals, I would start by going to your local college/university and submitting something to the department head of the archaeology department. He/she would be able to see if it's worth pursuing further or give you some concrete advice. When you do that, I would LOVE to see their response. Please feel free to email me.
I appreciate that and will certainly give it some thought. Part of the difficulty in knowing where to go with this is that it covers a lot of ground and doesn't fit so neatly into any one field of study. There's certainly elements that are archaeological and anthropological, but there's also psychological, sociological, and climatological aspects, not to mention the genetic aspects of it.
But it's not like what I'm pointing out needs much investigating. Much of it's been done already. The most obvious of a detectable/verifiable impact has already been well documented in books like 'Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo.... http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia.htm
While his work has been criticized as far as his psychological reasoning behind the behavioral changes he's noting, as well as his idea as far as what environmental change caused these behavioral changes, the evidence itself leaves little doubt. In fact, when I first ran across this book I was surprised because he basically did all the leg work that was going to need to be done to authenticate what I'm talking about, yet he wasn't coming from a biblical or theological place as I was. The evidence he collected and studied confirms exactly what you would expect to see if there were any truth to my hypothesis, and what criticisms were levied against his explanations did not apply to mine as it's the 'cause' that differentiates his view from mine. The evidence, however, is exactly the same. The same thing is also well covered in 'The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve Taylor, which I ran across in my research and where I first learned of DeMeo's work.
I understand how you see what I'm putting forward here. You assume this is the product of a believer desperately trying to ground the bible in real history. Rest assured, if that were the case, if this were just coming from some personal need to reconcile the bible and science, I would not be discussing it with others. It would only be for my own reasoning and for my own personal piece of mind. The whole reason I'm even talking to others about it is because I'm blown away by the evidence and I'm blown away that nobody I can find has yet to point out what I'm pointing out. Because you're right, you would expect to see others saying the same thing if there's any legitimacy to it. Yet, I can't deny its cohesiveness. The only reason I began talking to others about it is because of the possible implications if true. This isn't a believer versus non-believer thing. This is a human thing. This is an explanation that fits a massive amount of evidence across multiple fields of study. Whether or not you buy into the God aspect of it, there's good reason to think there's much more historical legitimacy to Genesis. It's just that, if I'm right, those events happened 1600 or so years earlier than when most people who have looked for ties in Genesis to real history were looking.Okay, Headly, let's change the subject slightly. What if, after an extensive study could prove that the research that you've done seems conclusive, and its accepted (at least generally speaking) from the peer review process? You are no closer to determining the cause. It is a huge leap to go from "this flood may have been greatly exaggerated but based on an actual event" to "good caused it, nd it makes the Bible true". That's a huge gap. Floods happen all the time. You have not demonstrated our proven the need for a supernatural cause, and that's the point of this while forum topic. I'll be the first person to admit that some things in the Bible may bree based on real events. So what? Real events are depicted in literature all the time. It doesn't mean that supernatural claims are true.
Yes, this is a good statement because it gets more to the heart of the matter. "It doesn't mean that supernatural claims are true." The very first question you should ask yourself is, "What is 'supernatural'?"
We're talking about the God who created the natural world. Everything within this universe is 'natural'. If you're looking for a 'supernatural cause', do you really know what you're looking for? How would you know when/if you see it? What qualifies something as 'supernatural'? And, if God created all that is natural, why would He then need to override His own creation? What use would the God of the natural world have for 'supernatural causes'?
This is the same idea that makes people think science can say something about whether or not God exists, when all it really means is that they don't know or understand what they're looking for. 'See, the diversity we see in the animal kingdom is the result of adaptation and natural selection, therefore, no God here.' Okay, so if there were a God, what would it have been instead?
This is about 'reasons to believe'. Proving the bible to be a much more legitimate source is a big step, because right now we all hold these age-old assumptions about how to interpret one of the oldest texts ever written, and we've basically written off the texts completely because those age-old assumptions have proven untrue in the light of science. Does that mean the texts themselves are untrue? Or does that maybe just mean the people who first made those particular assumptions about how to interpret what it's saying didn't know as much as we know now? When, in actuality, it could be a rather descriptive depiction of the beginning of civilized humanity, breaking it down by what differentiates us and makes us most 'human', where and when it started, what behavior is a product of it, what number of groups/first nations formed, where, how many different splintered languages there were, etc.
These are things that really happened. At some point we became less animal and more human. We evolved from the same lineage, yet somewhere along the way we became more self aware and more capable of self-assessment and altering behavior through reason than the rest of the animal kingdom. And there's something that sets us apart from the 'native' humans of this world as well. Whether the God part is true or not, there's a really good chance that's what these stories are describing. And if so, then that means that change was prevalent enough to be noticed by the people of that age to be written about. In fact, the part that most suggests a 'supernatural' element at play is the sheer fact that if there is legitimate accuracy to what Genesis is describing, it would be all but impossible for humans to know, understand, and comprehend nearly 2000 years of their history before the age of writing to the point that they could describe it so succinctly thousands of years and many generations later. And that doesn't even go into the accuracy of the creation account and what that says as far as there being a 'supernatural' element involved.
No, it doesn't lie, but only if you're willing to change the meaning of the words into something they don't and never did say.
The flood, for instance, didn't happen. So we'll say that well, it was just local and not the whole earth as stated. Or, as some do, it's just an allegory. Either way, the story is a lie as written, but if you're willing to ignore that and spin the words into something else then nothing is a lie.
That same tale, however, does give rise to faith - be good and believe, or God will kill you. If that's the purpose, then I suppose you could spin the "lie" thing to say it doesn't lie because it works. The non-believer won't swallow that, but the faithful may well find comfort in it.Wilderness,
You have to understand there's two distinct things here; what the bible says, and how humans throughout the centuries have interpreted what it says. For instance, all throughout the bible the same Hebrew word, [artz], is translated as 'land'. Except for in the flood story. There, biblical translators take that same word and translate it as 'earth'. They do this because they assume what they were told is right, that this was a global flood. Now you, because you live in the 21st century, when you hear 'earth', you think the planet. Because that's what we call the planet. But the people who first decided that's what that says came up with that centuries ago with no real knowledge to back that up.
For instance, roughly 200-250 years ago, nobody knew who these Egyptians the bible is talking about were. Then they were found. Roughly 100 years ago, nobody knew who these Sumerians were. Which is where Abraham's father was from. Now, we do. Hittites, same thing. We're slowly finding out throughout the decades that these people really existed.
In that age, these people had no idea how big the earth is. When they said [artz], they meant from this horizon to that horizon. That was the whole world to them. Their whole world. And all the people and animals in it. They had no idea there were two whole other continents on the other side.
It doesn't take changing the meaning of what it says. It takes acknowledging and understanding perspective and context. Even in the traditional context, ten generations after Adam, don't you think a global flood would be overkill? How much of the entire planet could ten generations really cover?
The Sumerians also wrote about a devastating flood that destroyed their whole 'world' too. And they wrote about this one guy who was warned ahead of time and built a boat. Well, it turns out, they're probably both talking about the same regional flood, which really did happen, and they're probably talking about the same guy and the same boat. And to the people of that age, that flood of the Mesopotamian valley, was the whole world to them.Is it gravity you are not understanding? I don't mean to be rude and perhaps my patients is running low, so I'll apologies in advance.
How can water cover a mountain in one area and not run into the surrounding area? Think gravity for a second. A local flood that covers the tallest mountains?
All of us. We choose to believe what we feel is the truth to us as individuals.
Like what? There doesn't appear to be anything at all on His plate other than us.
How would you know? Plus you don't even believe. So how can you comment on something you don't believe exists. lol
It's just like dealing with little children who believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
HEYYY.. I believe in the tooth fairy.. When I find that heifer I'm gonna get her for shortchanging me for my teeth.. Only going to leave me a dollar for my valuable teeth...lol
Seriously?!!? All I got was change. I'm going to protest.
You can't pray to the tooth fairy. She doesn't take requests.
Ba dump bump!Ha, but I was praying to the big guy in the sky, I thought for sure he would have influence over the tooth fairy.
Stupid Unions! Hey right now I'm designing a logo and booklet for a pension plan wishing I had one, just like I wished I got change from the tooth fairy. Stupid pension plans, stupid unions, stupid tooth fairy.
My pet invisible purple dragon ate the tooth fairy. Sorry.
I wish you didn't have a stupid purple dragon who ate the tooth fairy. Is that an invisible purple dragon?
It is invisible. I have faith that its purple and that it atethe tooth fairy because it appeared in my head and told me so. Why would I ever doubt an experience like that?
If Fluffy the wonder dragon appeared in your mind then you were able to see it in your mind's eye so you should know what color it is
Fluffy told me that I was inherently flawed from birth, so I don't trust my own perception enough to determine what color she is. I have to go by what she says - she knows best
Does by chance your dragon sound like your super-ego? Demanding perfecting and providing guilt when you don't achieve perfection. You most likely have many friends who also see your dragon and you feel comfortable being around dragon seeing people comforting your super-ego?
I also have a dragon, but not invisible, and can be seen in a tree in my back yard. And I think it was he who gave me winning lottery ticket numbers that I have provided evidence of in another forum.
Fluffy the wonder Dragon ate the tooth fairy?? Cool!! that means her money stash is unguarded.. Treasure hunt anyone??
I only got one dollar total for every tooth I lost!! I got cheated.
You got cheated? Not only did I only get a dime, but a Canadian dime.
Your arrogance shines though brightly once again Troubled.
this is in response to Headly saying science can't disprove God. Science can't disprove fairies and pixies and the flying spaghetti monster, either. the burden of proof is with those making the claim of God.
oh really? You're talking about the god who, according to his own book, is capable of parting seas, guides people by a pillar of fire or a cloud, comes down to actually TALK to people, sends plagues, burning bushes, visions, talking animals etc - and you're telling me that he's suddenly "too busy" to do any of those things now? That he's gone silent for over 2000 years because he's so busy? Wouldn't he have been SO busy back then, too? You're talking about a god that is fully capable of demonstrating proof on a world-wide scale, but not willing to. Your argument fails.
The bible says that believers should always be prepared to give an answer/reason for the hope that they have. When non believers ask for proof, however, we get told that it's a cop-out. Who's dodging the bullet now?
JMcFarland wrote
oh really? You're talking about the god who, according to his own book, is capable of parting seas, guides people by a pillar of fire or a cloud, comes down to actually TALK to people, sends plagues, burning bushes, visions, talking animals etc - and you're telling me that he's suddenly "too busy" to do any of those things now? That he's gone silent for over 2000 years because he's so busy? Wouldn't he have been SO busy back then, too? You're talking about a god that is fully capable of demonstrating proof on a world-wide scale, but not willing to. Your argument fails.
= - = - = -
Me … Regardless of what I believe, this is what the scriptures tell us as I understand them.
The point of these stories IS that all of these proofs were given, and the results was immediate and ever so temporary. The presence of God was still visible while Moses was up on the mountain, and yet the people lost their faith and built a golden calf to worship.
Prophesies were given to the people telling them of things that WILL happen to them when they do not follow the rules. The people didn’t follow the “Rules” and those things did happen.
The book of Daniel is a clear example of this. Around 625 BC Jeremiah began delivering the message that “IF” the people didn’t repent the king of Babylon will invade the land. In 605 he did.
In 538 BC Daniel delivered the message that three more kingdoms will be given dominion over the land. Cyrus the Great was considered as a Messiah that was to deliver them from under the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. The children of Daniels people was given 70 weeks to repent “Or Else” During this 70 weeks there will be three kingdoms governing the land SOoo we know this isn’t 70 weeks as we would normally understand them. After 62 weeks they will kill the Messiah! 568 years later they did.
At some time after the 70 weeks (end of days for that Hebrew nation) Dominion was given to the “Beast” (for 180 weeks) as described in the book of Revelation. During this time Gods presence will be represented only through the two witnesses as described in Rev. and the HolySpirit as stated by Jesus Christ.
====================================
JMcFarland The bible says that believers should always be prepared to give an answer/reason for the hope that they have. When non believers ask for proof, however, we get told that it's a cop-out. Who's dodging the bullet
= - =
Me To the best of my understanding … We don’t understand very much. This is the best that I can do in explaining my thoughts.- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
What in the world makes anyone think a god that is eternaly aged is to be held answerable to todays culture of entitlements ! To todays cultural requirements for acceptance , and to the politically correct need for proof of his existance ! If I were him , I would find the constant need for proof of faith by childish , selfish , moral midgets merely annoying !
My point exactly. It seems that he did that, got a box of "T" shirts and it didn't do any good, at least didn't last long.
After his Chosen people ceased to exist as a Nation, ... he sent his two witnesses as his representives. to the world. And the Holy Ghost to the individual.Ya gotta remember that these "visions" need to be inderstood in the same manner as we would interpret dreams. AND using those dream interpretations which were given to Daniel by Gabriel.
The first beast that rises out of the sea who is given 42 months or 180 weeks to blaspheme is/was the RCC as established by the Roman Empire and the second Beast with two horns is/was Islam established by Mohamed. When he died his established religious institution was divided into two thus the two horns. interpreted similar to the Goat described in Daniel 8:8
Each of these 180 weeks should be seen in similar fashion as the 62 weeks (Daniel 9:26) which took 568 years to be fulfilled. 42 months would be equal to approx 1645 years.
These two witnesses are not individuals but .... I can only guess ... ?? maybe concepts of a truth. These were sent one to each of the two beasts. Thus we have truth and falshoods simultaniously being taught within these religious establishments.
Not a clear answer .. it is all too complicated to explain all of the details in a linear fashion.iThe 2-horned beast is the United States, IMO. To come out of the earth, in prophecy, is the opposite of 'coming out of the sea' ( a highly populated area; amid "peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues."(Rev.17:15). Which without a lot of explanation is RCC. To 'come out' of the earth is just the oppositeSo here we have a nation that is springing up out of a wilderness area. Instead of overthrowing vast and wel-trained armies from the dense populations of the old world, this nation would be an area "discovered." In the eyes of the "known world", it would be new territory. Differing from the often blood-soaked nations of Europe, it would spring up quietly, peacefully, "like a lamb". America sprang up like a plant from the ground. A prominent authorfrom 100yrs ago, speaks of "the mystery of her coming forth from vacancy", and adds, "like a silent seed we grew into an empire". The pilgrims met up with the Indian tribes, but compared to the crowded cities and millions of the old world, America was a wilderness. The lamb-like horns indicate youth, gentleness, and represent civil and religious freedom. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect these views. But the beast with the lamb-like horns "spake as a dragon...Rev.13:11-13. The lamb-like horns and then the dragon voice present a change of personality. A real change! The speaking of this country as a "dragon" denotes force. This principle, was used by the leopard-like beast (the first beast) of Rev.13, which enforced religious observances by law! Such action by the U.S. govt. would be directly contrary to its grand principles of religious freedom.agon"- our nation? Do you hear it stirring? Have you noticed attitudes becoming more intolerate and angry lately at crime, terroriosm, political, religious, and social corruption? The 2 witnesses are the OT and NT, IMHO. During this time of 1260 yrs the witnesses are in a state of sackcloth, or obscurity, and Yahuahgives them power to endure and maintain their testimony through that dark and dismal period. Evident allusion is here made to Zech.4:11-14, where it is implied that the two olive trees are taken to reresent the word of Yahuah. David testifies Ps.119:130,105. Mashyach declared of the OT Scriptures, "They are they which testify of Me" John5:39. The essential purpose of the Scriptures is to give witness to the mercy and verity Yahuah.The Mashyach commands, 'Search the Scriptures,... they are they which testify (bear witness) of Me'. This was addressed to the Hebrews, and described the character and office of the OT. The NT is similarly pronounced the giver of testimony Matt.24:14. Hopefully these declarations and considerations are sufficient to sustain that the OT and NT are Mashyach's 2 witnesses. Again, my opinion.
The beast which came out of the sea {Atlantic Ocean} is the 1% of the 1% controllers of the USA. Count the nations on the Americas and you'll find 27, seven majors, 10 war torn and 10 passive and content. The US will be destroyed by her own nuclear weapons (verse 10, Daniel 2:45 & Zachariah 5:1-4) before the 2 Europe nations join to reestablish the New World Order Bush/Obama and company attempted to establish here and bring about "The Battle Of That great day Of god almighty" (Revelation 16:14) and end of the world.
proof for god has nothing to do with being politically correct. The time to believe in something is after its been proven - not before. Why would you believe in something that you have no evidence for?
Based on the definition of belief, proof is not required. Once proof is provided it no longer is a belief. It is a fact.
yes, but why would you choose to believe in something that has not been proven? I think that it's possible to believe in facts. Faith is the belief in something without proof or justification. Belief or trust does not have to rely solely on faith. For example, I can't see gravity, but I believe that it's true enough to not walk up to the top of a skyscraper and jump off of it. I don't believe that I can fly. I believe that gravity pulls everything that goes up back down.
That isn't a belief.. That is a proven certainty. faith and belief aren't in the same arena as proven fact. One of the biggest issues with some believers is that they cling to their belief as an absolute certainty and the proof is all around us and in the Bible. You don't have to believe in something that is proven because once it's proven it cannot be changed. A belief and faith is something that is changeable. I thought you and some of the other atheists are examples of once believing then changing your belief (excuse me if I'm incorrect in some of the things I've read in other forums).
Now to answer your question as to why believe in something that there is no proof of the existence in, I can only speak for myself. As you already know the bible states that "Faith is the substance of things HOPED for and the evidence of things NOT SEEN" (Disclaimer: I'm not quoting this scripture to throw anything at you or insult you, merely using it as a reference of explanation for my belief). Basically, my belief in God is more of an optimistic opinion born out of hope for something better than this world rather than an absolute certainty as to the existence of God.
I've stated that I respect atheists because you live the life that Christians should be living. Living a good and moral life because it is good and moral rather than out of fear of eternal punishment. This is the life that I live for myself. As long as I'm living a good life because it is good then I have nothing to worry about whether there is a heaven or not. I still can go to my grave knowing I lived the best possible life I could live. You also live a life without crippling dependence on God. The way I've come to understand some of the scriptures, some people depend on God for wayyyy more than they should (Yes a believer said it). I've also come to see the Bible as a book that was inspired by God. Inspired be doesn't mean the same as coming directly from. With this understanding, I can reason that a lot of the stories in the bible consists of three things: Myths that give a basic and reductive explanation of things that are more complex than the mind can conceive, Tall tales that are born out of someone's idea of what an all powerful but unseen being should be (which is something to be feared and do things in an awe inspiring way), and warnings that reflect what the writer thinks SHOULD happen to those who don't believe the way that the writer believes. Does this mean that some of these things never happened? No, but the details of the events themselves may have been changed.
Finally, Because I don't know for sure. I am open to the idea that I could be wrong in my beliefs. As a result, I can hold discussions with others in an effort to exchange ideas with as little judgment passing as possible (though I can't help myself when some things sound crazy). If you have noticed, I debate with atheists as well as some of the believers believers objectively (or equally biased..lol). But one thing I can pride myself on not doing is telling anyone that they are going to Hell for not believing. That is not my place to decide. The final word is God's (If one exists out of respect to you and the other atheists I have come to count as my friends here)
Hope this gives you more insight into ME (Whether you think me silly or not...LOL)JMc,
Faith is finding substance and evidence to support the tings not "sense recognized" whereas belief should cause one to become inquisitive as required to determine if it's factual enough to accept as true. What you are doing is accepting your past religious leaders' teachings that faith is blind although their text say it is finding evidence and substance supporting the unseen.
Without faith in an unproven belief, the airplane would have never gotten off the ground.
Without faith, man would have never attempted to land on the moon.
etc etc.
I have faith that the human race is NOT the most inteligent species in the universe. Can I prove it? NO; I just believe it.
I have faith that given enough time our scientist will find the means to enter a different dimention than the one that we are in. There are many things that I have faith in that I can not prove to be possible. I also know that just because I have faith in many things that some of them may never come to fullfilment. And just because they don't; doesn't mean that the potential wasn't there.When i wake up every morning, I walk outside and turn the key in my car, believing that it will start. That is not having faith in my car or in mechanics - even though I don't know exactly how it works. I properly maintain my vehicle. I get gas once a week. I make sure that all of the scheduled maintenance is complete. Therefore, I trust that my car will start - because it always has. One morning, I may wake up and be wrong. That does not mean that I put my trust in something foolishly - that means something went wrong somewhere. There's a difference between trust and faith.
I guess that I can't get over the fact (as I understand it) that Daniel 9 clearly (to me) defines the time differences between lengths of time as stated in prophesy and the actual length of time in this physical plane. I believe that this time equation is essential in understanding prophesy.
In 539 BC Gabriel tells Daniel that in 62 weeks, they are going to kill the Messiah. !!!
568 years later they did !! SOooo 62 prophetic weeks is the same as 568 of our years.
I believe that if this is true in this instance, it would then be true every time a period of time is mentioned in prophesy. This is the foundation of my understanding of prophesyRight now, we may be on different wave lengths. But I'll say this and leave it alone. The seven verses mentioning the 1260 year time period are speaking of the same power which persecutes Yahuah's people. These texts are as follows: Dan.7:25,12:7; Rev.11:3,12:14,12:6,11:2,13:5. The key that unlocks the time prophecies is the principle given in Eze.4:6 and Num.14:34. These verses reveal to us that one day in prophecy equals one literal year. 1 week = 7yrs. For this reason all time prophecies must be first broken down into days. Using this biblical "key", time prophecies work out perfectly and become easy to understand. A month in the biblical reckoning contains 30 days. A year contains 360 days. A time is = to one year, explained in Dan.4:23-37 (you might as well read all of it). Thus we have the following: 1 year of 12 months at 30 days -360 days. 31/2 years, or times, of 360 days - 1260 days. 42 months of 30 days - 1260 days. A year made up of 12 months will readily be conceded, but that the month has 30 days needs perhaps to be demonstrated. Refer to the record of the flood in Gen.7,8. Here we see: 1) That the flood came on the 17th day of the second month (Gen.7:11). 2) That the waters subsided on the 17th day of the 7th month (Gen.8:4). 3) That the flood continued for 5 months - the 2nd to the 7th month. Reference to Gen.7:24 reveals the fact that "the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days". Our calculation showed 5 months. This text mentions 150 days; hence we have 5 months equaling 150 days, or 30 days a month. Thus we have a definite measure for calculating the prophetic periods, bearing in mind that in prophecy a day is equal to a year of ordinary time. Not saying this to dispute what you are seeing (Dan.9). I only brought this out because of the reference to the 2 witnesses.
hocus pocus to force failed prophecies to seem true. some people will believe anything.
Instead of doing physical and mental contortions to make what you think is "prophecy" line up with what you actually think happened - why don't you just consider the possibility that they got it wrong?
Actually I spent ten years attempting to prove this theory wrong. Periodiodically I would come to a verse that at first glance seemed to prove this theory wrong. Upon further analasis I would then discover that I wasn't reading what was actually written. Most often when reading scripture we have preconcieved ideas as to what we are geting ready to read and not understanding the message that is actually written.
Can you imagine reading a history book that has all of the dates of those events removed.
read about the crusades, the french rev. war, the cival war in America, WWI and WWII. etc etc having no knowledge of the chronological order of these events? All understyanding will be lost. SOoo what organized religion has done concerning bible prophesy is to imagine all of prophesy as a futureistic event all rolled up into a 3 1/2 year period
This would be easier to imagine and/or explain though it is totally wrong.
It seems that when one answer is answered two or more questions arise.
The truth is Kinda like pealing the layers of an onion, never reaching the center. Never be content thinking we have all of the answers just because we think that we see clearly the outer layer clearly.There are a million problems with the concept of biblical "prophecy" - far too many to mention here. Suffice it to say that there are criteria that should be applied to anything that can be read as prophetic.
1) It has to be specific
2) It has to be fulfillable by only one, single event
3) It cannot be mundane - for example, if I say "the sun will rise tomorrow", it is not a prophecy. If, however, I say "the sun will NOT rise tomorrow - and it doesn't - then THAT might be considered a prophecy
4) It cannot be public, and if it is you run the risk of self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, If I wake up tomorrow morning and say "I'm going to have steak for dinner - and then I go to a restaurant and order a steak and the waiter brings me a steak, have I just fulfilled prophecy? Of course not. I knew that I wanted steak, and I made it happen. Self-fulfilling prophecy does not a valid prophecy make.
5) It cannot be prone to interpretation. If it is, then it is not specific and it violates rule number 1.
None of the biblical prophecies follow these rules. They're vague, open to interpretation (as we've seen from your contortions to try to make failed prophecies fit into a timeframe that does not line up with what they actually SAY) and they're riddled with self-fulfilling attempts. When you add into consideration that all of the supposed "prophecies" about a messiah are from the jew's holy book, but the prophecies that the christians point to are NOT the same list as the ones the jews have (which is why they do not believe that jesus was the messiah at all) you run into endless problems. Not to mention, the gospel of Matthew especially does not have Jesus moving anywhere without it "being in accordance with the prophecy" even when he gets the prophecies WRONG - sometimes hilariously so, it is clear that whoever wrote matthew was familiar enough with the old testament to scour it for any possible prophecies to weave into his tale, but not familiar enough to know why his "prophecies" were invalid, self-fulfilling, self-contradictory and downright WRONG. I cannot adhere to any prophecy being proof for the validity of scripture. They simply don't add up.
JMcFarland, I hope you know that you are loved and you can make parts with the Lord, but he is always there waiting for the day that you will come back to him. "Rich and poor have this in common; The Lord is the maker of them all.... Proverbs 22:2."
This is a verse that must be taken seriously. You are made by God.
""In the path of the wicked lie thorns and snares, but he who guards his soul stays far from them." ~Proverbs 22:5 If you are to come back to him you must not walk the way of the wicked, but separate yourself from those who are turning you away from God.
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world." ~John 15:18-19 When turning away from the wicked and deceitful these people may hate you, but remember that the world hated the Lord first.
"You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth. You love every harmful word, O you deceitful tongue." ~Psalm 52:3-4 Please don't love all evil, but I have seen a lot of evil talk while reading through this forum. It's time to turn back before it's too late. Nobody knows when the exact day is going to be, but he will come back again.Appeals to emotion/pascals wager don't work on me. threatening me with hell isn't going to work either. There is no evil in asking questions or asking for proof of something that you're staking your whole world/life on. What kind of faith do you have if you see questioning beliefs are evil? I feel sorry for you.
You will never gain faith if you are unwilling to let your fear and emotions take control of you first.
You are doomed, and Hellfire awaits you.
Did I promote such despair and fear that you will now grasp for answers that will dispel those feelings without the need for cerebration?
that's nice. The question is, however, if it's all nonsense, why keep showing up and participating?
I read your original post and a few of your other posts. In the beginning you say you were a missionary, went to bible college and read the Bible cover to cover a dozen times. You later seem to hold a philosophy based upon physicalism, eg proof evidence belief trust etc.
My question to you is: "how is it with someone born of the Spirit?"- specifically.born of the spirit from the Christian tradition or in general?
I used to be a christian. Now I'm an atheist. It happens all the time to dozens or hundreds of people. I'm not sure why the concept is so foreign to so many people.Specifically. You said you read the Bible cover to cover at least 12 times and went to Bible College.
"How is it with someone born of the Spirit?"it varies depending on denomination. Typically, it means that you've accepted christ into your heart, surrendered your will to him, asked for the forgiveness of your sins, been baptized in water and you have received the holy spirit (been baptized in the holy spirit - or a baptism by fire). Once you've received the holy spirit, you will be imbibed with one (or multiple) fruits of the spirit or gifts of the spirit which can include ministry, teaching, speaking in tongues, healing, etc. Being baptized in the spirit is typically associated with the Pentecost when the apostles were sitting in an upper room after Jesus' ascension into heaven and he sent the holy spirit to them which appeared like tongues of fire above them. They rushed out into the street, speaking in tongues without any fear and proclaimed the good news of the gospel.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
When I was 19 I had a gf who's father was a corporate lawyer. He very generously liked to take us all to musicals and plays. I think some people like to try to immerse themselves in culture of that type, because it comes with the territory of someone on the social climb. You know what I mean?
I was 19 and a country boy and found the musicals and plays a waste of good money because it was not my cup of tea. Further, I thought they were uhm, amateurish. The sound was bad, the actors overly dramatic. I still feel that way about those musical plays I saw back then 30 years ago.
I like Chopin and Steppenwolf. Mozart and Van Halen. I like Rembrandt and I like impression art but I do not like Monet. Although I do not like Monet really that much or Beethoven or musicals or plays, does not mean that others do in fact appreciate them.
This is kind of what I think of when you say you went to Bible School and read the Bible 12 times cover to cover. And when I asked you about being born of the Spirit. Kind of like in Good Will Hunting.
So, if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo. You know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling. Seen that....If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus of your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. I ask you about war, you'd probably uh...throw Shakespeare at me, right? "Once more into the breach, dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, and watched him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I ask you about love, probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable...known someone that could level you with her eyes. Feeling like God put an angel on Earth just for you..who could rescue you from the depths of Hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, n to have that love for her be there forever. Through anything. Through cancer.being well informed about the history, the doctrine or the writings of christianity do not make me ignorant of the culture, the understanding or the meaning behind that faith. I was immersed in it for over 20 something years - and i continue to study it because it interests me. The psychology of religion interests me. Uncovering and unraveling christianity was a long, but ultimately profound process for me - but I do not equate my learning to only what you'd find in books, studies or manuscripts. I listen to debates. I continue to research. I talk to people who disagree. So while I enjoy good will hunting, I think that trying to cram a practical stranger into the box of book knowledge verses practical knowledge is a bit off of the mark. You cannot hope to know (or understand) everything that i've experienced or learned about from a few posts on a public forum.
The point I am trying make here is that as far as you are concerned, God did not make Himself known to you. So we can rule out any thing like the experiential. I conclude that by "the experience" and observations of your posts. eg You were a missionary, you went to Bible School, you read the Bible "cover to cover" a dozen times. When asked about being born of the Spirit, you give textbook responses. I think I gave a better textbook response although I have never been to Bible School or been missionary, nor read the Bible 12 times cover to cover. I think we can rule out anything experiential in your case, with the empiricist needs and desires you vocalize as well.
That leaves inference. Deduction. Unless you believe that God exists physically and temporally like you exist, in which case God could have died 13 billion years ago at the ripe old age of 92 on some planet somewhere. I would think that some hypothetical being that hypothetically is the cause or Creator of our reality would "exist better than that". As far as reality, time/energy, in would not make sense to, as an analogy- to dive into a stack of hay, and look for the farmer that stacked it. You are more than likely going to just come up with hay ie more reality- not the cause, so we are left with inference and deduction, correct?why just leave out everything related to experience? I've had experiences while a christian that I (at the time) chalked up to god. Once I started to question the faith i had, however, I found other explanations that fit those experiences just as easily. I met others who had similar experiences who attributed them to a different god/gods. Personal experiences do not amount to evidence - they're stories that can neither be demonstrated or proven - and they're often easily explained by other things. They're also entirely subjective.
Why just leave out everything related to experience? Because you wont accept that as proof. We have moved on. Although, if you are well versed in scripture you should know that God, according to scripture understands that mankind is blinded by his own nature, that of irrefutable carnality. Biased toward it, blinded by it and also according to scripture God has actively given them over to that, to be continuously under delusion. Mankind is easily put under hypnosis, by practiced hypnotists. If a supra-natural being was inclined, He could easily make himself known or choose not to. Almost effortlessly considering a humans propensity to be in that state. Nevertheless we have moved on.
That leaves inference. Deduction. Unless you believe that God exists physically and temporally like you exist, in which case God could have died 13 billion years ago at the ripe old age of 92 on some planet somewhere. I would think that some hypothetical being that hypothetically is the cause or Creator of our reality would "exist better than that". As far as reality, time/energy, in would not make sense to, as an analogy- to dive into a stack of hay, and look for the farmer that stacked it. You are more than likely going to just come up with hay ie more reality- not the cause, so we are left with inference and deduction, correct?I think that we're talking about two different things. I was referring to the fact that you called me a "textbook" christian. You asked for a definition of something, and I provided it - without referencing a single book or dictionary. Just because I can produce what sounds to you like a textbook definition does not meant that it's all I know, although I am flattered that you find my writing so superb as to come out of a textbook. Yes, I know a lot about christianity through my studies and my own research. that does not mean that my experience is limited solely to textbook knowledge. When spoke of personal experiences, it was to the intent of showing you that I didn't learn everything I know about it through books. I was enmeshed in the life as a whole. I lived it, I breathed it - and then I left it.
I don't just dismiss personal experiences out of hand. There's a reason that I do not consider them to be proof of the existence of god. First, almost all religions in the world has followers that claim some sort of personal "divine" experience. Buddhists call it enlightenment. Muslims and Christians call it communing with god. All of them claim them to be supernatural. So since almost all of religions claim ultimate truth - in other words, THEIR god is the one true god, and all other gods are false or misguided, how do you distinguish "real" experiences from fake ones? They obviously can't all be real.
Secondly, if you have a personal experience, how do you know which god your personal experience came from? Christians claim that it came from Jehovah/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. Muslims claim that it comes from Allah. Yet there is no PROOF that any of those gods triggered it. I have never come across a christian who claims to have a personal experience with Allah, or visa verse. this leaves me to believe that these experiences are purely subjective. They attribute their experience to the god of their choice.
I don't believe that god exists at ALL, but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. The typical believer's criteria for evidence seems a lot lower than the criteria commonly excepted in any other avenue. Yet the believers also turn around and apply skepticism and logic to every other religious claim out there. Atheists just apply logic to one god MORE than the average believer.You keep going over the same things that I believed we had dismissed. Does it bother you that I question your lack of experiential relationship with God? Did God make Himself known to you or not? So that we can move on.
i was trying to clarify what we were actually talking about because i believed there was a misunderstanding. Whatever. Whatcha got?
while in grade school, I was overwhelmed by god's love in sending his son to die for me. I accepted him. my grades went up. I read the bible daily. I witnessed. somewhere about college (and I went to a Christian one), the whole thing stopped making sense. at first I missed my imaginary friend. now I'm a happy, moral atheist. I invite you to examine your faith logically and join me. why does God answer tim tebow's prayer for a touchdown and not thousands of starving children's prayers for food? if God exists, his priorities are screwed up. Studies have actually been done by respected medical researchers that show being prayed for doesn't improve hospitalized patients' outcomes over those who weren't prayed for. Why is God ignoring sincere intercessory prayer? I won't say I know there's no God, but I'm pretty darn sure.
There's no such thing. That's merely a lame excuse used by believers in an attempt to claim superiority over others that they are somehow "special".
J McFarland,
Your challenge to "Show me why I should agree with you and convert to your religious beliefs - but be prepared to have your proof examined. Ready, set, go." is an impossible one. I admire that you are
open to listening to the views of others and pleased that you at least have the wherewithal to question what you have in all probability been taught your entire life.
For many years during my trials and tramatic life experiences, I sought God as I really needed miracles in my life. During times of great struggle, I studied and read my bibles from cover to cover as well as examined the teachings of several denominations in the Christian Church as well as Catholicism. I practiced Buddhism for about (5) years and Hinduism for (2) years. I finally returned to Christianity and am a Chrisian today.
First of all,no one can answer your questions about the existence of God but yourself. The answers lie within you. God is not some White man in a white robe sitting on a throne some where "up there" keeping tabs on all humans so that he can send some of us to hell and others of us to heaven.
After all my studying and searching and visiting various churches, temples , and mosques, I found God at the age of (63). You see God had been WITH and IN me all of my life, I searched and searched for him ....while he was WITH and IN me and YOU and in all living and non-living things. Every where I look, I see God.
I'd like to assist you in ending your search. Start with the reading of "The Secret" by Rhonda Byrnes followed by the studying and reading of "Three Magic Words" by U.S. Andersen. Both publicaions can be ordered online from Amazon or Barnes and Noble fo under $10.00.
Read these books and study some of the Old Masters, i.e., Charles Wattles,Robert Collier, Prentice Mulford, Charles Haanel, Albert Einstein, W Clement Stone, Charles Fillmore, etc., with an open mind and let me know how it goes. These afore referenced books and writings by these authors helped change my life.
Today I am excited about my life and all that I still feel called to do. I hope they will do the same for you.
Thank you for starting this wonderful and enlightening dscussion. I have read each response and find it interesting and noble that some of your respondees actually wrote well writen discourses expressing their views. I believe I am really goingto enjoy my stay at HubPages.
Bon Voyage!I can't tell if your response "traumatic" is referring to my comments or if they have caused you to be traumatized. It is not my intent to cause trauma but to participate in the discussion as I find it riveting. Sorry!
No one can answer your question for you.
You seek an easy path to discovery, but I cannot get into your mind anymore than you can get into mine.
I see God's presence everyday, while you question his existence.
I work through the path of truth, while you seem to be struggling with internal acceptance that something or someone of higher ability presents us with tasks that justify our being.
You are what you are, just like everyone else, because you choose your lifestyle.
You could have easily asked for someone to inform you why you are gay.
However, in all these circumstances, you are whar you are because you made a choice.
My suggestion for your answer, is to take a trip to an unknown mountain. Climb to the top as fast as you can. Remain on that mountain overnight. There you will find the answer that you seek.
There is no mountain high enough, no river wide enough.................yeah, see I've done that. There was no god there. It was beautiful and chaotic - but still no need for an all-powerful creator. Sorry.
taburkett, You make some very good points. God speaks in those times of nature seeking. Sometimes people are just not ready to let God into their lives though. "There is no mountain high enough, no river wide enough, to keep me from getting...... " Very true!
It makes plenty of sense. Flawed, like the duplicated stories in Gen12/20/26, yet perfect in that we all know the story. It's been relevant to every age. It's done its job. And its managed to comfort countless people along the way.
Much like the Hebrew word [erets], usually translated as 'land' gets translated as 'earth' ... http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/776.htm ... in the flood portion of Genesis, so too is the word [har] .... http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/2022.htm ... translated as 'mountain' in the flood story while everywhere else its translated as 'hill'.
Gen7:19-20 - And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered.
Fifteen cubits. That's like 20 feet. Plenty to cover the hills of southern Mesopotamia. Here's an excerpt from a much longer and more detailed explanation you might find interesting ...
"Because of the curvature of the earth, the horizon drops from where the viewer is standing. However, the drop is proportional to the square of the distance between the viewer and an object on the horizon (Young nd). From these relationships, it can be seen that a tribal chief (or Noah) standing on the deck of a large boat (Ark), perhaps 7.8 meters above the water,would not be able to see the tops of any hills as high as 15 m from as little as 24 km away across flood plains covered with water because the curvature of the earth prevents it (See the Appendix for examples of calculations). Most hills in this region that are as much as 15 m high are more than 95 km away from the river levees. Therefore, the survivors of the Flood could see only water in all directions while they were floating down the Tigris River and over the flood plains. Many of these hills would also be partly covered with water which would make their tops project less above the water level, and therefore, the curvature of the earth would make them disappear from the line of sight in even a shorter distance than 24 km." - http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl … hole-earthSee what you need to do to convince yourself of such nonsense? First you need to change the meaning of some words (earth = area) and (mountains = hill).
"and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered."
"under the whole heaven were covered." Whole heaven?
"and the mountains were covered." Mountains?
The second thing you did was suspend your belief or understanding of gravity. Water simply does not build up in one area without running into the next. How can you hold 20 feet of water with a container? Gravity is real.Rad Man, do you see the lengths you need to go to to convince yourself I'm just talking nonsense? If you look at the links I provided to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary you'll see I didn't change the definitions.
Whole heaven = the sky
As for the mountains, just look at a map. Genesis gives you enough geographical specifics to tell you where these events are happening. There are no mountains in the Mesopotamian plain. But because the assumption has always been that this was a global thing, that's how it got translated.
As for the gravity thing, just look at the news. Have you ever seen footage of a flood? Deep flood waters 20 feet high, yet only in a specific region? It happens quite often. Especially in valleys, which is where this story is taking place.Deep flood waters 20 feet high doesn't happen. Sure some rivers flood the surrounding land, but flood waters 20 feet high is nonsense as is building at boat that half the size of a modern day cruise ship that will float in 20 feet of water. If you want to say heaven mean sky and whole heaven still mean sky and not whole sky that's fine. But gravity will prevent a flood as you described and common sense will prevent a huge boat from floating in 20 feet of water.
Get a big table and start pouring water on the table until its about 5 inches deep. Gravity.Are you seriously trying to tell me 20 feet deep floods never happen? In a flood plain? In a valley? With, not one, but two rivers? We know there were numerous floods in this region. And we know there was at least one devastating enough to end the Ubaid culture in the city of Ur around 4000 BC. And even in scholarly circles it's accepted that the biblical flood and the flood according to the Sumerian stories were most likely based on an actual flood, as there have been quite a few in that region.
Ever seen a tsunami? .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWbNq0JCneUDoes the flood from a tsunami stay or does it leave as fast as it came? I'm telling you, you can't have 20 feet of water in one area that stays as described in the bible.
Give me footage of one flood as described in the bible? 20 feet of standing water as far as the eye can see. Is that 20 feet above the tallest hill? I could be wrong, but I remember the flood lasting a long time?
Gravity. Try pouring water onto a table and see if you can get it to 5 inches deep?
Remember we talked about what the mind is doing to convince your self that it's simulation is real?Floods really happened there, Rad Man. Floods bad enough to end an entire culture that had been there for over 1500 years.....
"Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit that was interpreted by excavators of the 1920s as evidence for the Great Flood of the book of Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh . It is now understood that the South Mesopotamian plain was exposed to regular floods from the Euphrates and the Tigris, with heavy erosion from water and wind, which may have given rise to the Mesopotamian and derivative Biblical Great Flood beliefs." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur
'Early levels were sealed off', meaning, in the Archaeological record, there's a 'sterile deposit' that indicates a flood. Below that line there are artifacts of the Ubaid culture. Above that line there is nothing.
You also have to take into account that you and I have never seen climatological happenings the likes of what happened around 4000 BC because there hasn't been that dramatic of a climate change since. The Sahara is now a desert because of this climate change. That wasn't always the case.
Besides, southern Mesopotamia is the geological equivalent of a storm drain. The terrain slopes down from north to south, leveling off at the bottom, giving the region a long history of flooding that lingers.Did you not read the "It is now understood that..." part?
Yeah, regular flooding. Did you read the part about how a culture who had existed for 1500 years ended abruptly? Regular flooding in the region they inhabited for over 15 centuries, yet there was this one that stopped history cold in that region?
Yup, I'd move to if I was knee or waist deep in water.
Yet it only happened once. Though there were several floods.
But not as described in the bible. A boat that size would need about 25 feet of water to keep it afloat and for it not to reach land or even see land for months you'd need a big area.
Right, a big area like the Mesopotamian plains? Between two rivers and at the shore line of the Arabian Sea. Not to mention this was a flood that, according to the story, was an act of God. One He then promised to never repeat. This was no normal flood.
That's what it comes down to again doesn't it. Defying the laws of physics. See this is why Religion and science doesn't work.
Who says it defied the laws of physics? There's evidence that it really happened. Multiple floods, but one in particular that was so bad that it ended occupation of the region for many, many years. nothing law-defying there. Just facts that correlate to the story being told.
Besides, the bible itself tells you the flood wasn't global. While there's not much mention of specific people in those first few pre-flood chapters, there is one group mentioned that wasn't on the ark who turn up again later in the story....
Before the flood ....
Gen6:4 - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
After the flood ...
Num13:33 - We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”Do you not see just how ridiculous that is? Do you not see the destain for women in that text or how nonsensical the story of Gods coming down as men and having children is?
Do you truly not see that the text says they had children by women and not with women?
Sons of God? Long since dead men coming back to earth physically and chasing after girls? Why did they stop?
Please tell me you have more sense then this?What are you talking about? Who said the 'sons of God' were long since dead? Where did you get that? And disdain towards women? I'm not sure how familiar you are with the entirety of human history, but that's not exactly strange. If we dismissed texts that show a slant towards men and against women, we wouldn't have much left to look at. That's not just the bible. That's human history.
Have you ever noticed, that while you've proven perfectly capable of grasping complex concepts when it comes to animal behaviors, biology, evolution, the laws of physics, taking into account all the various parts that go into that understanding, when it comes to the bible you all of the sudden become very simplistic? I know you know these texts are very ancient, written in an ancient language, by multiple authors, translated and revised over the centuries, and based in a long since gone age. Yet, when it comes to the bible, you're content with just this cursory assessment taking the english translation at face value. No consideration for the history of the text you're reading and what all has gone into the finished product your glancing at. And when I do, you criticize me and make accusations about my intentions.I asked you about this sons of God before and you told me it must have been Adam. Otherwise how could God have real sons as we understand sons to be and why were they so interested in physical relations with humans? You don't see the ridiculousness in these stories? Giant Sons of Gods having physical sex with women and producing offspring? Must have been painful to have sex with and then to give birth to giants.
You've got a flood that defies gravity and Giant Sons of God acting like infants. Where were the daughters of God?"I asked you about this sons of God before and you told me it must have been Adam."
The bible says it was Adam....
Luke 3:23-37 – Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, ... the son of David ... the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham... the son of Shem, the son of Noah... the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
"why were they so interested in physical relations with humans?"
Genesis 6:2 - the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
"Giant Sons of Gods having physical sex with women and producing offspring?"
It describes the Nephilim as giants. And even giants in the bible aren't any more giant than humans born today to average size mothers who have sons that exceed 8 and 9 feet.Now you're getting back to a particular group calling themselves descendants of Gods while others are not. You're other description described them as seeing humans as grasshoppers? Giant sons of God wandering around without any daughters. It seems only the males have value and I guess only males were born from the pairing because no daughters of God were mentioned?
These aren't my descriptions. These are quotes from the bible. The Israelites described themselves as grasshoppers in comparison. If you read the rest of the story you'll see that they were obviously intimidated by these large men and were trying to convince the rest of the group that it was a bad idea to go against them. They didn't mean the size difference was literally the equivalent of a human to a grasshopper. They were stressing just how unconcerned the Nephilim were with the puny Israelites. In a football team's locker room you might describe yourself as a grasshopper in comparison.
As far as only the males having value, that's the entirety of 'civilized' human history. Human societies have always been patriarchal since civilization first began. Land was always passed from man to man, and texts detailing the lineage of a family always focused on the males. That's not unique to the bible.I understand all of that and I'm sorry you can't see that it's evidence of stories written by men of the time and not a reflection of a loving, just God. The distain for women should be your first clue.
Clue for what? According to the story that was the result of Eve's actions. And whether or not you agree or think it's immoral or unethical or unloving or whatever, what the bible describes as being a 'curse' is then observed throughout the entirety of human history in every age since. That should maybe be a clue to you.
So it's right to treat women like cattle? And it's right to do this because of what one women did? Are you sure your not Catholic?
I'm not saying anything about right and wrong. I'm comparing the reality we observe to what Genesis describes and am finding cohesion. Technically, if the action of Adam/Eve separated them from God, being that it was an action that defied God's law (like defying natural law/gravity), then the result would be a consequence. In this case, an ego that feels disconnected from nature, from other humans, and from their own bodies. Like realizing your naked.
Psychologically, this is linked directly to the behavioral patterns of Patriarchal societies. A separation from the natural world would be more complete for men than women because women retain a bond with children/birth/nursing, while men don't have that tie to minimize their feeling of separateness. Men, just as what history has shown, subjugated women, treated natural acts like sex as something bad, and treated the natural bodily functions of women, like menstrual cycles, as impure. Something I think you'll find to be really weird compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, and even compared to native people.
That's what I'm trying to reach here. Understanding. There's a very real chance this really happened. So, if it did, in that context, given all we now understand, can we find a better understanding? Like in this case, this would mean the 'curse' on Eve wasn't necessarily a 'curse'. It was just the natural result of their actions.So you think all this stuff happened and were lessons from God to teach us how to behave, but your not saying that they are morally or ethically correct? God made people and then he made Adam and Eve about 9 feet tall and made them live a thousand or so years and their dependance are the modern day Jewish people. But Gods family line were not ethically or morally decent even though God choose this line because they were decent?
See what I mean? Where do you get all that extra stuff? I didn't say it. That's all your own additions. Lessons from God, whether or not something is moral or ethical. This is why you struggle so much with something that should be really simple. You can't see God because you don't know what you're looking for. You looking for God is like a person walking around asking people, "Have you seen this person?", then showing them this sketch ....
I can't see God because he only exists in the minds of some people. I've already explained the psychology.
You don't know where I got all that stuff about ethics and morality in the bible? You're claiming all these things happened as the bible describes including Gods do's and don't's right? Then when I question you about those ethics, you say you didn't say anything about ethics.
I'll ask again, if the bible, which is the word of God describes how to treat women and slaves should we not do as the bible directs or do we acknowledge for ourselves that the moral direction from God in the bible is sub-bar?The NT gives a pretty good instruction on how to treat our wives. Which in itself basically says to treat them as equals (The way I understand it, which may or may not be right). The OT stuff was supposed to be wiped away with the coming of Christ. Problem is that a lot of people still live by the OT
Where do you get the idea that the old testament is supposed to be wiped out? Jesus himself said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. This is one argument I just don't understand.
If the old testament is no longer relevant, why include it? Do the ten commandments no longer apply either? What about the other 601 commandments?
Furthermore, wives are not equal in the new testament. If they have questions, they are instructed to go home and ask their husbands. They are to remain silent, with no position odd authority at all. The new testament also mandates that slaves should obey their masters.ful·fill/fʊlˈfɪl/ Show Spelled [fool-fil] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise.
2. to perform or do, as duty; obey or follow, as commands.
3. to satisfy (requirements, obligations, etc.): a book that fulfills a long-felt need.
4. to bring to an end; finish or complete, as a period of time: He felt that life was over when one had fulfilled his threescore years and ten.
Based on the fourth definition of the word, I understand it (and I may be wrong) That to complete the law means that that OT laws were over. I may have misworded what I meant. The OT was relevant and is still relevant more from a historical standpoint (again from my understanding) than anything to be followed today
Well, regarding the equality of wives, I have a different understanding of the bible regarding that. Based on that understanding, My wife is equal in my household.
as far as slaves go, I never met oneIt's generally accepted that Paul was speaking for himself when he instructed wives to ask their husbands. It's also generally understood that he was referring to ancient churches, where the sexes were separated and sometimes one section could get pretty loud (as still happens sometimes today.)
The argument that the NT and/or Paul and/or Jesus were pro-slavery does not hold water. Christianity was not a powerful world religion and in fact many of the early non-Jewish Christians were slaves. This was one reason that Christianity was looked down upon so much in the early days. Christians couldn't afford to make waves. Nevertheless, Paul also instructed slaves to obtain their freedom if they could and exhorted masters to treat their slaves as brothers, an unheard of concept at that time.anything you say Chris. I have no desire to converse with you after our last encounter, but you will find that you are in opposition to the large majority of your own faith.
No, I got it last time. Don't worry, I won't make that mistake again.
And no, I'm not in opposition to the majority of my own faith. I may well be in opposition to many people that you knew who claim to be evangelical, I don't know. But most of the preachers I've heard and theologians I've studied have pointed out what I said. And they're mostly pretty conservative.
A major one that causes a lot of issues even amongst some believers.
It's also incorrect. The NT in no way wipes away the OT. The fact that some people still insist on living by the OT more shows a lack of understanding of grace.
Are you saying women and slaves should be treated with disrespect and the OT describes?
I think you know my answer to that. You've read the hubs, I went into some depth there. But to directly answer you, the OT described better treatment for women and slaves than was available in the surrounding cultures. And the NT prescribes better treatment than the OT, even though the situations were not directly analogous. And study and application of NT theology leads to better and better treatment, including the abolition of slavery.
Besides that, the bible, as we have pointed out before, may not actually be the word of God. It was written by min inspired by god. Which could mean that there may be some (read: a lot) of bias in the book overall
So you get how we work, psychologically. Good. So then, can you maybe see that because your mind is made up that God is only the figment of people's imagination, and that it's just a construct of our psyche, how that mindset in you would make you completely incapable of ever really seeing God if it turned out you were wrong and He did exist? See how that works both ways?
See, I understand your view because I understand science. I understand the big bang, the expansion, the laws of nature, the nature of cells, molecules, subatomic particles, chemistry, I understand evolution, natural selection, random mutation, etc. I understand a causal universe. I respect the view, I'm fascinated by it, and I strive to understand it as best as I can. I am not an expert in any field, I am not a scientist, but I can and do understand the concept of a God-less/causal universe. And I get my view as well. I see both.
You, on the other hand, see only yours, and cannot even begin to comprehend mine. Your view of God is like that stick figure. Basic, simple, unrealistic, because in your mind God is the imagining of bronze age people and nothing more. So, if there really is a God that exists that's capable of creating this incredible universe we strive to better understand, you will have absolutely no hope of ever recognizing that fact because you've already predisposed yourself to being incapable of seeing Him because you've decided for yourself that you know better and your mind is closed. It's all just psychology.Sorry, none of that made any sense.
If God revealed himself outside of the mind I'd see it. Notice how God is different for everyone? It's because your mind has constructed a version that it needs or wants. The people of the OT needed a brutal God that would help them fight wars. That's what they got.
If you understand my view then you know there is no need to inject God into creation. I can understand your view because I once believed in God and remember how that felt.
My view of God is not like a stick figure and I don't imagine the God of old. I remember imagining a loving God until I looked at the cruelty of this world and understood a loving God doesn't exist. I now imagine a God that has been constructed by the mind.I disagree with this point. Rad Man does understand the points of view that some believers present (at least he does with mine). He just doesn't agree with it. Ultimately, I'm pretty fairly certain that if God chose to reveal himself to Rad that he would do it in a manner that cannot be denied even with a closed mind. If you disagree with this point, then either God doesn't have the power that we say he does or your mind might not be as open as you think.
He's just upset because I don't agree with him. There is a difference between understanding and agreeing.
I say you don't understand because the content of your statements makes it clear you do not understand. If you understood and simply disagreed, that would be fine. If you simply didn't understand, that would be fine. But when you clearly don't understand, then proceed to tell me that your misunderstood version of what I'm saying is wrong, I attempt to correct. Usually to no avail.
You understand everything but disagree, but I understand nothing that's why I don't agree? You should get that checked out.
Oh, I totally agree that the day will come when all will acknowledge. I have no doubt about that. I've had many discussions with Rad Man, and I agree that he does get the point of view of some, even most, believers. But even believers put God in a box, much like Rad Man does. Like in how he just described 'imagining a loving God'. An image that then conflicted with what he saw as 'cruelty of this world'. Notice what he did there? The reality of ...well ... reality (as he sees it), convinced him that God doesn't exist because it conflicted with the image of God that he himself created.
It's kind of like the whole science thing. When we see a 'natural' cause for, say, how the universe formed, it doesn't fit what we thought. Does that mean there's no God? No. What that means is that God isn't as you imagined Him to be.For some, God is exactly as imagined. That is another part of the issue. God is placed into so many different boxes that people argue over which box is the correct box
If there's one thing that is certain, it's that God is more than any single one of us could possibly imagine. We can't even imagine His existence as having no beginning. It's beyond our comprehension, because from our view everything has a beginning and an end. Nobody is absolutely right. Myself included. That's why an open mind and humility is important. All we've learned through science confirms there's still a whole lot more we don't understand. If there's one thing you can be certain of, it's that the God of this universe is beyond our miniscule simplistic comprehension.
That's how you imagine God? To him we have miniscule simplistic comprehension?
**Disclaimer** The views presented here may not reflect the views of other believers.
That would be pretty accurate. The Bible makes that pretty clear.
You see Headly was just telling me my perception of God was my problem. I was showing him we all had perceptions.
Yes, we all do. I wasn't arguing that. But our perceptions of God are by necessity incomplete at best. As finite beings we cannot truly comprehend the infinite.
You asked if God was different because people need different things. (I think, something like that...) And the answer to an extent is "Yes." People do need different things and God does provide different things to those people. The idea being that eventually this will lead to a better relationship with Him as He is. And He provides them in different ways, too.
I imagine God as being completely invisible, undetectable, irrelevant and a concept that is contradictory to everything in reality and nature.
That was easy and I was dead on.
I guess I should have imagined a cruel sadistic God to worship? You see the construct of God didn't work in my head because I didn't need one. God is different for all because we all need different things.
This has me curious.. What construct DID you have of God?
I was raised as a Catholic and Catholics are taught love and compassion. I thought God was loving and compassionate. But Headly is wrong in that because I couldn't see a loving God I couldn't see any God. I simply couldn't see a place for God in a universe that could be here without him. My mind didn't need him to complete reality. Once one realizes that reality doesn't need a God, God is no longer needed. I we can imagine the universe without a God why add him? I don't think I being as clear as I'd like. Believers can't imagine how the universe stated with someone starting it, but don't mind stating that God started the universe, but it's a mystery as to what started God. They've explained how the universe began, but created an even bigger mystery that they are good with.
You are very much clear as a bell to me. But one thing it sounds like (to me) is that it isn't that you don't specifically lack a belief in God, you just can't see where God (if one exists) would fit in our current reality so there is no reason to add him to anything at all much less everything.. Especially considering the picture that a lot of believers (and the bible) paint of him
I understand you so much better now.. I feel like I just got to know you all over again. This is why you and I get along so well.
The truth is I sceptically look for evidence, but it's never there. Headly does the opposite that's why we square off so much. I ask for it but never find it and notice that most believers will take anyone's word for the miraculous and super-natural. They are not critically thinking, only wanting to believe. How many looked critically when I won the lottery twice and provided evidence? No one questioned the evidence? If Emily see's this she will call me a liar once again, but we both know that's not the case.
To be fair, I stopped looking for evidence a long time ago. I came to realize that some kind of tangible evidence can't be found to specifically point to a physical God. A lot of believers believe the world and all of us in it are the physical proof of the existence of God. The stand off (from my point of view) between science and religion is that Science deals with the what and the how and follow it with the tests to back it up as far as possible without exploring the origin. Once it is tested and proven then that's it. Religion, on the other hand seems to focus on the origins of everything. neither side actually has a definitive answer to the question, but both sides appear (on some levels) to be dug in on their beliefs (or lack thereof) until the question can be definitively answered. As you may have noticed, I question and argue with both believers and non believers as objectively (or equally as biased) as possible.
I understand your position and slightly agree.
there was a time, not too long ago in the grand scheme of time, space and infinity that lightning was attributed to a god holding a thunderbolt. Earthquakes, floods, fires, etc were all attributed to different gods. There was a god for everything. gradually, science began explaining away all of these events, and the gap that god was forced into became more and more narrow. I wonder, if in time, this gap will close completely. the age of science is a baby in the grand scheme of things, and look at how much it's able to explain and demonstrate definitively. Can you imagine what we'll know in a thousand years?
Reality has a tendency to do that, hence the name, "reality"
Unlike your God, we actually do find things, fit or not, they are real.
Yet, you have shown very little if any understanding of those topics. Why would say those things when we know they aren't true?
Indoctrination into a religion is easy to comprehend, a lot has already been written on the subject.
Actually his semantic arguments were sound because Hebrew is not quite as static as English. (You had to know I would step in on this one.) Hebrew can mean different things and what seems plain in English is actually an attempt to transliterate or simplify something that doesn't have a direct translation or is unclear when translated literally.
Exactly. This, to my ears(eyes), is the equivalent of a believer telling you they don't agree with evolution because croc-o-ducks don't exist.
We have learned, very recently, that both time and space are a construct of this place. This universe. They exist because this place exists. Before this place existed, well, technically there was no before, because there was no time. Or space. Or before. Or after. But this is the only place you and I have ever known. Time exists here. Always has. We move through space and time. That's our normal. There are beginnings and there are endings. There is the memory of a past and an eventual future. We live within that. It existed before us and will exist after us.
We just figured that out. We just figured out the universe actually began. And with it time and space. Reality. But the bible, with that whole 'God created the heavens' part, all that 'day=1000 years=day' stuff, with that Alpha/Omega, beginning/end thing, already covered it. Before we even knew what any of that meant or could even fathom it.
That is the perfect example of how and why we can only begin to comprehend God. That would be like a single cell in your body becoming aware of itself, then comprehending it's role in this body, why it exists, what purpose it serves, that other cells just like it came before, and before this body there was another, and another, and before that different species, before that a single cell. We're like fish in a fish tank, looking out at the room our tank is in, all proud of ourselves that we just figured out the correlation between the position of that switch mechanism on the great wall off in the distance and when their world is light and dark. They have no idea how the room was built, what must be done to pay for it and the utilities to power that light, much less the rest of the world beyond that one room.
So, yes, "To Him we have miniscule simplistic comprehension" is how I imagine God. And I also stand by my statement that you have rendered yourself of finding any logical reasoning for God, since you've chosen the path of logical assurance, incapable of ever actually 'seeing' where He 'fits' in 'reality' because you've decided He's nothing more than a bronze age apparition, so He'll never be big enough to encompass all you see. Therefore irrelevant. A stick figure. Your mind is made up and completed its construct without Him. The bible covered that too.And your minds not made up? I understand. As I said I look for evidence because I'd rather have life after death, but reality is reality.
No, it's really not. It allows for all of it. That's the key. It doesn't take options off the table prematurely, and what options are there it considers to the full extent. Or at least as fully as I am capable. Both ways. Beyond my faith, God makes more logical sense to me when I look at the two primary options side by side. And the idea of God I've formed through that mutual respect for both views forms a more cohesive explanation for everything observable than either did on their own.
And beyond that, this hypothesis has led me to positive evidence right where it should be if true, quite a few times. Beyond mere coincidence and way too specific to be just me 'twisting things around to make it fit'. Dramatic climate changes I didn't know about previously, yet found through this, and happening right where and when they should. The Sumerians, their inventions, and their stories that actually say they were taught. My only thought was, if humans existed at the same time as Adam, given this timeline, who would they be? And, if this hypothesis is true, what would I expect to see? Assuming there would have been a pretty significant impact if someone like Adam and his people existed as I was imagining them. And there it was. Exactly what I expected to find, only way more than I could have even imagined before. And following this hypothesis is what led me to the global human behavioral studies that further cooberated what I expected to see, only in much greater detail than I could have imagined, like those books by DeMeo and Taylor.
Just one slight adjustment to an age-old assumption about Genesis and all of the sudden I was finding cohesion between science and God, the bible and history, I was finding clarity in the bible, all by tweaking that one little thing. This is why I started testing it by talking to others. Either I was onto something or I'm totally delusional. I'm willing to accept delusional, but It'll take a little more convincing than someone on the internet just saying it a lot.
This post is addressed to everyone. I'm going to attempt to convey a point that addresses 'reasons to believe', both real reasons, as well as the difficulty we find here in finding a common language between the two sides. The primary context to note is that this is speaking about human perception. This is a rather big idea that I'm going to try to keep as compact and brief as possible, so I ask ahead of time for your understanding. It's long, I know, but even this doesn't allow for a lot of detail. I'm hoping the detail will be allowed to flesh out in subsequent discussions.
First, I want to note the dividing line between known facts and the tapestry woven between those facts born of human perception. I want to ask everyone to be willing to peel back those tapestries, both those that you have arrived at through your own reason, as well as those that others have made that you buy into or surmise as the most logical. Remove all man-made ideas regarding what those facts mean, leaving nothing but the dots of facts behind, and allow me to draw a new line for consideration. This is, admittedly, a difficult thing to do, and something I personally struggled with because this meant also peeling away anything I hung onto from the 'religious' side of my life through church and family. Basically, I'm asking you to remove chunks of foundation you stand on, which is not an easy thing to do, and consider an alternate perspective both critically, and as an overall example to help put into context the kind of dissidence we see bubbling up in these forum conversations.
This new line is going to be a narrative drawn between the facts to connect the dots using only Genesis 1-11 as a guide in an attempt to find cohesion with real history and real facts. The reason I'm using Gen1-11 is because this text is the foundation that birthed the whole rest of the old testament, the new testament, the Quran. The facts here are that no one knows how old Gen1-11 are or who wrote them, and that this very ancient still very much mysterious text has had a demonstrably significant impact on a large part of human history, if we can count things having an impact on humanity as a kind of barometer to account for human needs or the human psyche.
Genesis 1
For Gen1 I'm just going to give a brief setup as Gen2-11 is the primary point of this narrative. This perspective equates the six 'days' of Gen1 as six significant eras in the earth's history as science has pieced it together. It begins when the oceans formed and light first broke through the dense atmosphere to the surface (Let there be light) and ends with the earth being populated by life. The sixth 'day' is the main focus in this context. This is the introduction of humans on the planet and equating that to homo sapien history spanning from roughly 200,000 years ago in Africa to the point when they had fully populated the planet and discovered agriculture, around 10,000 years ago. In this timeline, the lines at the end where the God of the story shows the humans how seed bearing plants and trees yield more plants and trees as that discovery of agriculture, happening at the site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, specifically. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
***I should note here I am giving a specific place here where usually I'm not so specific. I often allow for new information, acknowledging the fact that what's been unearthed and studied so far only gives us pixels of the overall picture. I am being more specific here to allow for specific critique based in what is known about these places/things/people.***
Genesis 2-5
Gen2 picks up with the God of the story making a man, then making a garden to the east between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, then placing the man there. This man is described as different from the other humans that already populated the planet. Gen1 tells the story of everything in existence becoming exactly what God wanted it to become to His satisfaction based on the fact that it says He looked on all He made and deemed it 'good'. This 'all' includes the humans created during 'day' 6. If we're to equate the homo sapien history noted above as this bit, then these humans did exactly what this God told them to; populate/subdue the earth and establish dominance in the animal kingdom between 200,000 and 10,000 BC. But the man in Gen2 wasn't told what to do. He was simply made in a place where there was only one rule specifically given. The story here, according to this narrative, is that this man was different than anything created before. This man behaved according to his own reasons and his own mind. This story demonstrates this man's unique capability of behaving contrary to this God's will, after establishing just how unique and significant it is through Gen1, by explaining that he and his mate broke that one rule. In Gen3 this couple is kicked out of the place of one rule and everything they would ever need and are forced to provide for themselves. The impact of this decision, according to the story, is that the woman will have to bear the pain of having children (procreate), and she will be under the thumb of the man, so to speak. And the man will have to deal with thorns and the labor of providing for themselves. In Gen4 it illustrates one son getting jealous and killing his brother, then getting banished to the 'land of Nod' east of Eden. This son built a city where at least seven generations are said to have come from. It also says members of this family were 'fathers' of those who 'lived in tents and raised livestock' and 'played stringed instruments'. At the very end it then says that the first man/woman had another son, named Seth. Gen5 then lists ten generations from Seth to Noah, noting that they all lived centuries-long lives.
***The most significant things of note here are the geographic locations given, where it says they moved, and that by the end of the story there are two 'tribes'; Seth's and Cain's. We can also take from it that the same behavior problems that got Cain kicked out persisted with another murder at the end of Gen4. So, the assumption taken from this is that the members of both of these lines lived long lives and were capable of harming each other and fighting one another. It should also be noted that the geneology from Seth to Noah in Gen5 was edited in between Gen4/6 later, probably to explain who Noah was.
Genesis 6-11
Gen6 starts off by saying the human population in the region was growing. Before Gen5 split Gen4/6, the story explained that Cain built a city that lasted at least 7 generations. Comparing to Gen5 and using the ages given as a timeline, the Cain story lasts roughly 1500 years. Cain was banished before Adam was 130 (birth of Seth) and the seventh generation from Seth in Gen5, died the same year as the flood, which happened 1656 years after Adam was made. So in this context, the growing population of humans is associated with the city Cain built. More and more (Gen1) humans began living in the city. Gen6 then says the 'sons of God', or people of Cain/Seth's bloodlines, found the human women beautiful and began marrying them and having children with them. It then reiterates the difference between Gen1/Gen2 humans by stating that these humans (Gen1) are 'mortal' and only live 120 years, versus the long lives given in Gen5. It explains this intermingling as the reason for the 'wickedness' that then warranted God to send a flood. The flood is said to have wiped out everyone in the land and all the animals except for Noah, his family, and the animals they had. Because the people hearing the story of Gen2-11 were familiar with those 'fathered' by Cain's descendants, and because a particular group is noted as living both before and after the flood (Nephilim in Gen6/Num13) and were also familiar to the listener, this narrative assumes this as a regional flood meant for these two growing tribes and the children of their intermingling with humans. Following the flood, Gen10 gives another list of generations for each of Noah's three sons. Noah was from Seth's line. It does not say if his wife or any of his sons' wives were from Seth or Cain's line. Gen11 then says God came to see what the 'sons of men' were doing because they were making mud-fired bricks and building a city and a tower. He noted that they all having the same language allowed them to do this. It then says to confuse their language He 'scattered them over all the land. After that is another brief geneology from Noah's son Shem to Abraham. Like Gen5 this was added later, probably to explain who Abraham was in relation to the rest, and this list also gives ages. This time they're still long, but get gradually shorter with each generation, from 600 years down to roughly 150 by Abraham's generation.
***Things to note here are the idea that beings that lived for centuries lived amongst and even intermingled with naturally evolved, Gen1 humans, and that they lived for roughly 1500 years in regions around the middle east.
Now, the narrative I'm going to draw between the fact-dots is the narrative given above. I'm going to give specifics where possible, even though I'm not 100% fixated on them, so that a discussion can be had grounded in facts and evidence to analyze whether or not this can be true. In this context, physical evidence of the actual 'super'-human beings would have been washed out by a flood, leaving only genetic traces of the one survivor (Noah) as it go diluted into the vast homo sapien population that inhabited the region. So, while there could maybe be subjects found, the number of generations with signficant amounts of DNA not diluted would be small with the dilution happening quickly if we're to use the decline in ages as a barometer. So, what we're looking for here is signs in the evidence and known facts of the case to see if this is plausible. If this really did happen, what would we expect to see? What kind of an impact would it have on the numerous generations of humans who lived in close proximity to these beings. What would their perception have been? How would it impact them? Those kinds of things.
Now, according to Genesis, Abraham's father was from the Sumerian city of Ur and Abraham himself had dealings with Egypt. I note this to establish a timeline. If Gobekli Tepe is equated to the end of Gen1 around 10,000 BC, and Sumer and Egypt became prominent civilizations throughout the 3rd millenium BC, then the timeframe we're looking at is between 10,000 BC and roughly 3500 BC. If we're to use the ages specified as if accurate, then it's said that Abraham was born roughly 1800-1900 years after Adam, which was about 200-300 years after the flood/tower of babel story. So, we're looking at a timeframe of Adam to Flood/Babel as being somewhere between 6000 BC and 3500 BC.
In the land known way back as Canaan (now Israel) west of the Tigris/Euphrates, hundreds of female figurines have been found, signifying a kind of monotheistic religious belief system in that region based around a female figure. They date to somewhere around 6000-5500 BC. In this narrative, this is seen as the influence of Eve. The long-living god-like woman of the long-living man who gives birth to all these other long-living people. Gen2 says God formed the man, then placed him in a garden to the east. The end of Gen3 says when they were banished from the garden they were put back to work the ground where the man was formed, back to the west of Eden.
Eridu was the first Sumerian city-state, established around 5500 BC in southern Mesopotamia near the mouth of the Tigris/Euphrates. This would be east of where Adam/Eve were, if they were in Canaan west of Eden, so this would be the same direction Cain was sent. According to the Sumerians, Eridu was the first of 5 pre-flood city-states, and it was established by one of their gods, named Enki. According to them, they were taught how to build civilization by these gods. Note this time would have been roughly 3000 years before writing according to this timeline, so by the time these stories were written down, they had been oral stories of a very ancient time. According to the stories, the Sumerians were made to serve these gods as their lives were about doing the work and providing for these gods who each physically lived in the temples in each of their city-states. These are real sites that have been found and that really do have temples at the center that archaeological evidence shows to have been well provided for. In this narrative, this was Cain and his line using the 'mortal' humans to do the work and provide for them. Then, according to the Sumerians a flood came because the humans had become 'noisy', but one of the gods warned one man who built a boat and survived along with his family and a bunch of animals.
So, to try to sum this idea up, the narrative tapestry between the evidence and facts is not that farming led naturally to civilization or that these mythological stories are just humans trying to make sense out of the natural world around them. According to this view, civilization was a direct influence of these beings being created as described and their 'knowledge of good and evil'/free will propagating throughout their children causing behavioral changes noted in this region and timeframe of human history. The mythological stories are the stories of the various of the fading oral traditions of a very ancient time finally written down, both before the flood in the age when the gods thrived, as well as after with many still 'god-like' descendants being spread all throughout the region. The births of Sumer, then Egypt to the west, the Indus Valley culture to the east, Akkad to the north, and eventually Greece, Rome, Syria, etc. all came from these beings being dispersed throughout the land and the seed of 'free will' being planted amongst the already populated river banks all throughout, spawning multiple civilizations along the way, all with their own unique languages. A series of events that goes right along with the rise and fall of the Ubaid culture (where Eridu and the other 'pre-flood' Sumerian cities were built) that lasted from about 5500 to 4000 BC, the abrupt end of that culture at 4000 BC where a real flood was involved that lines up with the timeline given, and a dramatic climate change called the 5.9 kiloyear event that transformed the Sahara into desert and really did cause large human migrations towards river banks and really is associated with both the abrupt end of the Ubaid as well as the dawning of multiple civilizations.
So, in this context, God tried to correct the division that came about because all these civilizations were treating Adam and his descendants as gods and trying to make sense of their lives with that understanding. So God, through Abraham established the idea of one God for one set of people for a particular end that I won't get into because this is already excruciatingly long. The bigger point here is that it's always been human perception trying to make sense of what was going on around them. The associations they made with those 'god-like' beings being evidence of this really happening. All those stories, including the rest of the bible, trying to make sense out of those ancient stories passed down over the ages. And even now, still, religion is a man-made thing trying to make sense out of the world. Now science is a new kind of god because it offers explanation and answers. But it's still a very limited perception. Like those bronze age people, trying to make sense out of something we barely understand we tend to build our own ideas around those fact-dots, leading to all kinds of things that ultimately confuse matters. Because we're trying to piece together a really complex story through what little we know, we cannot 'lean on our own understanding'. And sometimes the line can blur between what's actually fact and where those man-made tapestries all along the way begin. We do it in science, call it a hypothesis to try to explain something, then use that hypothesis to attempt to formulate tests to prove or disprove it. That's what I've done here. I've given a specific hypothesis and have grounded it in facts and history in the hopes that it can then be tested, critiqued, and proven true or false. Because, to me, there's a lot of reason to believe here if faith without logical understanding is unacceptable. It's a hypothesis that fits what's known.
This is the main point I want to get across. I want to illustrate how the same known facts can be explained in a wildly different manner without conflicting to show how little we really know. It's important to note where the facts begin and the man-made stuff begins, and that includes everything. Religion and science and even the bible itself. We have to understand as much as possible, not be too quick to rule things out, and reassess as new information comes to light. As soon as any of us decide we know something for certain beyond what's actually known for certain, that's where the dissidence comes in. As long as we're open to being wrong, and in a posture of 'learning' rather than 'knowing', then a real conversation based on real evidence is entirely possible.Headly, most of us have read your hypothesis before. I'm not sure why you're bringing it into this conversation too
I never read it and could barely get 1/3 of the way through.. Could you break it down for me?
He's trying to convince us that Genesis describes history of humanity perfectly. To do this he's taking a lot of liberties with the language an with science. I'm not sure how or why he thinks a group of middle eastern men telling themselves that they were descended from Gods in order to give themselves entitlement over land, women and slaves is a reason for anyone to believe in God, but he is entitled to his opinion.
You really should read it. I know its long, I know there's a lot there, but there's also a lot to learn about God's methods and how he operates if there's any truth to it. Not to mention a cohesive story that ties together all we know through science and human history and what the bible is talking about. There's a lot of insight to be gained here. This is basically what St. Augustine, one of the principal forefathers of Catholicism and an influence in the reformation, did in his own life. He tried to learn about God through what he referred to as the 'book of nature' and the 'book of scripture'. He believed that's how God reveals his nature to us. He believed the bible should always be interpreted in the light of demonstrable knowledge. And he believed that if at any time the 'book of nature' and the 'book of scripture' seemed to conflict, then it was human interpretation that was flawed. I think he's very right. There's only one truth, so if you believe God is the one truth, then science cannot conflict.
One question about your exceptionally long post. If any of that were true, don't you think the Jewish faith would be laboring under the same assumption? It is their book, after all.
There are some who are. You have to keep in mind that those first 11 books of Genesis are ancient history and are just as mysterious to the Jewish people too. This is why there were Pharisees in Jesus' day who devoted their lives to understanding them. Plus, a lot of the information that even makes seeing this correlation possible has only been learned in very recent years and is not yet very widely known about. People are coming around to it. I run across pieces and parts of others in my research who are on a very similar path.
One who works on a very similar timeline as what I'm pointing out is the Egyptologist David Rohl. You can see a bit about him under the 'Possible location of the tower of babel' portion of the Wiki page for the Sumerian city of Eridu ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Poss … r_of_BabelWho is coming around to it? What has been discovered in the last few years to make it possible? I would think discoveries with information of this magnitude would be widely shared.
Give it time. There's a lot to this, but I referred to a couple in my super-long comment.
Read about Gobekli Tepe in Turkey ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Based on DNA testing done on the wheat in this region it's thought that this is the site where agriculture first began. In the context of my hypothesis, this makes perfect sense and is even talked about in the bible. In the context of what's generally accepted, this one is confusing a lot of people. For one thing, though it has huge hand-crafted pillars and architecture that rivals civilizations that didn't exist for thousands of years, this place was built in what was thought to be the hunter-gatherer era. There were no settlements yet and there was no one that lived in this place. Yet there it is. Baffling people around the world. There's currently debates going on trying to make sense of it.
The 5.9 kiloyear event is relatively new too. In fact, a lot of climatological models not available to us not that long ago are filling in a lot of blanks. We're getting weather patterns, ice building and receding, changes in sea level, all kinds of stuff. This particular change that transformed the Sahara into a desert is thought to be, by a lot of experts way smarter than I am, the catalyst that led to the dawn of civilization in Sumer and Egypt and the Indus Valley and elsewhere... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
Behavioral studies that take a more global approach to map out when and where human behaviors changed have been done in recent years and are still filtering into the overall knowledge base. Though many still assume that primal humans were violent, beating each other with sticks, and what not, it's actually quite opposite. prehistoric humans were very peaceful. They had extensive trade routes. They were 'matrist' cultures, meaning all were equal. There was no class and no sex distinction. Those 'patrist' behaviors that define the modern human came about in patterns that can be seen, and it all started right where Genesis is set. Here's a couple of books on the topic ...
- Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World' by James DeMeo
- The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era' by Steve TaylorI've read about the site in Turkey. And I did go to the link about the weather patterns. But, that isn't what I'm asking. What leads you to believe the line of Adam was different from other humans? That they lived thousands of years while other humans lived 120? I don't see how you can jump into that with the links provided.
Genesis itself. Most of the confusion that makes those pre-flood stories seem so disconnected and disjointed in relation to actual history disappear if read in that context. The bit that first got me on that train of thought was this ...
Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
This comes right after Genesis 5 explaining that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries. These lines in the traditional 'Adam was the first human ever' context make no sense. They're the most highly debated and least agreed upon verses in all the bible. Explanations range from Cain being the 'daughters' of humans' side and Seth being the 'sons of God' side, to angels being the 'sons of God' rebelling against God by impregnating human women. In the context of Adam being created in a populated world, this, as well as the whole rest of the bible, makes way more sense.With nothing to back this assertion (other than a hope to believe that the early Biblical stories are factual) I wouldn't get upset if no one believes you.
I don't doubt that it is possible the writers of the bible go back much further than many accept. In our lifetime, they first said it was made up a few hundred years before Christ, then it was made up in the Babylonian captivity. Now, I believe it dates back to Solomon by accepted theory in some respected quarters. Some laughed, saying domesticated camels didn't exist in Abraham's time frame. Now we know they did. Cities that 'just couldn't have been' were. I've heard they have found evidence of Joseph being an overseer in Egypt and David was a real king.
All of that to the side. Even the most devout believe that Moses wrote the first five books. He was probably simply going by oral tradition handed down. But, handed down to a people who had lost their identity during 400 years of captivity. They lived in a superstitious time and their tradition probably matched others from surrounding nations. Each from a memory of an event, but the story lined turned to show how their understanding of God molded events; just as other traditions used the events to showcase the nature of their gods. Taking any of that too literally is going to give you a headache; while attempting to resolve it to reality. Why bother?It's pretty common knowledge Moses couldn't have written the first 5 books, at least not in their entirety. The most obvious reason would be because his death is written about, so there's a logistics problem there.
This is why this is important. If there's truth in this then this isn't something we can dismiss as 'probably' came from this or that. In fact, this hypothesis also explains the other religious ideas around at the time. It explains why the Sumerian stories are so similar, because they were there and writing about the same ancient events. Or why there are so many similar flood myths from all around the world. All their descendants being in the same place for the same flood in their ancient history would explain that. Or just who these other gods were that made polytheism all the rage back then to the Sumerians/Babylonians/Egyptians/Greeks/Romans. If that land had been inhabited by beings who lived for centuries for over 1500 years, it would be kind of hard to let go of the idea of polytheism because this one guy says there's only one God. All my ancestors swear there were a LOT of gods walking around.You are right about Moses death being recorded at the end. However, as I said before. It is a collection of books that belong to the Jews. If they call them the laws of Moses, I accept that they believe Moses had a hand in recording them. I assume he would have had a hand in compiling a large percentage of the rest.
Either way, I think your theory is too far fetched to gain any traction. Unless you come up with an archeological discovery of something that proves there were people who lived for thousands of years. I mean, you just seem to have pulled this out of your hat as something that would help make sense of the story to you.
There can't be any truth to it other than by sheer blind coincidence on the simple fact that you have no idea about Gods methods or how He operates. No one does.
But, you know very little about science, regardless of the fact science has nothing to do with the bible.
Too bad it's all baloney, but it's understandable why you would believe it to be right.
At this point, we are compelled to jump in and point out a glaring flaw. What other humans? How did they get there? Where did they come from? Why didn't God make them, too?
Enter another flaw. Were the other human women not bearing the pain of having their children before Adam and Eve were kicked out? How did those other humans procreate, then?
Is there anything in science that would support the living of humans for many centuries, especially when science has already found out that most men and women lived only several decades back then, if they were lucky?
So, why aren't their any descendants who do live for 1500 years today?
Sorry, but "those kinds of things" were never found. There is no evidence whatsoever for anyone living for many centuries, quite the contrary.
However, we really don't expect you to understand that fact.
You've done no such thing. Your so-called hypothesis if full of flaws and misunderstanding. It's rubbish.Other humans are naturally evolved humans. The ones created in Genesis 1, day 6. The ones who were commanded to do exactly what homo sapiens actually did between 200,000 and 10,000 years ago; be fruitful/multiply, fill/subdue the earth, establish dominance in the animal kingdom. Then they discovered farming, which Genesis 1 shows as God showing them seed-bearing plants and trees. Then came Adam in Genesis 2.
Yes, naturally evolved humans were bearing children. Eve and Adam were to live forever as long as they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge. Death is what makes procreation necessary. Eating from the tree of knowledge made death necessary, for them.
The long lifespans were specific to those born of Adam/Eve. As they intermingled with naturally evolved 'mortal' humans (Gen6), lifespans decreased gradually from one generation to the next (Gen11). Considering this was a small number, especially after the flood, it makes sense that remains would be a needle in a haystack and the 'dilution' through being mixed with natural humans and the decrease in age that accompanied explains why no descendants live that long today. According to the bible, by the time Abraham came about, they only lived to 150 or so, and that was not long after the emergence of Sumer and Egypt, roughly 3500-3000 BC. I find it really interesting that if you take the time to list these descendants and their ages in Gen11, all of those who came generations before who still lived long lives all began to die off around the same time, right around the time of Abraham. So, in this context, the age of Abraham was the beginning of the human age without beings who lived unnaturally long lives. Just as the civilizations and Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley were coming together.
As for evidence of these beings existing, you have the mythologies of multiple independent civilizations (Sumer/Akkad/Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome) that say god-like beings, human in form, male and female, who were moody and unpredictable, did in fact exist in their ancient past. Plus, you have still as of yet unexplained rapid advancements in technology and the birth of multiple independent civilizations. Advancements that one ancient civilization in particular, the Sumerians, the only ones who existed both before and after the flood and in the region in which pre-flood Genesis takes place, claim were taught to them by god-like beings.Let me get this straight, you're saying the Earth was already populated with humans that naturally evolved, where men and women lived bearing children in the normal way. Yet, you have this other world being created on Earth with super humans that could live forever, but don't because they wanted to act just like the naturally evolved humans.
So, what did they eat? The Earth must have been a barren wasteland if there were no animals or plants to eat for the naturally evolved humans prior to Genesis.
That's not how genetics works, peoples genes don't get "diluted" over time. That's nonsense.
It's odd that the Bible is the only source for these super humans that lived long lives, no such evidence shows anyone lived that long back then, quite the contrary.
Or, more precisely, we have the Genesis myth that has nothing to do with god-like beings in human form.
You appear to be the only one claiming they are unexplainable.No other world. Same world. And there were plenty of plants and animals. Plants, day 3. Vertebrates/Sauropsids (reptiles/birds) day 4, synapsids (mammals) day 5, naturally evolved humans day 6. I'm talking about the same world. Same history. Our history. I'm saying the introduction of Adam in Mesopotamia as described in Genesis is the introduction of the modern ego. Free will. The knowledge of good and evil. It's what transformed humans from 'matrist' cultures to 'patrist'. I estimate Adam's creation as happening somewhere around 5500 BC.
The bible is not the only source. Again, if I'm right about this then all those mythological stories of Sumer/Egypt/Greece/Rome are talking about the same beings. I see pre-flood Genesis as happening roughly 5500-4000 BC. Writing sophisticated enough to capture the age old stories passed down verbally for however many generations came about around 2700 BC. That's when these stories started getting written down. I think they're rememberings of an ancient past. Embellished to be sure, but definitely inspired by real beings.You're not answering the question. What did the naturally evolved eat if they were not plants and animals until Genesis?
Yes, it is.Genesis 1 covers beginning of universe up to discovery of agriculture. Genesis 2 is 5500 BC forward.
Ok.. I did go back and read through this. I'm not going to dismiss this as pure rubbish, but I will point out that this has raised a lot more questions than it has answered
Not to in any way equate what I'm suggesting to a major discovery, but its pretty typical for discoveries that increase understanding in some regards to bring about new questions as well, so I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing or reason to doubt in and of itself.
My explanation was tucked away somewhere in that monstrosity of a post. Two reasons I wrote this here. One, its on topic to the forum purpose and exactly what you asked for. Two, I want you and everyone else to recognize that things we already know about could actually be telling a very different story than we think.
Often those early stories of the bible are dismissed just as all ancient mythology is, as the human mind's way of coping with what it doesn't understand. Meanwhile, we still don't know things, like, what compelled the discovery of agriculture or the behavioral changes that led to an era defined by monumental inventions and the birth of civilization. These are important questions and this offers an explanation. A real explanation that can be tested, maybe proven. It offers cohesion for a lot of otherwise seemingly unrelated evidence. It could lead to new answers.
And, it illustrates how God's involvement can often be missed as 'natural'. Like a meteor that wiped out the dominant dinosaurs, making way for mammals (and us), to be here. Or the climate patterns that opened and closed access out of Africa throughout the formation of the hominid species that played a large role in shaping who we are now. Or the Toba volcanic eruption that dwindled the homo sapien population down to less than 10,000 mating pairs, whom every one of us on the planet are now direct descendants of. Or when the Sahara changed to desert and scattered civilization builders all throughout the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Without allowing for the possibility of an intelligent creator, these things could be missed as just random, and therefore never properly understood.
Belief in God is often portrayed as a detriment to understanding. A mental block that disallows true understanding and halts scientific progress. And that is true, it can and has done that. What I'd like to make clear is that the very same can be said of the atheist who dismisses the believer and all they have to say as delusional or incapable of understanding. If applied in the right way, evidence of God can be seen in nature. Right now it's just misunderstood as random unrelated events.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm asking for it to be scrutinized. I went into more detail here, giving specific dates and places and particular associations I normally steer clear of simply because the details can change with new information, while the broad strokes still apply. I got specific here so it can be specifically tested. This is a 'reason to believe' because it illustrates how the book that is said to be testament of God's involvement with humans early on can actually be seen as having a significant impact on our history.
I'm also trying to show how your attitude towards it halts discussion and is just as detrimental as anyone else who dismisses ideas for reasons of personal bias and not based in facts or evidence."And, it illustrates how God's involvement can often be missed as 'natural'. "
No it doesn't; it shows how natural events can be attributed to God with no evidence outside of it supporting the belief in God. You're going to have a real hard time, for instance, in showing that God sent the dinosaur killer, beginning the age of mammals.
The problem is that you're putting the cart before the horse in these things: the dinosaur killer made possible mammals. It wasn't the need for mammals that caused that asteroid to come.
Weather patterns in the Sahara provided a reason for the scattering of civilization; the (perceived or declared) "need" for scattering did not cause the weather patterns to change.Yes, exactly. We're talking about a God who created existence, right? So what would you look for to 'prove' that? All we can 'observe' scientifically is matter and energy that has only existed as long as the universe has. God is said to be the creator, therefore outside/before/apart from this universe. Meaning, science has no way of aiding us there. And if God are to do something, it's not going to be obvious. It's not going to be a big arm sticking out of a cloud molding an animal. It's His nature. What we dismiss as unrelated random events could very well be the proof we need because it's not random. We're here because of it. The same evidence supports both.
Just like your statements here. You have no way of knowing, no way of proving, so you dismiss it as me looking at it wrong. Because, to you, of course these things can't have been for the purpose of the result. How do you know? If God is real, then that's exactly what happened. If God is real, then it's not that countless seemingly unrelated events just happened to end up as us, it's that an intelligent being used His creation to mold and sculpt the world He wanted to create.
The specific event I'm talking about is this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
Whether or not you believe the 'God' part, this should at least be considered a strong candidate for the event behind the story of Babel. Even in a no-God context, recognizing legitimacy in the bible when set in the right context could be something to learn from, rather than tossing it out as if we already know it has no real value.but why start with the god premise at all? Could these events have happened without the need for a supreme deity at all? Yes, they could. Could they be explained by the knowledge that ancient people believed in a god, so they acted in accordance with their beliefs - even if their beliefs were untrue or unfounded? Absolutely.
I still think that you're starting with a flawed premise. You're starting with the belief that the bible is true, and you're looking for evidence that supports it. You're not determining to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads you away from the god hypothesis completely. You have confirmation bias. You want your hypothesis to be true, and every step you take you find things that you interpret to support it.Or, you could look at that as a justification to dismiss an overwhelming amount of evidence. At some point the scale tips from someone trying to justify something through confirmation bias, and the evidence being just too much to ignore.
Are we to just leave this to the experts? Knowing the answers will likely be way after we're gone? What's the harm? And why are we so eager to get rid of something that's played such a significant role in human history and has obviously been something very meaningful to a lot of people? Whatever you think of all of that, it really should be accounted for, and not flippantly.
We have to face the fact that science is not, and cannot, answer this question. But it can help. So why not find another way? If we can't observe or detect God, we can at least try to hypothesis as realistic God and look for 'footprints' in the evidence. We may not be able to see Him, specifically, but we can maybe see His impact. Something we have no chance of if we just toss it out from the start? We're dealing with something that doesn't fit so neatly into our empirical mentality, so we have to adjust. That's how we got here in the first place. We figure it out.well that's just the god of the gaps. You're more than willing to insert "god" into anything that science cannot currently explain - or that it doesn't explain to your satisfaction. these "footprints" of god used to portray him holding a lightning bolt. If the christian/jewish god is real, he's more than capable of proving himself. He parted the red (reed) sea. He wrote down the ten commandments (that were not in the least bit original). He stopped the sun in the sky to allow for continual slaughter. He brought down the walls of Jericho. He spoke, audibly to people. If he's real, there's no need to try to uncover his footprints. Just wait for him to act in the way that he used to. We're still waiting.
Additionally, you dismiss the work of experts in the field who have made it their life's work to study archaeology, psychology, sociology, etc. Do you as an admitted layman claim to know more than they do? If there is veracity to these claims, it would be published EVERYWHERE. It would be discussed in academic circles. It would be published in reputable journals. It would be all over the news, but it is not. Are all of these experts just missing the bandwagon, or do you claim to have more knowledge and understanding of their life work than they do? Are they all just managing to miss what you find so obvious?And can you not see how dismissals just like that could be the reason? It all goes back to thinking we know better. It's not a God of the gaps. That comes either from not properly understanding science, not properly understanding God, or both. Science cannot see past the big bang, so it can't even begin to tell us what came before. It can't compare and measure and detect something that was there before the universe was.
Yes, God can make his presence known. But understanding what I'm describing explains that. The events you talk about in the bible were for a specific end. Free will was running rampant. God had to intercede to ensure a desired outcome. Unlike the rest of the natural world, free willed humans, as was demonstrated throughout the bible, were not in God's control. He had to take action and reveal Himself to make things happen.
But once Jesus was born, it was all about faith. No longer did God have to intercede. The savior was born. And now, being faith based, God revealing Himself would infringe on your free will to choose Him. It would undermine the whole thing.That's not true. If god chose to reveal himself, it would not impede free will at all. You can know with every certainty that god exists and still reject him and choose not to follow him - or was Lucifer just random chance?
If you know that a god exists, you can no longer intellectually claim that he doesn't, but that does not require you to fall down and worship him and become a robot to his will. You can still act against him. And for you to claim that god is powerless over free will means that your idea of god is not all-powerful.But that's just a misunderstanding of God as described. For one thing, if God were standing over your shoulder visibly watching you go about your day, you mean to tell me that wouldn't affect what you do? The whole point is free will, and free will at its essence is the opposite of being a 'robot to His will'. Through this view creation was created to allow for free will. To allow us to live with it and learn. So we're not just robots. It make us capable of behaving outside of His will, but that doesn't mean everything not of His will is bad. He wanted us to have it for a reason. We can will our own good too. We just don't have the knowledge that God does to wield it because we don't understand the universe well enough to understand the impact our free will has on it. We're dangerous like that.
The bible explains pretty clearly what I"m talking about. The whole story of the Israelites makes it clear God is not 'all-powerful' where free willed humans are concerned. That was the whole theme. Or the fact that He had to test Abraham, or that He 'regretted' putting humans on the earth. Again, like I've said before, an inaccurate perception of God can make it impossible to see it right because what you're looking for is off.That's why religions have caused so much conflict and problems in the world, because it is dangerous.
Thought pushing again.. Do you think it possible that free will may be affected if you consider the idea that maybe a lot of people are behaving the way they are behaving because since there is no evidence of God they can do what they want to do and the appearance and proof of God would change that? Even with the concept of free will being in the equation, the biggest driver is the uncertainty of the existence of God. I don't think free will is free for some believers because they are living in fear instead of faith.
Another thing that would affect free will is that with the appearance of God we can finally get the answers we are looking for as to what he truly wants us to do.and once again, I'm not really sure what you're getting at - I apologize for my inability to understand. Maybe it's the green beer.
here's the thing, and I hear this argument from christians frequently. They believe that if they stop believing in god, they will be "free" to behave however they want to, since there is no god to monitor their behavior. they think that removing the faith from the equation will automatically send them on a virtual crime spree, where they will be free to rape, murder and act as virtual anarchists. I know from experience that is not the case. When I became an atheist, I didn't automatically believe that I could do whatever I wanted with no repercussions. Actions have consequences whether you want them to or not, and a god is not necessary to realize that what you do impacts others. There are still laws in place. Just because I no longer believed in god, I did not automatically start wanting to kill people or taking their property. The belief in god did not affect my desires or my actions at all, it was just another step in the process.
If this wasn't what you were getting at, I apologize again.It wasn't totally what I was getting at. We have laws in place and internal moral compasses. What I was getting at was more for the people that are so scared to go to the edge of that morality that they keep themselves locked up in a small box. Like take you as an example. I may be wrong, but I would assume from prior conversations that your thought process and how you did things was at least slightly different while you were a believer than it is when you became atheist. Even looking at my own history, the way I behaved when I was growing up (in fear of Hell) is different than my behavior now once I went back and examined the bible for myself. That is what I mean by affecting free will. This might even changed things in general as well because A lot of the laws and political struggles are taking place because of religious ideas.
I've gotten that question from many people, always the less educated who are undeveloped ethically. I do believe these people should be left with there God delusion until ethics can be taught without the bible.
This opens up two sup-points:
1) What is the evidence for or against the existence of God?
2) What evidence would any given individual be willing to accept (for whatever reason)?
Although many people (I think) would equate the answers to both questions, they're not necessarily the same. For instance, a fair number of evangelicals (myself included) put forth the Bible as proof in itself of the existence of God. But even if, only for the sake of argument, it were generally accepted that as so, a lot of people still would not accept it.
Many atheists state that if they had a "burning bush", meaning a bush that behaved in the same way as the one Moses encountered in the desert, they would then believe. But history has shown that human beings are perfectly capable of explaining away things that are outside of a given box for them. So even if such a bush were to suddenly pop up in the middle of Manhattan, or Chicago, or London, that doesn't mean a lot of people would suddenly believe in the God of the Bible. Many may well believe in something at that point, but not all. And there would be no consensus on what the true explanation actually was.As you just pointed out, a lot of believers point out the bible as the proof of God because it is considered (by most) the "infallible written word of God". They cling to this idea so much that they would still argue the same specific points regarding God even when faced with the contradictions that are contained therein as well as other glaring issues (slavery, subordination of women, child sacrifice...etc). further evidence for the existence of God (in the minds of some believers) is the fact that everything is here. It is easy to fall back on God when there are no more answers to be given.
On the other side of the coin, The evidence against God (in the minds of some) is so much more glaring. The fact that the writers of the bible give different accounts of what happened in the bible casts some doubt. Also add to it the fact that there is no uniformity of belief among believers to this day also adds to it because if we cannot agree on the same thing that we claim to believe in, why should anyone else? Another thing I've noticed that casts doubt is that God is portrayed as a loving and merciful God when the truth is that even believers question why and how God can allow some things to happen in this world. But the biggest thing that some hold onto as evidence against God is the fact that scientific research has answered a LOT of questions that previously were not answered before. Because science has these answers (which are more logical than the answers that religion gives as to how things have happened) it becomes easier to state that either 1) There is no God or 2) If God exists then we don't need him for nearly as much as most believers cry out to him for
I dunno about others. You'd have to ask them...LOLThis was more about showing that if you really are looking at this academically, you need to consider a whole lot more than simply "Does God exist?"
Actually studying it and looking at it from all sides.
Thank you! This is what I've been saying! Maybe not as eloquently as you, but it's still what I've been trying to get across.
Except for the robot thing...
We may not have those answers now, but we may in the future. The problem with believers is that they want ALL the answers NOW and if they aren't satisfied, they immediately revert to God answers.
It is the epitome of ignorance and indoctrination.
Faith based gibberish.
The only "impact" or "footprints" we might see and reasonably declare to be God's are those that cannot happen naturally, without intervention from God.
That has never been seen outside of unverified and conflicting reports from 2,000 years ago. Indeed, some of those things (covering the earth in 5 miles of water) should have left evidence; evidence that has not been found and should have been.Why would God, being the creator of nature, employ something unnatural, or supernatural, to achieve a desired outcome? And what deems something 'unnatural' or 'supernatural' anyway? Half the problem is that people are always looking for 'magic' or for God to have just 'miracled' something as proof. Why would He do that? Existence IS His creation? Why do you or anyone else assume He would have to override His own design?
As for the flood, being global is an assumption made centuries ago. Even the bible says there were survivors. It's the words chosen by those doing the English translations that lean global because that's always been the assumption.
Are you attributing a asteroid impact and it's impact site to Gods footprint? Do you attribute all asteroid and meteor impact to God? What about earthquake and volcano's? And you claim the evidence that God made them happen is that we are here?
I'm saying the very same evidence people use to rule out God can also been seen as evidence for. So, at what point do we stop just dismissing literally countless events as random and totally unrelated and acknowledge the possibility that maybe they weren't random and unrelated? At what point are we being 'logical' and 'reasonable', and when exactly does it tip over to being deliberately blind to the possibility?
I don't think you'll find anyone denying that possibility.
What you will find is lots of people denying anything but a very low probability to the belief, though. Without a reason to think otherwise (outside of a possibility) why postulate a whole universe, separate from ours and populated by a single intelligent creature that created ours?
Occams razor says otherwise, if nothing else.That's what I'm trying to get across. I never got into this to prove to others anything. This was for my own understanding. But then this hypothesis began to yield more plausible answers to things we're still trying to figure out. That's when I started talking to others about it. Not to convince anyone of God to convert them. But because this explains a lot about who we are and where we come from if its right. There's answers an insight to be gained. Enough to warrant testing it at the very least.
And it seems to me that if you were truly interested in testing it, you would write up your hypothesis and be submitting it to as many experts as you could find so it can go through the peer review process. When I brought this up to you, you said you were ignorant of the process. If this were my hypothesis and I was convinced of it's voracity, I would research the methods available to submit it so as to get the process started instead of posting it in numerous forums to discuss it with people who are similar laypeople and not experts in sociology, archaeology or biology.
What makes you think I haven't? This is a difficult thing to get my head around, much less write out for someone else to get. I've been working on it for over 2 years now, just trying to convey it. My hubs are a work in progress, tackling it a topic at a time, and I have a long way to go.
And I have submitted it. In previous email discussions with ArtBlack a few months back he suggested I send it to a guy in Austin and I did. I just never heard anything back. I've written up treatments a few times and sent them off to get reviewed. No official peer-reviewed journals or anything because it doesn't really fit into one category. I will gladly send a write-up to anyone you or anyone else thinks would be a viable option.If it is something difficult for you to get your head around, then why present it before you are totally certain? The fact that you are having a hard time with this does not help your case because if you're having a hard time with it how in the world would you think anyone would follow what you are saying?
I'm having a hard time conveying it. And I'm having a hard time because it's in regards to existence which incorporates everything. The beginning of the universe, the dawn and evolution of life, psychological changes in human history, mythology, climatology, the clarity it brings to the rest of the bible, the spreading and changing of languages, and on and on and on.
It's not difficult to follow what I'm saying. It just requires having a good working knowledge of human history from about 8000 to about 3000 BC and a good knowledge of Genesis 1-11. The other part that people struggle with is that it pertains to things like the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the beginning of agriculture, the bible, and all kinds of other things that people have already made their minds up about, so seeing all of that in such a different light can be very difficult.Well, for one thing, people refuse to read it. Like you earlier. That makes it difficult.
Well, I hadn't refused to read it. I only got 1/3rd of the way through because It wasn't fully clear to me and I was needing clarification on what I was reading.
I think you confuse things unnecessarily and you view that not accepting your views constitutes a refusal to read them. I've read your proposal multiple times. I have considered it, and my initial reaction is as I've previously stated. I think you're trying to fit the bible into history, and you're doing it by re-translating it, altering it's original meaning and trying to force it into a known, historical mold. Can I say that for certain? No. I don't know as much about that time period as you seem to, but my ignorance of historical fact does not mean that I'm just going to accept what you're saying as truth without researching it for myself, especially when it's just your opinion and your hypothesis. I don't know you. I don't even know your name, since your profile is a name of your choosing. I don't know anything about you, although you have stated time and time again that you're not an archaeologist, a professor, a sociologist or a theologian. Without peer-reviewed papers supporting your claim, it rests solely on your word - a stranger. Why should I accept it without question?
I know that's not what you're asking, but that's how it comes across when you repeatedly say that the people who disagree with some of your premises and conclusions dismiss your research out of hand - or refuse to even read it at all. That's hardly the case. I have presented what you've written to a few people that I know, and they went into much greater depth on your version of history than I am able to recount, and I don't see fit to speak for them.
because you told me that you haven't, and I took you at your word. Writing up a few emails or sending off a few writeups does not peer-review make. i told you the steps necessary to submit hypothesis for review, and it wasn't difficult for me to find. I can't imagine that if you have been working on this for several years that you could not have found the answers for yourself.
I'm finding answers all the time and I took what you said to heart and plan on approaching professors at local colleges to start. If you've noticed, I tend to hit a bit of resistance before I can even get into it. Exhibit A, this forum. People won't read it, won't get into it, won't try to look up or learn what I'm pointing out. They say they want to talk about it until it becomes work. They want a simple short answer to a topic that literally encompasses the entirety of existence. Instead all the time is spent on criticizing my approach or my mindset or whatever, and the evidence gets overlooked and missed.
I'm still in the process of conveying the entirety of this thing in hubs, and I find having these discussions helpful because it helps me find ways of conveying a complex idea to people with differing perspectives and better learn how people react to it. I've submitted this thing to people who deal more from a theological stance, from both theistic and atheistic standpoints. And I come to places like this forum when someone puts out an open invitation. Here I've given you what you asked for, including verifiable information that you haven't gotten far enough into to even knowledge is there. You just want to dismiss it categorically as my 'pet theory' and tell me to go elsewhere. And that response, no surprise, is common.I haven't dismissed it. I've asked repeatedly if it has been supported by the intellectual community and panels of experts in the fields that you are broaching, and the answer is categorically no.
I'm sure, since you've focused years on the study of these matters as well as piggybacked on the research of others, that you recognize that examining these things takes time, and while working a full time job, participating in the forums, writing for profit as well as pleasure, maintaining a household, a marriage and living a productive and full life, I cannot devote as much time to your hypothesis as you do. I've done some preliminary research, but I have yet been unable to dive further in, and I'm sure that you of all people can appreciate that.
As a skeptic, I am skeptical of practically everything, and I trust the word of noted and reputable experts more than I trust the word of a virtual stranger online. That's why I repeatedly suggest getting your work peer reviewed, and it is as much for your benefit as for mine.Yes, we are reading your posts and pointing out your flaws and misunderstandings. Obviously, it is YOU who isn't reading our posts.
Interestingly enough, you still don't get it and haven't realized why the responses are common and why we're telling you it's just a pet theory.
Yes, I thought Headly's response did not match his previous post at all.
- Feel free to submit your nonsense to a peer-reviewed journal, I'm sure they'd love to have a good laugh.
Only one who has no understanding of the evidence would make such a ridiculous claim.
The harm is obvious, those myths and superstitions cause people to say things that are obviously false, causing them to lie, to reject, to deny and be dishonest about facts and evidence. It causes them to be tribal and intolerant to those who don't share the myths and superstitions, causing conflict and eventually wars.
No, we don't just discount for those myths and superstitions flippantly, we can easily observe our historic past to see the damage done by them.
I see no difference whatsoever from your God and the invisible purple dragon in my garage. He too, can't be observed or detected, so we are forced to hypothesis and look for "footprints" in the evidence.
Your method is exactly the same method used by cranks and crackpots, which is essentially working backwards within the scientific method; make a conclusion and then look for evidence to form fit the conclusion.Hey, ATM, Do you and JM worship the same invisible purple dragon??
I doubt it. FLuffy told me that I was her chosen people and everyone else should be exterminated, so I refuse to accept that a complete stranger would be her type. :-)
No one ever mentions my giant spaghetti monster? He's the one who tossed the giant meatball that killed the dinosaurs that gave us birds. He tells me it was a lot of work getting those birds just right. Millions of years of watching dinosaurs until feathers finally evolved. Then his pour meatball rolled of the table and onto the earth. I think I need this peer reviewed.
But I thought that fluffy was the only begotten dragon of the great fsm! She saved us from eternal Alfredo sauce
Sorry about that Rad.. We didnt mean to exclude noodledaumus.
Did a sneeze cause the meatball to roll off the table?
Oh, please. It was the mighty Zoamelgustar who gave the FSM the meatball in the first place!
this is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say. If god does not act outside the laws of nature and you're forced to try to look for the "footprint" of god in natural laws/occurances, then there's no way for you to determine if it is the actions of a god or an invisible, pet purple dragon. You do not just jump from "well there may have been a cause" to "I know exactly what that cause was, and it's the god I already believed in".
Maybe Fluffy was jumping around and he caused the asteroid to hit the earth at the precise moment necessary to exterminate the dinosaurs by swinging his tail too forcefully. There, I have just come up with an explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, now let me examine history, archaeology and sociology to fit in and justify my hypothesis. Just TRY to disprove my pet (literally) theory. That's not intellectually honest.
You cannot jump from the fact that there may have been a cause for these events that supersedes nature to determining what that cause was. It just doesn't make sense. that's what makes the Kalam cosmological argument so ridiculous to me - let alone the fact that it is used constantly by christian apologists to explain their god when it originated with a Muslim who used it to justify the existence of Allah. You simply can't go from "maybe there was a cause" to "I know what the cause was, and it was THIS particular god" There's no evidence for that.No, there's no conclusive evidence and there won't be. You know the bible so you should know faith is a major component. Spirituality is an internal reconciliation. Observable/verifiable proof would remove the humility of belief.
You do not have to take what I'm saying and adopt it as your belief. I'm more concerned with showing this belief system as being viable and relevant and consistent with modern knowledge, whether or not you agree with it or buy into it. And through this understanding, while so many are diligently working to answer questions from the other side, believers can look to address questions using modern knowledge rather than rejecting it in favor of age-old man-made out dated ideas born of people who knew way less about the natural world than we do now.
One proof might be the factual statement that creation required an intelligent mind. Unfortunately the best physicists in the world are now saying that there was no need for a god at all - that it could have happened naturally.
I understand what you're saying, though. The problem remains of deciding which side is made up and which is real. In my mind if there is no evidence to say otherwise, then nature trumps any fanciful story - the dinosaur killer "caused" mammals, not the other way around.
You do not have that evidence, and saying that God could have wanted mammals and so sent the dinosaur killer doesn't give any indication that it happened that way.
I fully understand that you are willing to use that "could" as proof of the biblical veracity as well as God, or at least evidence, but it is truly insufficient for even a belief system let alone actual knowledge.Yes, one instance alone is. We're dealing with a topic that falls outside the jurisdiction of the natural sciences. So you have to find another approach. If you can't prove something in individual cases, then take a step back and look at the whole picture.
As for the universe having 'no need for a god at all', that's not entirely true. From that initial instant on it is true. Matter reacting to the environment created by the natural laws resulted in the universe as it is. But for that to happen, first you have to have matter, second those natural laws have to create the exact right condition. So, do we dismiss that as having 'no need for a god at all'? Or could the incalculable odds of the environment and the nature of matter being the exact right conditions be considered a strong case for intelligent creation?
And that's just the birth of the universe. Then you have the sun, our distance from it, our tilt, the abundance of water, the atmosphere, the rotation, the temperature, water cycle, weather patterns, and none of that even begins to get into the odds against the emergence of life. Not to mention intelligent life capable of contemplating itself. Then you have at least six mass extinctions, the dinosaur killer being only one of those, that led to us being here. At what point does dismissing it all as random chance start to get ridiculous? Plus, you've got events in the beginning of Genesis that line up rather well with other patterns that led to us being here, including an event that could be counted as a seventh mass extinction event .. the flood.You are mistaken. The premier physicists of time are on record as stating that there need be no cause for the big bang. Specifically that there was no need for a God to start the universe.
As far as the sun, atmosphere, etc. - you are still claim that the cause (for humanity this time) was an effect instead.
That those conditions happened "caused" the eruption of life, developing into man, and not the desire for man causing the earth. We have a pretty fair idea of how those causes worked, we understand how the solar system was formed. No need for a God.
Given the time involved there is nothing ridiculous to assigning many things to chance. Chance, however violently improbable, happens all the time.
And no, Genesis does not line up well. There was no world wide flood, for example - no seventh mass extinction - just a myth proven false.I bet I'm not. There is the potential that instead of a big bang it was a big bounce. That all the matter was already here, just compacted, then exploded back out again. But that's just speculation that takes us right back to an infinite universe concept. There's no accounting for the matter. And the natural laws that had to be in place to begin with. Until you account for those things, you cannot say for certain what was or wasn't involved.
And I know we have a good idea of how those causes worked. What I don't get is how you then reach the conclusion 'no need for a God'. There's nothing about understanding 'causes' that even relates to that. Look at it this way, try to explain to me what you would expect to see, that we don't see, that would make a 'need for God'? It's kind of hard to rule something out when you don't know how to account for it. If God is the architect of nature, why would He supersede it's 'natural' ways to make something happen? That would be like you installing a garage door opener, then just driving your car through the door.
Given enough time can it also not be a possibility that we're giving up too much to chance? That that's our default answer? No need to investigate further, there was plenty of time for random chance to become order.
As for Genesis, that's why I wrote that post tying it to facts. I claim Genesis does line up well and point to ample evidence to support it. And I've got way more where that came from. So, instead of just saying, "No, it doesn't", prove it. Or, at least, prove me wrong. That's the point. It gives us real evidence to look at and real potential for a dialogue.I think we're talking about different things here.
"There is no need for God" doesn't say that He is not there; it says that he may or may not be there. Because the possibility exists, however is insufficient reason to say that He does. We therefore question that, and look for evidence.
Evidence we can't find, particularly when you claim that it doesn't exist. We're thus left with the same question, no evidence and no answers. Whereupon you seem to be stating that because he might exist is reason to assume he does and begin collecting possibilities; possibilities that are no more evidence than they are imagination.
Yes, the default answer is nature; we know it's there, we understand it to some small extent and know it can produce the universe and us without God being involved. You have shown the question of God cannot be investigated; why keep saying it's a possibility (which we already know) and keep looking for non-existent evidence?
Proof Genesis is wrong:
The universe wasn't created in 7 days as it states.
No human can live in the belly of a fish
The flood did not happen.
Woman was not "made" from the rib of a fully formed man.
All life on earth (outside the ark) was not destroyed.
Now, if the reply is that God could have done it all with His magic, don't you think you had better begin investigating the claim that there is a clan of ET's living on the back side of the moon that "seeded" the human gene on earth? It could be very true, after all...See, this is exactly what I mean. People are mistakenly convinced that we 'know' things like 'it can produce the universe and us without God being involved'. This is incorrect. For starters, without accounting for where the matter came from or what established the natural laws in the first place, you can't say you 'know' anything. And in the case of us being here, until we figure out how life first began, you can't 'know' that either.
That's the error I'm trying to point out. In this way you and others are doing exactly what Christians are accused of. You're answering questions prematurely and deciding for yourself what is and isn't possible, thus hampering the investigation. For example, like the natural laws, the will within all living things that compels them to survive and procreate isn't accounted for. It's considered a 'given'. We have no conceptual grasp of what life or death really is. There's no molecular difference between living and dead matter. Yet when life is present biological matter behaves one way, when it's not it doesn't. When it's physically able to sustain life, every cell in your being naturally exhibits homeostasis, growth, organization, adaptation, response to stimuli, metabolism, and reproduction. Those behaviors are what defines something biologically as alive. But what is life? What is death? We have no idea. We just know what the body must be physically able to sustain it.
The evidence is there if you know what to look for. You just have to first understand the nature of what you're looking for. We can't 'see' gravity either, but we can watch how everything reacts to it and figure it out from there. So do we just dismiss all the events that led to us as just 'chance' without considering the alternative? Especially in this case when there's significant amounts of evidence that coincide with what Genesis describes, including things humans could not have known?
Your objections to Genesis illustrate the problem. Creation lists 6 major eras in earth's history, and over a dozen specifically mentioned 'creations' listed in the right order, and described as if witnessed from the surface of the planet. But many won't even consider that because the very clunky translation from Hebrew to English says 'days'. Even though the Hebrew word also means, era, age, an indeterminate amount of time, etc. Many are too quick to dismiss this text knowing very little about it.
The Jonah story wasn't in Genesis.
The flood did happen. It just wasn't global, which Genesis supports. The Sumerians wrote about that same flood. And, though data is lacking since this is modern day Iraq, back in the 20's when this region could be studied more regularly there was plenty of evidence of localized flooding. Including one in particular that ended the Ubaid culture in Ur, and lines up chronologically with both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list as both say the flood happened not long before the building of Uruk, which has been found and dated to about 200 years after the flood of Ur. This also addresses the 'all life not being destroyed' thing.
If you read the post with all the detail, then you'd know that both Adam and Eve were created separately from homo sapiens, which addresses the 'rib' part.That's the second time you have called Stephen Hawkins a liar, or simply wrong, based on....your vast knowledge of physics? Sorry, I'll take his word for it - he's the physicist, not I.
Genesis does not list 5 "era's" to require creation; it lists 5 days. That you wish to change that record to something that fits reality merely means it was wrong to begin with. Which is what I said, after all. Nor does it list them in the correct order; stating that there was light before stars does not make it so.
The bible states there was a worldwide flood, killing all life that wasn't on the ark. Again, when you change it to mean something else, it merely means Genesis was wrong yet again. Nor could there even be a local flood deep enough to deposit the ark anywhere near the top of Mt. Ararat; long before that happened it would drain into the Mediterranean and flood the entire world.
Genesis states that Adam was created from dust (not other people) and Eve from his rib (not other people). Genesis is wrong a third time, it seems.
You simply cannot change what Genesis very plainly states into something else and then claim that the change is evidence of God because it's in Genesis! It just doesn't work. At least not for me; if your belief and desire that there is a God allows such machinations of logic and truth that's fine, but it's not something I would do.Well, I know for a fact that Hawking dismisses the natural laws as a given and doesn't account for them, as does practically every other physicist. The natural laws played a pretty important role in the process. Wouldn't you also have to account for that before saying you 'know' for certain what is or is not required? Meanwhile, I'm basically just repeating what Neil LeGasse Tyson said. If you want to name drop for legitimacy.
I have a hub on creation. Feel free to check it out. It describes what I'm talking about in detail.
You understand those first 11 chapters of Genesis are extremely ancient, right? You understand the ancient Hebrew language and English do not translate well, don't you? Yet you're dismissing an ancient Hebrew text based on your very cursory level of knowledge about it and based solely on what translators say it says in English. For example, it's common in Hebrew to speak of an indeterminent amount of time in the past using that same word translated as 'day'. It's also usually translated as 'hill' where the flood story always says 'mountain'. And Ararat in that age refers to a very large area, not a specific peak.
You don't know Genesis is wrong about Adam/Eve either. In fact, I just laid out a ton of evidence that shows there were numerous eye witnesses that say beings like what Genesis describes did in fact exist in their ancient past. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans....Either the bible is the word of God, given to man through the inspired writings of man, or it's not.
If it's not, it is virtually worthless as a description of things imagined but not seen by those ancient peoples; they understood far less than we do about nature and are well known for making up "explanations" that fit observations without ever attempting to test them for truth.
If it is, then God will have either have provided a "translation" in language and culture that we can understand or it is again worthless as we simply cannot truly understand either the language or the culture producing it.
I know a man (The Dubious Disciple on the web) that has spent a great many years attempting to understand the culture and language of those around Jesus' time and in "translating" just one book of the bible. Even after all the effort he would be the first to say that it is quite possible that his translation and explanation is completely wrong. We simply cannot put ourselves completely into the shoes of those people.
When you then pick and choose what biblical stories to change to fit reality and declare it is evidence of God's existence and actions...well...I have to take it with a grain of salt. You do not appear to have any real idea of what "evidence" consists of, declaring that your own imagined possibilities are evidence. They are no such thing; while interesting to digest and think about they provide no actual evidence in any sense of the word.
You have said that God cannot be detected, and does not choose (by asking "why would he") to perform actions violating the natural laws of our universe. If those things are true, and there is no evidence of that, either, then all evidence of God is merely hearsay, untestable, and there is no possibility of ever being able to say God did this or that and that he thus exists.
Without the possibility of ever having evidence the search for God will forever be fruitless and there is no possible reason to continue it. A thousand possibilities, or a million, all with equally possible natural explanations, is still zero evidence.No, you're not saying what Tyson is saying, quite the contrary.
Do you also believe that vampires and werewolves exist too? I mean there are a lot of different cultures all around the world that have these stories/legends - therefore it must be true, and FURTHERMORE it must be proof of god, right? Mankind are imaginative creatures and the afterlife/longevity has long been the crux of their curiosity. It doesn't mean that these ancient mythologies were based in fact, it means that mankind hasn't changed that much. They're still obsessed with eternal life. If you think these old mythologies point to a realistic human species that lives for hundreds of years, then you also have to accept all similar claims for other supernatural creatures like vampires, werewolves, etc - and you cannot doubt them, or it throws your entire claim into jeopardy.
There's a big difference between boogeyman superstitions and the mythological gods that several independent civilizations in the same region of the world (Sumerians/Akkadians/Bablylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans) all regarded as their actual history.
You want us to acknowledge the possibility that Genesis is an historically accurate depiction of history? I maintain that for that to be true our history was much more like fantasy then reality as we know it today. But lets just say sure, there is a remote possibility that Genesis is factual, but exaggerated.
I maintain that it's more likely that Genesis was written to give a tribe of men a sense of moral obligation and entitlement to take land, rape and pillage. The first thing Genesis does tell this tribe they are descendants of Gods or sons of Gods themselves. Do you acknowledge the possibility that I'm correct?That is nonsense. Scientists know that even though they haven't got the answers to what happened prior to the Big Bang, they understand that to be irrelevant to the fact of what occurred after the Big Bang, which is far more important and relevant to our understanding of the universe and how life first began.
At this point, I don't think too many people care about what happened prior to the big bang. This is where the answers stop and a lot of believers that HAVE to have an answer point to God as the source. I was told by a fellow believer that the Big Bang that set everything in motion was God clapping his hands together. When I stopped laughing.. Well i still laugh at that sometimes
What happened prior to the big bang is monumentally relevant to these discussions. And because that bit cannot be known, you nor I have any way of knowing whether or not it's relevant to things within this universe. It's one thing to only use the material/observable world to establish what can be known about the natural world, it's another thing entirely to prematurely deem the material/observable world as all there is. By those same standards, the human mind doesn't exist either. If not for each of us experiencing it first-hand, there'd be no way of knowing the full extent of what's going on in that lump of matter in our heads. I would think that alone should be enough to convince you to keep your mind open about what's possible beyond the material/observable.
Not at all. And, you have yet to show it to be monumental.
Yet to show that the pre-Big Bang period is monumental? I'm sure your science can prove how insignificant and trivial it was. This kind of meanigless challenge is a common thread among those who are delusional enough to deny their creator's existence.
LOL. Kind of like denying the invisible purple dragon in my garage.
Oh yes, it's there. You just can't see it.
So, now your saying God didn't cause the extinction of the dinosaurs by tossing an asteroid in earth direction?
We already know the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion. Huge difference, you may want to read up on that one.
Once again, you fail miserably by claiming the pothole formed around the water and not the other way round. And, you fail to understand the probabilities of events and the fact there are billions/trillions of galaxies and star systems that could easily have had similar events leading to life and intelligent beings.
Though I get what you're saying, there's a big difference between the formation of a pothole and the formation of the universe/this planet/life. I understand the probabilities and know the number of other star systems with planets in the proverbial 'sweet spot' are numerous. I also recognize those same points and the understanding that warrants them as a realization of just how vast the universe is and just how many conditions and attributes have to be just right. Not to mention the natural laws having to be just as they are to make it possible at all. There may be a large number of planets that could also have life, but that's because the values of the natural laws of this one and only universe that we know of are as they are. Probability doesn't equate when there's just one universe with one set of laws. The only place to go from there is to speculate the possibility of other universes.
By the elastic universe theory universes themselves disappear cyclically by which we could be talking about trillions of universes before one spawned life.
True, we could, but there's no way of knowing that. Whether we're talking about one universe that expanded out multiple times, or we're talking about the possibility of multiple universes, we're still speculating. Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but if this same universe were to collapse on itself, then expand back out, that would not change the values of the natural laws, would it? You'd still be dealing with the same environment created by the same parameters, unless there's something I'm not understanding there. If that were the case it would just be a matter of how many expansions before the countless events that had to happen as they did in the order they did resulted in us, which would still be practically incalculable.
Yes, probability plays a huge role in our universe. Of course, there's only one set of laws. Duh.
Right, so, point being, probability doesn't apply where the laws are concerned. They just happen to be perfect. One chance we know of for them to be right and they're right. That's the point.
Nonsense. Probability does apply. There is a "set" of laws, not just one law.
It's really quite simple, dude. All you are doing is adding a layer of complexity and confusion to answers and explanations, from science, that are already understandable.
But, we do understand it is just ancient mythology. It is you who doesn't.
Baloney, your God motivated explanations are not answers or explanations that can be tested, new or otherwise.
That is false because that just opens up a massive can of worms.
The main problem with your indoctrinated view is that you, along with so many other believers, are under the delusion that the pothole formed around the water as opposed to the water forming the shape of the pothole.
It is also the antithesis to understanding.
That explains much of your posts.
LOL. So, you are here to explain which ones are random unrelated events and which ones are evidence for God. Hilarious.
JMcFarland, ATM, Deepes, Wilderness, Rad Man,
I hope to address each of your comments, which there's quite a few of, but I first want to address something for all of you that I hope will make more clear where I'm coming from.These are the primary purposes behind my involvement in forum discussions.
1. My purpose is not to convince anyone regarding my hypothesis or convert anyone to my beliefs. I share what I know, what I think, and lay out what I believe and why so it can be understood. I think dialogue is important as we are all ultimately the same, coexisting in the same place. I want to encourage believers to embrace science and to recognize religion and traditional religious ideals where the natural world is concerned as man-made, outdated, and in serious need of reconsideration in light of modern demonstrable knowledge. Theists and atheists can have open discussions with mutual respect and humility, we can recognize and acknowledge what's known and what isn't, we can agree to disagree where the unknown is concerned, and we can move forward less divided.
2. To test my hypothesis against history, science, and biblical accuracy. I engage in discussions with anyone interested enough to participate, both believers and non-believers, to get input and to test the validity of this idea from multiple varying perspectives. I can see nothing that contradicts with known knowledge, but my knowledge base is limited. There are others who could refer me to something I didn't know, something that maybe conflicts or contradicts, or something that further illuminates.
3. In discussions regarding the existence of God, I try to show how God 'fits' in the mind of a believer with a healthy respect for science. From that perspective I attempt to make clear how science and God can coexist and that belief in Him does not automatically equate to ignorance of science or mindless indoctrination. There are believers today who make notable contributions to science, physicists, biologists, even the man who first proposed the big bang theory was a catholic priest.
My methods are often called into question here, about how I'm working backwards, and that I'm biased. Though I know this is difficult for others to understand, I have come to where I am objectively. I have always looked at the world in both lights and I understand a causal universe. And I don't disagree. I simply disagree that it wasn't deliberate. I value the word of science over anything man-made. I recognize the bible as man-made, religion as man-made, and even my own understanding as man-made. I also see the impact of the books of Moses, as well as the time and place of their approximate origin, as significant. I gauge the human psyche by the longevity and level of significance something has as a barometer to kind of quantify and include human intuition and instinct into the equation. And that points to the books of Moses, which points to the God of the books of Moses.
I am not a scientist or any other kind of expert. I too work a full time job and and have a full time life and can only devote a limited amount of time. In my mind God is real and it all fits together somehow. So, I set out to do the one thing I knew how, I set the oldest and most significant part of the books of Moses up against our modern knowledge, I removed all man-made interpretations and preconceptions I held about these texts aside, and I studied to see if there was any real merit to those first 11 chapters. I find it significant that nobody knows how old they are or who wrote them. I find it significant that they originate in the same time and place as the dawn of human civilization. And I find it significant that the stories of those first 11 chapters have existed in that region for as long as writing has existed, and that the sheer number of surviving texts found that speak of devastating floods, extremely long lifespans, and the confusing of once universal languages, suggest these stories were well known in this region throughout the age that birthed civilization and were highly regarded.
I have since been bowled over by what I've found. I honestly didn't expect to find anything because I figured if there was anything to find it would have been found already. So I can certainly understand those who say the same when I talk about this. I've found throughout my time having discussions on this topic that it's common for both believers and non-believers alike to downplay these texts. Believers will often demote them to mere metaphor, and non-believers regard them as myth. Regardless of the impact they've had or the mystery regarding their origin. This, I suspect, greatly increases the chance of something so seemingly obvious being missed, or dismissed without much regard. And even those who do look for legitimacy in these texts always seem to work backwards from Jesus' time using the genealogies as a timeline, which if I'm right puts them off the mark by roughly 1000 years.
So I discuss with others. If I'm misinformed somewhere, if there's evidence that conflicts with the cohesion I see between those first 11 chapters and the natural world, I am unaware. And if there's even partial truth to the cohesion I see, then there's a lot of potential knowledge to be gained for both believers and non-believers alike as it offers insight into what made us what we are today and manages to answer some pretty significant, still as of yet unanswered, questions. The legitimacy of Genesis I'm attempting to point out does not require the belief in God for insight to be gained. The correlation between the story of Babel and the 5.9 kiloyear event alone is significant as it pinpoints a time, which also better pinpoints the flood, and which shows the Sumerian stories and the stories in Genesis were talking about the same events as both show the Sumerian city-state or Uruk being established not long after, which really was established not long after the actual 5.9 kiloyear event.I appreciate this statement. Not too many of us here are super experts with anything and for the most part we are trying to engage in open discussions and dialogue as well. So please don't think that when some of us question you that we are totally dismissing what you are trying to convey. Each of us (in our own way) are trying to get you to either reexamine what you have already written so that you can possible make adjustments (which is little to no different than what the peer review process will do) or to clarify a certain point that has been made
You know, HeadlyvonNoggin, you and I are somewhere along the same wavelength, one in front and the other not far behind. I've, at this point, not given much to the tower story and a lots of other things but I do find eliminating "the all knowing-punishing god" out of the entire Bible as the origin of everything allows us objectivity. I don't see the need for a creator since I takes in to account all forms of myths as some call religious texts, science since the Bible's definition of faith is finding evidence and substance to support unseen beliefs is also science, math, history, the natural environment and everything else since all that is is the makeup of existence which suggests it has always existed.
Your 3 reasons for sharing your views are the same as mine which, again, puts us on the same wavelength. Therefore, thanks for sharing that, I was about to stop following this thread but I think I'll stick around a little longer. I do, however, don't accept the region where Babylon is to be the beginning because of looking at the cycle of the year, spring is usually given as its beginning which opens with yellow-green budding of plants representing Asians, summer's red ripe fruit representing Natives of the Americas, darkening of leaves and fruit in fall being Africans and the white snow of winter representing Europeans who destroys everything except evergreens which represent everlasting life.And yet, all you manage to accomplish is to increase the division with ridiculous and failed pet theories of form fitting Genesis into reality.
Hence, the problem.
That ship has longed sailed. It is a waste of time trying to explain things to you.
Yet, everything you do here equates to ignorance of science and mindless indoctrination.
That is a fallacy.
That has been made obvious, hence your questionable methods.
So what? Are you saying your time is more precious than ours?
Yes, the mindless indoctrination part you referred earlier.
Yes, we know. Hence, the problem.Good job of following the sentence map. If there were an original thought in there, somewhere, it would die of loneliness.
And, where is the original thought in your post?
Now, you have given me a profound conundrum to decipher!
Check the cemetery, you might find your conundrums deciphered there.
On the contrary, I'm merely helping you find the answers you're looking for...
If that's how you see it then that's how you see it. Unless you've got something of substance to show my 'pet theory' doesn't work then its just you spouting opinions. Entertaining? Yes. Useful? Not beyond the entertainment value. My 'pet theory' incorporates dozens of actual events over the course of thousands of years, from climate history to human behavioral changes to archaeological evidence, referring specifically to well-known cultures in a specific region and timeframe. So you'd think there'd be plenty you could throw at it without much effort to obliterate it and prove it nonsense. I'd appreciate it if you'd really give it a try. This is your chance to shut me up. You should take it. Should be a cake walk for you.
Of course, I'm sure you'll just say you already did at some point and I didn't listen. Maybe you can go back and find it, if that's the case. Refresh my memory.I have no intentions of shutting you up, but your claims the naturally evolving humans were not violent is intrigued me. Have you considered cannibalism? Cough's Cave in Britain has brought forth Chedder Man, 15,000 year old man with a whole in his head and a pile of human bones indicate cannibalism. The evidence suggest they used human skulls as cups. Cannibalism has been practiced almost all over the world since the Upper Palaeolithic period. How does your theory explain this?
That's a good question and I hadn't looked at it from that angle before. From what I can tell, cannibalism was very rare in the upper paleolithic, with the remains in Gough's Cave being the only example in that era that I can find. There are some who suspect it was practiced more frequently in earlier eras, but from the time humans achieved what's often referred to as behavioral modernity, which includes practices like grave burials, it's all but non-existent.
I don't doubt there are limited cases of both cannibalism and violence, as there are examples of both. But it wasn't the norm and it wasn't behavior conducive to the vast majority. In the hub I'm working on now I write about the 'great leap forward', or the 'upper paleolithic revolution', around 50000 years ago when tools begin to show more complexity and function, when prehistoric humans appear to have begun engaging in trade with one another via trade routes, and when they began to bury their dead. Though it's difficult to determine, its suspected that these advances were due to developments in verbal communication.
It's primarily the age of behavioral modernity that I'm referring to in regards to human behavior. For the vast majority of hunter-gatherer homo sapiens of the upper paleolithic, and even through the rise and fall of large densely populated cultures following the discovery of farming, tribes and communities of humans were generally egalitarian and non-violent. When that changed, it wasn't isolated cases here and there. It was a full blown epidemic and it spread quickly.I did just run across this, which I'll have to look into further as it claims exactly the opposite of what I've read elsewhere. There's a book by archaeology professor Lawrence H. Keeley called "War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage" that he wrote in response to what he saw to be a trend amongst scholars and archaeologists looking at violence and warfare to be late developments. There's also a book called 'Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage' by Steven A. LeBlanc. These two seem to be in the minority where their views are concerned, but from what I've read so far they apparently make a pretty good case.
If this is true it doesn't do much to change the profoundness of the civilization boom or the invention boom of the 4th millennium BC, or the transition from 'matrist' to 'patrist' cultures which is the main evidence pointing towards the emergence of the modern ego, which is more central to my hypothesis, but it does deserve some consideration.You may find this interesting.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/04/pala-a29.htmlI do find that interesting. Getting a bead on prehistoric homo sapiens is difficult. There are quite a lot of experts who say prehistoric humans appear to have been very peaceful, yet they clearly pushed the Neanderthal into extinction, and they also played a major role in wiping out all remaining megafauna (sabre-toothed tigers/dire wolves/mammoths) off the face of the planet as well. Even in Genesis, in the context as I read it, Cain feared being harmed by these 'others'. And its not like God said, "Who, them? Oh, don't worry about them." He actually validated Cain's concern by marking him in some way so he wouldn't be harmed. Whatever the case may be, prehistoric homo sapiens were no slouches and were a force to be reckoned with. Knowing there were some who hung out in caves eating other humans and using their skulls as drinking containers only adds to that.
LOL. Once again, you use the lame excuse of others not showing how your ridiculous beliefs are ridiculous, when that's exactly what we do as we go along.
I do get that, and I don't at all mind questions. I admittedly get a little punchy when I feel like I'm having to defend my credibility or my capability to understand, especially when I'm trying to address a lot of comments quickly. Some of that punchiness can bleed over into replies from others, like you, who may not have said anything that warrants my punchy response. Not that anything should justify my behavior. If I'm being ridiculous then I'm being ridiculous, and that's nobody elses' fault but my own.
It gets tedious at times having to first break through the preconceived ideas about believers that get projected onto me and what I'm saying. I think you'll agree that the vast majority of people don't tread these kinds of topics very deeply. Most are content to not really think about it much, to just follow what they were taught and told, and follow traditions as far as religion and ideas about existence are concerned. They stand on the foundation of a grasp of existence that is not earned through logical contemplation, but is rather taken on faith as being the 'truth' because it came from people they trust (parents/preachers), and find it difficult to explain when those 'truths' taken for granted are questioned or challenged.
The majority of atheists tend to be those people who are more open minded and willing to contemplate those bigger questions for themselves and have arrived at their worldview through their own reason, where the majority of believers tend to be those who haven't really questioned or contemplated anything very deeply. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule on both fronts, but humans are humans and we tend to just categorize groups of people in our minds and we tend to project our stereotypes we hold about particular groups onto each and every individual until that individual proves or convinces us otherwise. So, I can sometimes get a little rundown when trying to first get past those assumptions that really do apply to a great deal of believers.
For instance, in this case, JMcFarland said earlier that she has a full time job and a life and she writes and works in forums and doesn't have a whole lot of time. Same here. Here I am, sitting on this idea that makes a whole lot of sense to me, that could potentially resolve a lot of division between people where this topic is concerned, trying to get it out of my head and out into the world to be contemplated with what time I have available. In my eyes a lot of these discussions can get tedious as they always seem to repeat the same things over and over again and never seem to get anywhere. So I try to throw things into the discussion to mix it up. To encourage thought. To push the boundaries a bit to break out of that repetitive loop. So, right or wrong, when I take a good chunk of time to write up a long, detailed explanation in a forum asking for 'reasons to believe' and promising to test and challenge those ideas, I get a little frustrated when the responses tend to be the same old same old. Basically either telling me to take this elsewhere to be reviewed by 'experts' so it can then be taken seriously, or being told that my methods are flawed from the start so there's no reason to really consider my conclusions.
I am fallible, I get frustrated, irritated, and sometimes can run off at the mouth (or at the fingers, I guess). But my intent is pure. I want to bring together the two sides of this very divisive topic and encourage truly fruitful discussions.I hate to burst your bubble, but the Catholics beat you to it. I was never taught when I went to a Catholic school in the 70's that the universe was made in seven days and I was taught evolution.
Yeah, that's a good start. But evolution is just a piece of the puzzle. This part deals with the history of humanity and the quick transition from hunter-gatherer to settled agricultural lives, to a dramatic boom in inventions and the birth of multiple unique civilizations. Catholics accept evolution, but do not yet recognize the humans in Gen1 and Adam in Gen2 as two separate events.
But, I do have to say, hearing that and knowing that you know and understand the catholic church accepts evolution, why then did you go to the mat with me on the topic of what a 'day' is in the creation account? What was their explanation?
Because before we found evidence of an old earth, no one questioned the 6 day creation. Suddenly we need to change the meaning of the words to fit our understanding of the universe. The Catholic organization has some very smart people at the top. You don't get to be a Cardinal or Pope for being stupid. These are very well educated, thinking people. When Evolution was explained to one of the Popes (don't remember which one) he understood it as fact and adopted it. They teach an old earth because it is an old earth.
As for the God's Adam and Eve, I'm not sure what there take is, but when I read it the Gen 2 seems more like a specific description of how he made man, but it's vagueness lends it's self to interpretation. Genesis seems to flip back and forth a bit as it was written by different people possible attempting to explain certain things in more detail. You may in fact be correct in fact that Gen 2 was an attempt of a particular tribe telling it's people they are descendants from Gods. However you have no evidence other than writting of people who attempted to empower their people to perhaps go to war, much like Hitler telling his people about their Aryan race.Right. One of the founding fore-fathers of both Catholicism as well as a respected thinker to those of the reformation, Augustine, often said the scriptures should be interpreted in light of current demonstrable knowledge. It's understood that these texts are ancient and can be misunderstood, and that modern knowledge can add context where before there was none to then allow for better understanding of the environment in which the scriptures were created.
As for evidence, you could look at the fact that every civilization from that time and place considered god-like beings that were human in form, male and female, and who were moody and unpredictable to be their actual history. Each of them independently of one another. They're depicted in artwork, in stories, and in the case of the Sumerians they're credited as being the teachers of all the things we know the Sumerians actually invented, including civilization. So, in that light you have both eye witness accounts and you've got the actual inventions and advances in humanity that really did happen being attributed to these beings by those very same witnesses. So, 'evidence' is all in the way you look at it.The problem is, to find out if the writers were truly enlightened you have to look at translations from before our current understandings. For instance, if a translator (which is what you are attempting to do) understood how old the universe is while translating then he would modify his translations to fit. But if the translator had no knowledge he would only attempt to be true to the text. Sure you can rewrite Genesis if you like, but your rewrite is evidence to only our current understanding of the natural world.
As for evidence, you have none. Closely connected tribes describing themselves as descendants of Gods is only evidence that they were attempting to empower their people.
As for eye witnesses, you have none. All you have is old examples of propaganda.
I recognize your desire to connect science and religion, but truly the best and only way is to understand that the OT is a bunch of stories that have inspired people. This gives religion the perfect and only out.I don't think you're getting the full picture here. For one thing, Hebrew to English is not nearly as direct a translation as you seem to think it is. There are numerous words and phrases that can be taken any number of ways, and the wording can change pretty dramatically. They're vastly different from the most fundamental level up. You have to have some sort of context to work from, which was not available to translators of the bible, especially in regards to those first chapters. It's not like translating from one latin-based language to another, like English to Spanish, or English to Italian. Hebrew is an ancient language rooted in an ancient culture we know very little about. That's half the problem with most translations of the bible. They're built around ideas of what the text says based on assumptions where proper context wasn't available. That's one thing this view I'm talking about gives us, the proper context in which to use to go back to the source material and reassess.
Even to the Jewish people of Jesus' time, who actually spoke and read Hebrew fluently, the books of Moses were a mystery to them as well because even then they were already ancient. Even knowing the language and being not nearly as far removed from the culture, they still dedicated significant time to trying to make sense out of these texts.
Your assertions about translations, and about, not just the books of Moses, but all mythological stories, as being ancient forms of propaganda, just illuminates not only a very stunted understanding of this timeframe and these ancient cultures in our history, but a total lack of interest in even wanting to understand. As well as a personal bias against these things that doesn't allow for honest assessment. I hope I'm not coming off as mean or rude, but I honestly don't know how else to put it. If scholars approached ancient texts in the way you just did we'd know nothing of the ancient world. Respect for the material, no matter what it is, is crucial to understanding. And your assertion that its all just propaganda is completely baseless and is a way better example of what you're accusing me of than anything I've said.Why is it that when someone doesn't agree with you they aren't getting the complete picture? You can't go back and retranslate the text every time something is discovered. It needs to be translated with as little bias as possible. This has been done several times by experts in the field. I may be no expert as a matter of fact I may be a moron regarding these texts. But I have read the translation by experts who did there best to convey the proper meaning and understanding of the text. I'll have to take the experts words as they are the experts and you of course are not.
So the people of Jesus's didn't understand Genesis either, so what? The translation is difficult, so what? You think your the expert. You think a new Genesis should be written that takes our current understand of the universe into account. That would not be a fair translation, would it?
Everyone here has personal bias when it comes to Genesis. You personal bias is so strong it's got you believing 9 foot tall Gods that lives a thousand years that were able to procreate with us mortals and walked around a few thousand years ago. While I've read it looking for evidence and found a depiction of a God with a bad temper that keeps favourites and doesn't care about the rest. Propaganda. You see my interpretation is just a valid as yours.Look, I'm not trying to insult you and I promise I'm not being unreasonable here. The best example I can give you to try to make you understand is comparing this to you trying to tell a believer they're not getting the 'picture' because they keep disagreeing with you about evolution because crock-o-ducks don't exist. That's what your post sounds like to me. I know you get how something can sound out of the mouth of someone who does not fully understand the topic they're attempting to discuss to the ears of someone who does. You've experienced that yourself, and you admit to not knowing much, so can you maybe see that's how this reads to me?
No, I don't think I'm an expert. In any translation, you have to have context. Even to those who speak and read Hebrew fluently, without context to ground the story they're reading it's hard to make sense of it. Science gives us context. So why would you not re-read these texts in that light? That's how scholars translate and decipher ancient languages. You have to make associations to ground it in some sort of context. This is no different.So in other words . . . you can't get there from here.
We are not discussing evolution here, we are discussing text that practically no one agrees upon. There are those who think they are experts and think the universe is 6000 years old. It's a matter of opinion and your arrogance surrounding your opinion is certainly apparent and certainly unjust. Intelligent Designers are so certain they are right they built an entire museum displaying their delusion. Attempting to retranslate the text to suite your needs is a disservice to the writers and translators.
So, now your saying God didn't cause the extinction of the dinosaurs by tossing an asteroid in earth direction? Why would he throw a monkey in the wrench?
Claiming evidence of God is us being here is like claiming that my parents first meeting is evidence of God and not random chance. You see, any number of things could have happened for them not to meet and if they hadn't someone else would have been here instead of me. More specifically, my parents pre-marital sex that led to my sister which led to marriage and then later me is not evidence of God. Unless you think God wanted me to be here so he had my parents commit a sin for me to exist. I know your claiming he intervened before Jesus and now he no longer has to, but I think you should be able to get the point regarding random events that led to all of us being here are not evidence to anything but random events.
Free will was running rampant so God had to intercede to ensure his outcome? So it's not free will then?
Rad Man,
I'm trying to find a better way to explain this because I get what you're saying and I can understand your train of thought. And I don't want it to sound like I'm just dismissing your point. I want you to understand what I mean and why I'm confident in what I'm saying.
Just look at the numerous variations of translations available on biblegateway.com. You've got a good 30+ different versions available. On that site you can add another column or two and look at the same passages using different translations side by side. Just go to that site and try this. You'll see what I mean. They can and often do vary greatly from one another.
To give you a better idea, here's an example that the below website gives, plus a couple of alternate translations I added as well ....
English Translation of Genesis 6:16 (RSV) ...
Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.
English Translation in NIV ...
Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks.
English Translation in KJV ...
A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.
And here's a literal word-for-word translation of that same verse from Hebrew to English ...
“A light you do to an ark and to a cubit you complete it from to over it and a door of the ark in its side you put unders twenty and thirty you do.”
"Most Bible readers assume the English translation of the Bible is an equivalent and exact representation of the original text. Because of the vast difference between the Ancient Hebrews' language and our own, as well as the differences in the two cultures, an exact translation is impossible. The difficult job of the translator is to bridge the gap between the languages and cultures. Since one can translate the Hebrew text many different ways, the translator's personal beliefs will often dictate how the text is translated. A translation of the Biblical text is a translator's interpretation of the original text based on his own theology and doctrine. This forces the reader to use the translator's understanding of the text as his foundation for the text." - http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/2_bible.html
This is why I only focused on the first 11 chapters and in the case of each verse I would read multiple translations side by side, along with a 'Jewish' translation, I'd read the original Hebrew as best as I could, and in many cases I'd compare words and phrases used in one verse to the same words and phrases used elsewhere in the bible as a comparison. It's a pains-taking process that still doesn't guarantee success.
I can understand where you are coming from regarding your punchiness. You have an automatic guard up whenever you get questioned. But I found your response regarding how most believers are to be kind of general. You are basing your reaction on what you know of the majority. I am really interested to read the finished product of your research. JM's suggestion that you get it reviewed isn't a bad suggestion because if there is something to it then you could have a breakthrough in bridging a gap. Instead of looking at our questions as something negatife and doubting, take each question or comment as something to help you push your thought and to evolve your work into something that you can feel more confident in sending off. None of us here mean any harm with our comments. You have a diverse group of people helping you (we are a community after all). JM went to college and studied this. Rad man is just a crotchety old man that likes to throw questions (J/k Rad). Seriously, Rad was raised Catholic so he has that perspective. I come from a perspective of asking questions to gain understanding and also keep my mind open to possibilities. We all here have something to contribute to help push your thinking.
Yes, Deepes, exactly. I agree people here have a lot to offer. And that is what I want. Your smarts. Your knowledge. Your education. Your experiences. I am in the process of writing this thing. This is new to me. Writing is new to me. These discussions, when fruitful, help me give this idea shape and definition. People like Rad Man have helped me more than they know. I'm a musician who likes to spend his time recording music. That's my hobby. But my studio's gathering dust because I simply can't ignore this. Until I'm convinced there is nothing to this, then every little divisive comment I hear or read, from both sides of the aisle, on television, the news, the radio, the internet, life, will nag at me. Because I see cohesion and I see my fellow humans bickering needlessly. Drumming up ill will and derision. Once I feel I've adequately captured this idea in a way that's clear and organized, I'll then look into more proper channels. Unless my community here convinces me its a waste of time and that I can finally put it away and get back to making music.
Doing your part to try to increase understanding and knowledge (no matter what it is) is never a waste of time. Most people are seeking to bridge that gap regardless of what side that bridge is completed.
I have a couple of songs I put up on youtube a long while back. This one is an original. Just an instrumental. This was the basic melody to what I imagined to eventually become the operatic Pink Floyd inspired concept album I've always dreamed of making. Right now it's just 6 minutes of rough ideas ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO6-mlqIVaEIf either of you are interested I have some stuff up on Soundcloud.
https://soundcloud.com/#c-l-neal
It's experimental and mostly electronic. I call most of it House because I don't really know which genre to put it in. They're all demos except "Harlem Digital Nocturn." That one's ready to go.
Thanks.I'm not having any luck with that link. It bring me to the home page I think.
Google ShankThr33, my producer handle. It should take you right there.
It's pronounced "Shank Three" but the name was already taken on Soundcloud so a drummer friend of mine suggested the leet spelling (sort of like Deadmau5.)Groovy! Yes. Thanks Chris. I'm enjoying. There are many sides of you.
Is that your voice? Why do you want to kill all Americans? You're at times a bit uptight and could use a little grace group, but no need kill them all. Half maybe. LOL
LOL!
Ahh, the side of me that you guys never see...
I can't explain art, it just is, and I was listening to some dub step (Skrillex, to be precise, Bangarang) and although I can't do that dub bass line I got the idea for the moody piece with the edgy(-ish?) line.
Don't ask me. In my lone computer programming class in high school I was the same way. That's why I don't work for Microsoft.Yeah, not at all what I expected either. You're a nuanced individual with many layers, Chris. Thank you for sharing.
Oh, yeah. That's my voice. That's why when I go to get stuff ready for mass release someone else will be the singer.
Thanks, it's very good and not something I expected. It's nice to hear the voices of the people I converse with.
Well, I know by now we're realllllly off-topic by now but I have a little funny podcast I do M-S if you're interested.
Sure, I'd love to here it. Just show me where it is.
I didn't figure you would see that coming. Thanks for the compliment. Did you enjoy the podcast?
I facebook liked Search and Destroy. I'll let you know what the critics say.
Critics?!? Yikes. Thanks for that, Rad. All I can think about when listening to my vocals on that track is how conscious I was of the thin walls in our apartment and the single mom and infant child next door, hoping they weren't alarmed by the grown man next door hollering like a lunatic.
Yes, I get how you see it. You think I'm trying to manufacture the truth rather than simply search for it. And you're right, there are people out there attempting to search for truth that think they have it. There's some things I agree with, some things I don't. Like, I don't agree with trying to redefine science to try to account for 'supernatural' possibilities like those in the 'intelligent design' camp. I like the name, but can't get on board with the message. Science has its place and that idea is not conducive to it. Others try to 'make the bible work' by actually re-writing history according to a collection of writings they see to be infallible. I'm not satisfied with these answers as they clearly conflict with reality. So I set out to see if science could instead be used to find accurate context of Genesis. Without context, it's no surprise there are wildly differing interpretations. You've got one that suggests a whole other universe came and went during the course of verse 2 based on a particular wording. You've got another who sees patterns in the numbers who tries to calculate the messages 'purposefully' hidden within. I simply took the specific events most likely to show up in the evidence if they happened as described, and the span of time that happened between each where specified, placed that template over history as science has pieced it together, and heard that tell-tale 'snap' of a puzzle piece snapping in place. You can assume what you like, but until I see something solid that says this is completely off-base you're going to have a hard time convincing me there's nothing to this.
Let's think about this asteroid scenario. What about an asteroid isn't 'natural'? Why must that be a 'monkey' or a 'wrench'? Existence is 'causal'. And there are causes both in the natural behaviors of living creatures as well as the environment in which they lived that shaped life into what it is today. That asteroid was one of those 'causes'. In each case, each mass extinction selectively trimmed back those species that had become most dominant, leaving the lesser creatures who had been evolving their own unique characteristics while surviving in that world dominated by others to fill the void. And in each case something more complex and amazing became the new dominant species. Everything that led to that whole series of events was set in motion from that initial expansion and already determined, including that asteroid. Its path, its rate of speed, and its eventual destination.
And speaking of that asteroid. That's a good example. It was once hypothesized that the potential cause behind that selective mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaur population but left the population of small mammals and birds virtually unscathed about 65 million years ago could have been the impact of a rather large asteroid. Just recently a mining crew, I believe, found a round crater in Mexico a mile across that turned out to be a 65 million year old asteroid crater. Coincidence? Kind of like how that template I laid over history said human 'scattering' should be seen in the evidence around 4000 BC assuming it were significant enough to show up. Turns out there was a rather large climate change that did in fact send humans 'scrattering' out of the Sahara as it turned to desert around 3900 BC. Coincidence?
But humans, your parents included, are different. Their choices are their own. And the results of those choices, including you, are of their own doing.
Yes, I think that's what happened. And I think that is the story the bible is telling. The story of where God interceded to ensure the Messiah be born of humans. The rest is of our own making.What would be required. I assume nothing, but you seem reasonable so I'll ask another crotchety question. BTW, I have no desire to convince you of anything, just trying to understand. What would convince you that you're wrong?
Okay, I get it, you think God planed every event, but the children of Adam and Eve are unpredictable so he had to take action. Then he left everything alone because he wants us to believe in him using our own free will. Is that why he doesn't answer prayers?Just evidence. I think you've got a pretty good grasp on my claim. I'm just looking for evidence that conflicts with it. Evidence that shows things could not have happened as I see them.
He answers prayers. I can't prove it, but I can say with absolute certainty he does. Asking is a free will choice to do so. In my experience, if I ask, He answers. Not audibly. It's not generally an immediate response. The last one I can think of was about a year ago when I was conflicted about whether or not I should pursue my artistic wants because I felt I was being selfish. That same week a neighbor who was moving out left a drafting table by my front door (we're in apartments). He left it there because it was raining and he had no room on the truck. When he returned he said I could have it and that I'd be doing him a huge favor taking it. Not long before, as part of my want to pursue my artistic wants, I had been window shopping drafting tables. Then I prayed about it. Then I got the answer in the form of a drafting table on my front doorstep. Coincidence? Maybe. But I felt my prayer was answered and I moved forward confident that pursuing my artistic wants was not being selfish.I'm listening to your music and it's beautiful.
Don't take this the wrong way, he gave you a drafting table, but lets children die a cruel conscious death?
I'm going to look for more of your music. Awesome.Thank you, Rad Man. That means something to me, coming from a Rush fan who also gave me an appreciation for Kid Rock I didn't have before. The only other music I have out there isn't original. It's a cover I did of 'Search and Destroy' by Iggy and the Stooges... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5l152YNl4A
Yeah, children die. The world is a harsh place with sharp edges and our choices have consequences. Free will would mean nothing if God 'nerfed' the world and kept bad things from happening.Did you do all the instruments including the vocals? Love it.
I'm not a big Stooges fan but that's pretty good!
Thanks, Chris. I wouldn't call myself a Stooges fan either, but I love the energy of that song and had fun covering it.
LOL. That, in utter contradiction to the world around us. Hilarious.
Absolutely, while tens of thousands of children praying for a morsel of food die of starvation, your God makes sure a drafting table is on your doorstep.Yeah, children die and bad things happen. What would be the point of life and free will and what weight would our choices and actions have if nobody ever got hurt? If there was no suffering? After all its our painful experiences that make our moments of joy and happiness what they are.
It is up to us to feed the hungry. We are not giving enough. If there is no God, it is up to the exalted individuals who declare that to be so to lead the effort with their superior intellect and deeper understanding of the intricacies of existence. Have the scoffers tell us . . . what shall we do to alleviate the suffering that we see around us?
Who cares? Do you?We do go out and feed the hungry, every week, sometimes multiple times.. And we do not hold their meals hostage until they sit through a sermon and the sinner's prayer first.
I truly commend you for your effort JM. Now, if only that WE you mention were too expand, there would be no hungary people. And no god/s needed
This was one of my biggest issues with church life. As the 'youth' of the congregation we were often encouraged to bring friends to church. After all, a church runs on tithes and they need to drum up business somehow. Yet, if I brought a friend who had a nose ring or a visible tattoo they were immediately made to feel unwelcome. It was always conditional and the priorities always seemed to be off-center. It seemed to be more a social gathering for the senior members of the church, and a means to provide yearly trips to Branson, than an actual house of worship. But hey, humans are humans and we can muck up the best of ideas.
Suffering is caused by our very own selfishness. There's plenty of resources, plenty of know how, to provide for all the world. We could end hunger if we worked together and truly valued that result above all other. But we don't. Each of us make choices in our lives. Some are selfless and giving to the point they have nothing left for themselves, others are selfish to the other extreme, while most of us fall somewhere between the two extremes, but in the end we ultimately look out for ourselves. Suffering and starvation existing in this world as others of us have more than we could ever need is the making of humanity being humanity. It's the environment we created for ourselves. Our choices have consequences. For someone to gain, for someone to live in luxury, others must go without. And I'm not excluding myself from this. I acknowledge my role and know there's more I could be doing.
Notice how believers completely lack any morals or compassion towards their fellow man when it comes to their selfish prayers, attempting to justify the world around them. Terrible behavior.
Please explain how probability factors in when there's just one set of laws. I want to understand.
Notice how ATM takes a single comment and builds a whole imagined persona around it to then criticize. I gave one example of something I prayed for and how I believed that one prayer was answered. How does that in any way inform you as to my level of morality or compassion, or inform you as to what all my prayers are regarding? Where'd the rest of that persona that was built around that comment come from? How much of that is of your own making? And what does that say about your capability to empathize and understand those you don't agree with or respect? I think this one reply alone is more telling than you realize. It's an example to show just how much of yourself you're arguing against in these forums, and why you're incapable of understanding the viewpoints of others. That's what happens when you don't respect those you're conversing with, and why mutual respect in any discussion is important, whether or not you agree with them.Not every law applies to everything, something can be affected by any number of various laws, some having a large effect, some small, others none at all, hence the entire concept of possibilities and probabilities, that something will be affected, to what degree and magnitude and how it will respond to those effects. The range of "something" could be anything from a single hydrogen atom to the inner workings of the brain.
There is nothing in your above post worthy of respect. It is the epitome of selfishness.
It only serves to demonstrate the believer lives in a bubble and the outside world only exists as a means to their personal ends. No morals whatsoever.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to write out an explanation.
Okay, I get that and I can see what you mean, but cannot see how that in any way increases the probability of the laws of this one universe being as they are to allow for life / the universe / us to exist as we do. The laws themselves are fixed, right? I mean, I understand that the manner in which something is affected by them is relative to the element itself, but ... well ... this ....
"It turns out that if these laws had been fixed at random, if the strength of the gravitational force, or the strength of the electrical force, or the masses of the subatomic particles, or the violence of the big bang, if any of these had been chosen purely at random, then the chances of having a world with life, any kind of life, would have been virtually zero." - Professor/High Energy Particle Physicist Russell Stannard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9XTNt-c … 0179B12F8D
How can we be dealing with probability where the laws themselves are concerned when there's just one universe and one set of laws?Who's having the existential crisis? The odds of us being here do not reflect a designer, they are simply the odds of us being here. Someday we won't be here. Someday none of us will be here. What are the odds then? As I've said before, if my parents hadn't meet at a dance and if my dad didn't knock my mom up leading to marriage and my sister and a frisky evening the I wouldn't be here. We all have these stories. I keep trying to tell my kids about the nights they were conceived, but for some reason they want to part of it.
Haha... you're a twisted individual, Rad.
Yeah, I get that. Basically, this is what we're talking about ....
"In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1]
The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld. English writer Douglas Adams, who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principal
So, whatever the case, the one and only universe we can observe, the one we are a part of, the 'fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life' is the reason why we are even here to observe it. If they didn't then that universe would not be observed. The only way you get away from the insurmountable odds against us being here as we are is to venture into the possibility that this universe is one of many instances, with those others being unobservable and purely speculation. That, or the universe being as it is and intelligent life eventually emerging in it was deliberate, hence a creator.
And just as is the case as your example, those insurmountable odds go even further when you consider all the things that had to happen for you to be here. It's all the events that led to the formation of the universe as it is, the sun, the planet, water, water cycle, atmosphere, distance between earth and sun, tilt, rotation, speed, climate, plus all the choices made by each individual that led to you. Pretty amazing when you think about it.It's pretty amazing when you think about it and it's pretty amazing that we can think about it. I wonder how many others out there that have already come and gone or will eventually come have pondered the same thing. If an asteroid didn't kill the dino's and are parents weren't frisky on a particular night we wouldn't exist. We can only view our existence if we exist. I think Douglas Adams was right. To those fish in the pond the pond was made for them to exist. To a person standing beside the pond the fish are what could survive in the pond therefore they are.
Interesting you should say I'm twisted, I get that a lot.
If you take into account ...
- the universe being 13.7 billion years old
- if the universe were a tenth its present age there wouldn't be sufficient enough elements for rocky planets to exist
- if the universe were ten times older than present most stars would be too old and incapable of keeping stable planetary systems
- Stars like ours didn't exist until about 5 billion years ago
- It took a billion years for the earth to form and life to appear, another 4 billion to become multi-celled
While the space is certainly vast and full of possibilities, the window time-wise is relatively small.
In that light, given all the necessary conditions of the planet's position, the series of events that spawned and shaped life, and the series of events that lead to you, I consider myself blessed beyond measure and incalculable odds to get to encounter such a unique and 'twisted' individual as yourself.
Yes, it is amazing, far more so than believing in an invisible super being waved his magic hand and created everything. That's just childish superstitions.
Now this is just wrong on so many levels...LOL
I know right! I can tell them about the moment they were made and they don't want to here it. I'll have to write it down for them before I die, I think I may even have some pictures lying around.
Now you're just trying to scar them for life...LOL
Doing anything I can to get the to stay away from girls while they're teenagers. LOL
LOL.. Now that's funny!! Show them the pictures of what could happen if they get too close to girls...LOL. I mean the other ones..
Unfortunately the internet is full of pictures that mislead them about women.
I'm not talking about women.. I'm talking about the pictures of what std's look like on men's parts..LOL
Sorry, I don't buy it. If the laws values were different, there would simply be a different kind of universe.
Notice how it was a waste of time explaining something to you when all you do is turn around and ask the same question over again.
Amazing.
You didn't explain it. You made an irrelevant, albeit accurate, comment about possibilities and probabilities regarding the nuanced interplay between the natural laws and matter/energy. I said probability doesn't apply where the laws themselves are concerned. Just as the high energy particle physicist said, which you disagree with, if the values of these laws had been 'fixed at random', strength of gravitational force, electrical force, masses of subatomic particles, the chances of any kind of life would be highly improbable.
Well, true, it would certainly be a different kind of universe. But we're talking about a universe containing worlds with life. And kind of life. The reason there are suns and planets are because of the values of those laws. Change them and you no longer have matter binding together as it does and behaving as it does. There'd still be a universe, sure, but not one that could sustain life. At least, not in the one and only form that we know of that life can exist.And, then I explained why that's rubbish.
So what?
There could be suns and planets and life even if those values changed. It just wouldn't be the same as this universe and we would not be able to relate to it because those values are different.So I should take your word for it over a physicist? Or practically every physicist?
You don't know anything about physics. You find something on youtube and now believe "every physicist" believes the same thing. Hilarious.
What's hilarious is that the guy that said ....
"There could be suns and planets and life even if those values changed. It just wouldn't be the same as this universe and we would not be able to relate to it because those values are different."
... is criticizing my level of knowledge of physics.
I tell you what, find me just one example of a credible source, like a physicist, who either supports what you said or contradicts what I said, then we can talk.So sorry that I couldn't find some obscure statement from a youtube video, like you did, but instead, was forced to refer to a peer review article.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2444Well, first off I'd like to commend you on actually finding something relevant to the discussion that's in line with what I asked for. But I think that in your effort to do so you missed the obvious overall point in that the whole concept being discussed here confirms what I said in that its purpose is to propose a possible challenge against the general consensus amongst physicists in that variations in the universal constants as they are observed would greatly diminish the probability of the existence of life as we know it. So, yes, you found an example and I thank you for that as this is just the kind of substance I'm always begging you to include beyond your condemnations of this or that just simply being 'baloney', but I think in the end it'll ultimately only further illustrate the whole point I've been trying to get across... that most physicists agree with what I'm saying, and that your assertion that "There could be suns and planets and life even if those values changed" is highly unlikely. Now, I'd like to take the opportunity to dig into this write-up and give you a much more detailed assessment. Something I often ask of you but never seem to get.
See, isn't this much more interesting than just generalized dismissals of comments being "fallacies" or "baloney" accompanied by emoticons? This is the kind of thing I wish you'd bring to the table more often. It's much more useful.It was a complete waste of time, as usual, because you'll still sit there claiming most physicists agree with what you're saying, which is absolute rubbish.
Did you read the link you sent? Because that's the whole point of the whole thing. Here's the assumption and why its viewed as such, here's the thought processes behind the various theories that attempt to explain it, and here's a potentially testable scenario to maybe rule one of those out, not for certain, but by all probability. Why you're trying to put this all on me is beyond me.
I just read most of it, skipped some of the middle part, but the conclusion after it's read a few times in interesting to say the least.
He seems to have come to the conclusion that the universe was not fine tuned or at least it can be proven to not have been fine tuned.
"Therefore, the hypothesis of optimal fine tuning is in principle falsifiable, but unfortunately it appears to be premature at present to be able to perform the proper calculations or tests."
But then what's interesting comes next...
"It could be taken as a preliminary inconclusive hint of negative evidence for theists who expect God to fine tune the constants of physics optimally for the fraction of baryons going into life (though even these authors do not expect such an optimal tuning merely for the fraction of baryons going into life, or even for just the total amount of life without regard to its quality, so I have taken their writings as motivation for a much stronger hypothesis in order that it might be testable)."
And then the kicker...
"However, for other theists, such as myself, even if it could be shown that the constants of physics are not optimally fine tuned to maximize any reasonable measure of life in a single universe with just one
set of constants, such evidence may simply support the hypothesis that God might prefer a multiverse with many sets of constants as the most elegant way to create life and the other purposes He has for His Creation."
His own math shows that God fine tuning the universe for life is falsifiable, so he simply goes onto any other theory that will support his need for a God.
Thanks for that ATM.
Good work, Rad. Kind of nerdy, but interesting.
By the way, I was going to ask, do you have any pics that showcase your graphic artist abilities that you can share?
Well there's your problem. You see no sign of God because you're apparently looking for an angry, incompetent, magician. You're like a guy tasked with trying to locate a specific individual based on a sketch that looks like this ...
Now, that's real desperation. No, I'm not looking for an angry, incompetent, magician. I'm waiting for anyone of you believers to show us YOUR God. Simple, really.
Yet, all you believers ever do is fail miserably in that regard.
I'm sorry. I have nothing to add to your discussion, because you lack the one element that would change you from atheist to believer. It requires faith. You've read the bible, you've obviously seen many things on the mission field, and something has prevented you from ever coming to the childlike faith that salvation requires. I don't know your past and I see no real point in debating you, because I'm quite sure that you are knowledgeable in the stories of the bible. What I will do is pray for you to come to a real heart knowledge before it is too late.
And that one thing is.... wait for it..... critical thinking with an adult brain. Childlike faith?
I had faith once, until I gained knowledge. Faith is believing in something without a reason. It's hoping for something that cannot be proven. The time to believe is AFTER something has been proven. Not before. If not, why don't you believe in every unprovable claim from any religion? Why limit your faith to only one, while viewing all others skeptically? You're perfectly capable of discounting every other religious claim in the world that requires faith - just not your own.
Quick Question: Are you trying to change believers to non-believers? What is your soul purpose for keeping on going with this forum?
to have a conversation. Hence: Forum. Then again, what would you know about it - you wanted this forum shut down because you don't like it. That's censorship, and it's simply not going to happen.
yes, hence:
hence
/hens/
Adverb
As a consequence; for this reason.
Not really, we're just trying to get them to ignite that dormant organ we call a brain.
Is that a brain or a rotund, compacted small intestine?
Or does it even matter, as some seem to think with their brain, some with their gut feeling...You go with your gut feeling about God, not the irrefutable evidence.
Oh shoot - now it's all pretty colored instead of gray. Must be a diseased gut.
But yeah, that's just what happens.
That one appears to be on the move, not dormant at all.
Exactly! It looks like it is ignited as well.
Deleted
Judging by the post you responded to, it could easily be argued that you are the one attempting to censor and the one trolling. The only thing that hubber did was ask two questions. The person did not, in any way, imply that the thread should be shut down. Why would they not be allowed to ask a question?
My response was based on the response that JM posted to.. JM stated that the hubber that posed the question was trying to shut the forum down. I was addressing that as well. I never told her she shouldn't post. I simply asked why she would
Unless you cut and pasted a portion of the hubber's comment, leaving out the part that would have justified your post; you did, indeed, strongly imply that they should not have posted.
Part of your post was (and this is a direct cut and paste) Coming into a forum with a totally biased mindset or trying to shut it down because of your biased mindset is censorship as well as can be seen as trolling. Why would you bother coming on if you are not going to enter it with enough of an open mind to engage honest dialogue?
There was nothing within the question that suggested the forum be shut down; while your post clearly gave reason to assume that if people don't agree with your idea of debate and dialogue one is left to wonder why in the world they would attempt to engage. Your post is a classic display of biased mindset at it's finest and censorship, in my book. Had they made the same statement to JM that you just made to them I doubt you would have found it acceptable.Yu are correct.. Thank you for pointint that out to me.
Thanking me is really unnecessary. I would simply like to see both sides afforded the same courtesies. It appears some views are tip toed around on this site and some are deer in headlights. I don't quite understand why.
Can you elaborate? Which views are tip toed around and which views are deer in the headlights?
They tip toe around you rad man. I don't know. Maybe it's your animal magnetism they keep talking about that makes them appear to swoon on your every word.
I'm serious. Which views are being tip toed around? I know you tip toe around no one, so please elaborate.
My personal opinion is that some believers appear to have a need to either validate the superiority of their personal belief by belittling other believers and/or they are attempting to showcase how inclusive their belief is by belittling other believers while ignoring the same behavior partners displayed on the other far end of the debate. Which is highly hypocritical. The post I replied to previously on this thread is a classic case in point. The poor Hubber asked a question and was blind sided by a pit bull style attack. The justification for the attack was that they were simply saying the same thing the OP had said. As if the OP was some poor little girl unable to defend herself.
I think he had something to his statement. The questions that were being asked did seem to imply that this forum should be shut down if she has intentions of converting people to Atheism.
You must be joking. Probably not. We've gone over such as this before. Whatever her motive, she simply asked two questions. Are you denying someone the right to an opposing opinion now, if it is only presented in the form of a question, with no follow up?
What is the world coming to?No, but you appear to be attempting to sensor someone as well. She has a right to her question and he has a right to his post. You have a right to your and mine, mine.
I'm not censoring. I'm laughing at the hypocrisy and stepping in where I felt someone was being unfairly treated. I believe you previously told me you believed in sticking up for those being unfairly attacked. Do you still believe one should, or is fairness reserved for only those whose views you approve of?
Okay, fair enough, but I don't see the attack here. I frequently back up people I disagree with when I think they are being unjustly treated. What did Deeps say that was unjust? I can't seem to find the post in question.
I don't see the post either. He appears to have deleted it. Out of courtesy to him, I'll let this end. He appears to have rethought his post and determined it to be inappropriate. I applaud him for that.
I didn't rethink my post nor thought it inappropriate.. I simply removed it because you simply blew it up and attacked me in defense of what you deemed an attack on someone else..
Hilarious. She asked two simple questions. Nothing more. You came in guns blaring accusing her of being biased and attempting to shut down the thread. You guys can make up stories to convince yourselves you were justified. The truth is you were being a bully.
JM responded to her post and that could have been the end of it. But you needed to bully her. Case closed.He has a right to his opinion, you have yours and I have mine. He admitted he worded it wrong and even apologized and you said you'd let it go. I still think he may have been on to something.
Funny.. I get accused of doing something and even though I attemted to make it right I'm still getting jumped on
She's done this to me many, many times. I think she means well and I kind of understand her, as she said we both try to defend a bullied as I'm doing here. I think it takes time to get to know her. Maybe she's hard on the outside and soft in the centre? I have had some really good conversations with her.
I like you too rad man. I am not soft on pompous insecurity. Never have been. Such people are welcome to sue me.
And I agree with defending against a bully.. But the funny thing is that she was defending someone against a "bully" who was actually defending someone else from who could also be described as a bully..
Now I feel that you are bullying me.. I've apologized and you were continuing the attacks on me before I responded.. Funny you are doing now what you are accusing me of doing..
Hypocrite much? you could have let it die and not even have continued it after I personally addressed the issue with you (and apologized I might add) but you kept it going and now are still going on.. Let it goBut, it could have died. You needed to come and justify your actions. After you had admitted they were wrong. In denial much? Definitely in a massive amount of conflict. Now you appear to be saying you weren't in the wrong, simply bowing to me. Why?
I'm not bowing to you at all. Nor did I admit to any wrongdoing in what I said. I stated that it is not my intention to offend anyone. you were obviously offended by me asking a question of why someone who doesn't like a forum and wants it shut down would come to that very forum and post (which, by the way is a valid question).. Since I offended you, I apologized and took it down. Instead of accepting the apology and moving forward you decided to keep it open when others asked about it and were still essentially bashing me and attacking me after I tried to make things right. So now who is the bully?
what's hilarious is that you jumped in to "defend" someone who has hit and run this forum thread several times, made comments about wishing to have it removed completely and accused someone who is one of the most gentle, respectful people I know of a 'pitbull style attack" while you're doing the exact same thing to him that you're accusing him of doing so the person you originally tried to "defend"
And no, I'm not defending Deepes because I agree with his positions. I don't. We're actually on pretty opposing ends of the spectrum, but I do respect him.I'm still trying to understand how I'm still getting beat up even though I apologized to someone who took offense to something I said to ANOTHER person
JM, We're not THAT far on opposing ends of the spectrum.. Just far enough to where we can have good and thought provoking dialogue without resorting to name calling and the other trollish behaviorThis seems to be her MO. She likes antagonizing people on both sides of the isle without question, and she believes that she knows how people think, feel and what they mean better than they do themselves. I don't think you did anything wrong - and I saw nothing in what you said that could possibly be considered an attack - not by any stretch of the imagination. What Emile is doing to you, however,by her own definition is a pit bull style attack, which is why I feel compelled to stand up for you - especially since it was me that you were trying to defend in the first place.
I would just say ignore any of her future posts on the subject and we can all move on - whether she wants to or not.You guys are fairly transparent. Over inflated egos desperately wanting to be validated. I'm happy you have each other. Really.
and I'm happy to go back to ignoring you as normal and giving up on the idea that you can participate in an intelligent discussion appropriately. Sincerely. :-)
Come one Emily, what more can the guy do? He said sorry, removed his post and admitted he was wrong in his choice of words. Which were not that bad. It's not at all like when Claire called Chris a liar when his wife passed away. She never said sorry, she always changed her posts and denied it always. Everyone knows no harm was intended. Let it go.
I replied to another poster that had a strong opinion of the hub. JM replied to her that she tried to have the forum shut down. I basically asked why she would jump on a forum with a biased opinion with not having an open enough mind to debate and also stated if she was trying to have it closed then that is censorship because JM was not preaching or trying to convert anyone.. Emile pointed out that the way I worded my response as well as where I replied to the response could be viewed as trolling. Since it is never my intent to offend I took it diwn.. Case closed
I disagree.. Thanking you is necessary for me because I like to be made aware if there is something I said offends anyone. It is never my intent to upset anyone or come off like a troll.
But thank you for pointing that out to me.. It is never my intent to troll..
their post in a different location states their motives:
MarieAlana1 profile image
MarieAlana1 2 days ago
One think that I'd like to see happen which may help the case is to delete the forum "Reasons to Believe." I'm just saying....
located here: http://peeples.hubpages.com/question/21 … swer660886If it wasn't stated on the thread it isn't pertinent. Did she/he attempt to derail the thread, or did she ask two questions? If you insist on referring to the statement outside of the thread; was it made before or after she was viciously attacked? That would be important to know if attempting to determine motive for the comment.
as the post I copied and pasted stated, the comment was stated 2 days ago, and her post on the thread was made today. So after. Viciously attacked? Seriously? She admits that she would like to see this thread shut down, but decides to post here? That doesn't make any sense.
I don't see how posting something from somewhere else that mentions this thread by name is irrelevant.It is irrelevant because it is obvious that she did nothing on this thread other than ask a question. Had she made the statement and then come into the thread with the express purpose to attempt to shut the thread down; you might have sufficient cause for grievance. As it stands she is clearly not the aggressor. Not from the comment I read. I, admittedly, haven't read through the entire thread. Did she do anything to warrant the attack? Please keep in mind those questions don't qualify.
how was anything said to her considered (by you) to be an attack? I responded to both of her questions, with the previous knowledge I already had of her desire to see this thread shut down. Deepes responded to her as well. Response does not an attack make.
What I find funny is that on one of your and my previous interactions you accused me of being too sensitive and perceiving your criticisms as a personal attack (when I did nothing of the sort) and now you're accusing us of attacking someone who asked a question just by posing a response? How is responding to something with absolutely no name-calling, etc considered by you to be a "pit bull style attack"?I didn't read your response to her, nor did I post a reply to you. I addressed Deep Mind (or whatever his name is) for his response and you jumped in, in your usual style, making it about you. What's up with that?
This was about JM. This was regarding her question and JM's response. I simply also asked a question. I didn't attack her nor call her any names. But since you were obviously offended by the response, I took it down. I personally didn't see anything wrong with my questions nor my statements, but since obviously it is such a big issue that you had to come to her defense (in response to me coming to JM's defense.. ironic) I took it down. Now it has blown up out of proportion even though I apologized.
Well, I'm not sure you wasted too much time on this as I'm pretty certain you didn't read the article yourself, at least not in its entirety. For one thing, I find it difficult to believe you, in response to my request for a 'credible source, like a physicist', would knowingly refer me to this 'peer-reviewed article' if you had read far enough to realize this 'credible source' you referred me to held 'childish' theistic beliefs.
Secondly, if you had read it then you'd realize that the entirety of this write-up both supports what I am saying while simultaneously illustrating just how off the mark your statement that 'There could be suns and planets and life even if those values changed' actually was. In essence, this article explores the effects if you were to "[consider] varying the cosmological constant with the other constants held fixed.", assuming the cosmological constant could be varied without impact on the other constants. Its main focus is on the impact of slight changes to the cosmological constant in relation to the ratio of baryons in the universe that eventually form galaxies and life.
Even leaving all other constants fixed, just varying the cosmological constant one direction or the other has a significant impact on matter ...
" positive cosmological constant gives a repulsion between distant particles that reduces the ordinary gravitational attraction and leads to less gravitational condensation of matter." - Or, in other words, increased repulsion would greatly reduce the ratio of baryons that condense into galaxies/suns/planets/life.
And of course varying the cosmological constant the other direction ....
"if a larger fraction of baryons collapses, then perhaps statistically the gravitational bound states that form are more biophobic, with the stronger gravity of these structures making it less likely for life to survive. Salem [12] agreed that the collapse fraction of baryons is greater when the cosmological constant has a smaller magnitude but pointed out, “It seems plausible to me that the chance of a disruptive astrophysical event is larger if the rate of baryon accretion is larger.”
So, just varying one constant slightly, while leaving all others fixed, is hypothesized here as having a significant impact on matter's ability to condense into galaxies/stars/planets/life in that it either greatly decreases the ratio of baryons that could condense into galaxies/stars/planets/life, or that it increases the ratio, which also increases the effects of gravity, which would most likely decrease the likelihood of baryons condensing into galaxies/suns/planets actually resulting in life.Your request was not a priority for me,but instead, were the guts of the article.
Notice that the article refutes your notion of a Creator?
Have you read "Flatland"? It will help you understand how universes can exist despite the 'laws' that make up their particular universe.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/How do you figure this article refutes my notion of a creator? You've already proven incapable of even grasping my notion of a creator due to your simplistic rendering of God as being some angry, incompetent, magician waving his hand around making magic happen. So even if you did encounter something that actually did, I doubt you'd understand my notion well enough to recognize it. All along I've been telling you that I respect science and subscribe to the history of this universe/planet as pieced together through scientific understanding. I even use science in an attempt to ground the most ancient of texts in the bible to provide context for better understanding.
I have not read Flatland, but am familiar with it and do want to at some point. But I'm not sure how grasping the concept of dimensions in any way makes it possible for galaxies/stars/planets/life to exist in an environment where the 'laws' are different than ours. How does the concept of dimensions make possible the existence of a universe (that according to you includes suns and planets and life) 'despite its laws' which are actually what shaped matter into those suns/planets/life?
Perhaps you didn't get to his conclusions, I've already posted this but perhaps you missed it so...
"It might be appropriate to note that although this paper has focused on the scientifically testable question of whether the constants of physics maximize a particular measure for life, it obviously also has theological implications. It could be taken as a preliminary inconclusive hint of negative evidence for theists who expect God to fine tune the constants of physics optimally for the fraction of baryons going into life (though even these authors do not expect such an optimal tuning merely for the fraction of baryons going into life, or even for just the total amount of life without regard to its quality, so I have taken their writings as motivation for a much stronger hypothesis in order that it might be testable). However, for other theists, such as myself, even if it could be shown that the constants of physics are not optimally fine tuned to maximize any reasonable measure of life in a single universe with just one set of constants, such evidence may simply support the hypothesis that God might prefer a multiverse with many sets of constants as the most elegant way to create life and the other purposes He has for His Creation.
Negative evidence for God is what he said.I did see your response, but haven't had the chance yet to respond. The primary point here had to do with what ATM and I were discussing regarding the one set of laws that govern this one universe, and the impact of the constants of the natural laws being different than they are. But as far as this author's conclusions, this just had to do with positive/negative evidence regarding a specific model that some theists subscribe to, fine tuning, a theoretical model that requires parameters being adjusted to agree with observations, but without a known mechanism to account for these adjustments.
I have maintained throughout that I acknowledge and accept a fully causal universe, and have often said that attempting to use science for positive evidence of God is like using a screwdriver to loosen a bolt, it's simply the wrong tool. Science accounts for the material world, nothing more. And certainly nothing beyond the Big Bang, which of course includes God as He is described.
I think the bigger thing that should be pointed out here is that there are theists out there who know and understand science, who have published peer-reviewed articles, who have made notable contributions to science both past and present, who also simultaneously believe in God. Science and God is not an either/or mutually exclusive thing and belief in God does not automatically equate to delusion that renders the believer incapable of grasping the fundamental aspects of a causal existence.Of course there are theists who understand and practice science, they are just underrepresented in their fields especially at the very top. I think it would be hard to find someone who believes every word of the bible in science. If one understand the universe to be almost 14 billion years old it's hard to also understand it to be 6 thousand years old.
But as I've tried to stress in the past, english translations of hebrew aren't so cut and dry. Plus, in the context of Gen1 being a tale told around a fire, or sung as a song as some scholars believe it to have originally been, the hebrew word that is also used to describe nondescript spans of time [yowm] and is translated as such elsewhere (age, era) is translated as 'day' here. Again, the point of the creation account was not scientific accuracy, it was a story to teach bronze age people about how God created all they see around them.
Besides, you recently told me Catholicism accepts evolution, yet they still treat the bible as the 'word'.
And to further drive the point, here's a quote from a Jewish Rabbi well versed in the Jewish language in response to when Darwinian evolution first became a popular idea ....
"Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh, an Italian Kabbalist, wrote that were evolution to become a mainstay of scientific theory, it would not contradict the Torah as long as one understood it as having been guided by God.[9]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
That right there should tell you that the age of the universe does not conflict with the original Hebrew in how its worded/described. Like many others, Jewish people viewed creation as 6 literal days until there was reason to consider the alternate meanings of [yowm].That's fine, I understand your thoughts on the day thing, you are certainly not the first to make that claim. all I'm saying is sacrifices have to be made. There are those who think it happened in six days a few thousand years ago it would be difficult for these people to understand science. Compromises have to be made as you and the Catholics have done.
Compromises, or common sense? Those who believe in God usually do not deny reality on any point other than the obvious one.
Of course they deny reality, the reality is there is no evidence for a God and yet they believe anyway. That's right in the face of reality. The ID'ers make no compromises and there are a lot of them. To them all of science is wrong and they are right.
I'll take that. As long as you see that others beyond myself agree with this assessment including those who fluently speak the language, and that it's not me alone 're-interpreting' Genesis, at least as far as the 'day' thing is concerned, I'm happy with agreeing to disagree opinion-wise. If you feel we're compromising, that's cool with me.
But you're right that those who staunchly stand by how they interpret the english translation literally is a stumbling block that holds people back and causes undo division. Like fighting tooth and nail to keep the teaching of evolution out of science classes, for example. Personally, I don't even agree with teaching 'intelligent design' in science classes, even if its my brand rather than the views of those under that umbrella, because I think science is science and should be treated as such.I don't think you see eye to eye with the ID'ers at all. They don't believe in evolution, they think the universe is a few thousand years old and dinosaurs and human lived side by side, like the Flintstones. ID is not science at all, every bit of it has been proven false.
Page 58 3rd post down shows both posts from Deepes and Emile
You keep trying to paint believers in this light, while you continue to ignore the reality that we've just here in this forum discussed physicists and cell biologists who believe in God. Or the priest that first proposed Big Bang. Or the fact that a good number of the founders of science and the scientific method were themselves Christians. These fall in the same category as what you frequently dismiss as 'childish and ridiculous' minds, yet these same minds have managed to make significant contributions to our grasp of what reality even is. Have you not considered how this could be possible? How these minds could both believe in God and simultaneously have a firm grasp of science? Enough so to make significant contributions? Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you just don't understand? That maybe your simplistic rendering of who/what God must be could hamper your ability to ever really get it?
Wouldn't being a constant make God that much more difficult to detect? If God exists outside/before this universe, outside/before time and space, then from our perspective He would be exactly the same in every moment in every place unchanged and unaffected by time or environmental conditions. It's only through variation that something becomes obvious. If something is constant and unchanging then how are we to determine anything through observation? There's no variation to behavior to allow for contemplation and understanding because there's no comparison to draw from.That is a fallacy, and it is not what you're attempting to do here.
No, that would be the opposite of constant.
Gibberish.How is that a fallacy? You consistently portray ALL believers as holding childish beliefs and not facing 'reality', yet there are examples of individuals (one which you yourself found) who hold these beliefs you categorically condemn who clearly face reality and respect science, and who have proven capable of making contributions to our scientific understanding. This is a clear contradiction to your simplistic portrayal of believers and a clear case of something you deem a 'fallacy' as being demonstrably not so. I've yet to see you cop to the possibility that you yourself are fallible and your 'laughing emoticon' in response to my asking whether or not you've ever considered the possibility that you could be wrong is telling.
It could be argued that anyone who counts themselves as an authority to the point they feel they can deem this or that 'baloney', 'a fallacy', or 'gibberish', without explanation is the epitome of self-righteousness. Like I've said before, even judges offer explanations for their rulings. Only royalty counts themselves above explanation. Are you royalty?
What exactly do you think I'm attempting to do here?But, you certainly are not.
Regurgitate nonsense.There is a lot of that going around.
So, what is it exactly that you're attempting to do here? So far, every reason you give to justify dismissing believers hasn't held up to scrutiny and has proven to be largely based in your own ignorance, which you've shown unwilling to acknowledge, even if that means insisting you know better than a physicist what's what. And you've proven to be highly intolerant of all believers. Yet you've simultaneously managed to be one of the most vocal in condemning religion for its role in many of the world's problems, which of course largely comes from intolerance rooted in ignorance.
Personally, I don't stand for bullying, no matter who's doing it. And I will speak out against those being intolerant no matter who they are because it only breeds further division. Yet nobody ever seems to say anything about you. You're just allowed to behave this way. Why is that?Yes, reality does hold up to scrutiny, regardless of your beliefs.
No, just the beliefs, which are intolerant to me.
Exactly, the intolerance and ignorance exhibited, embraced and promoted by religions.
So, now you're being bullied?
You do no such thing, if you did, you'd be criticizing your religion first and foremost.
Sorry, if holding up reality in front of you is giving you a problem. lol.This is exactly what I'm talking about. You claiming 'reality' as your sole domain is either deliberately dishonest or it's a sign of ignorance. Especially when you have illustrated, in the few times you've actually gotten specific enough to show it, some rather significant deficiencies in your grasp of reality (ex. galaxies/planets/life would still exist if the natural laws were different), and a complete inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that belief in God does not equate to a lack of scientific understanding or a deluded view of 'reality'.
re: Bullying
That is nothing short of a childish insult. And what's worse is that this is what you resorted to when you could no longer make a case for yourself in the discussion. Rather than fessing up to your own lack of understanding, you instead choose to attack my credibility, my faith, as well as the credibility of an accomplished physicist. Such attacks are a tell-tale sign that the person choosing to do so has nothing of value left to say. Continuing as you have is no different than the behavior you often condemn as 'the problem'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I have criticized organized religion and will continue to do so. And I have told you before that I do not affiliate with organized religion. That a relationship with God is an internal/personal matter and that religion is a man-made, outwardly expressed representation of faith that is just as fallible as anything else man-made. Your inability to differentiate is a deficiency on your part, and is not my fault.Reality is our sole domain. The other realities you create for yourself are in your head.
So, if it's a sign of ignorance on my part, then it should be a simple matter for you to show me any other domains and cure my ignorance? Can you?
But, that's all you've demonstrated thus far.
Yes, I am attacking your faith. Well done to have figured that out. Your credibility is something you yourself have diminished.
Yes, I understand the buzzword for believers is 'relationship' as they feebly attempt to disassociate themselves from negativity brought on by the indoctrination machines that made them that way.We're both talking about the same reality, ATM. You're projecting your assumptions again. Your ignorance is two-fold. There's the objective reality that we all share that you exhibited an ignorance of in your statements regarding the natural laws, which in and of itself is not a problem, but in your case that ignorance makes clear that all your declarations about this or that being 'baloney' or 'rubbish', and statements like "But, that's all you've demonstrated thus far" are coming from someone who really has no business making such proclamations. Then there's your ignorance of God based on your simplistic statements about Him, as exhibited here ....
"however the probability of a creator is so infinitesimally small based on what we know and the fact that so many physical laws of nature need to be violated or scrapped entirely based on that probability"
You have no idea what to look for, yet proclaim you don't see anything. What are you looking for? Magic? A giant being floating in space? You kind of have to know what you're looking for, yet your statements show you don't. A fact that can easily be demonstrated. You need look no further than the very first line of the book that describes who you're looking for that tells you everything you need to know... God created the heavens and the earth. I know you know at least that much, yet choose to ignore it.No, you found one youtube video from one guy and you now hold it up as your truth, which is nothing short of more dishonesty on your part.
LOL. So, you've seen God and talked with God? You know everything there is to know about Him, personally? Give it a rest, dude. No, I don't ignore it, I laugh at it.
I disagree here, Headly. ATM actually has a lot of respect for peopl.. It's the beliefs that he doesn't agree with. He can come along pretty strongly when giving his opinion, But that's just him. The key is in being able to separate yourself from your beliefs enough to give your views without taking them personally. The main people that he riles up are those who take things so personally that they actually engage him in like manner, which actually validates (to a degree) some attitudes regarding Christianity and how not everyone that claims to follow the word actually follows the word and still can function without anger or resorting to the threat of Hell. Look at some of his interactions with me.. He calls my views nonsense, but he respects me enough because I continue to clarify myself and I stay away from name calling or implications of trolling or bullying. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is what you're doing, but some of your responses to ATM seem rather defensive then aggressive.
Some people do not say anything because some of them agree with him (though they have different ways of expressing it). I don't say anything because I understand ATM (at least to the extent that I can recognize what he is trying to do even if I don't agree with him always)Don't get me wrong, I understand him. But I do take what he says personally. Not because he offends my delicate sensibilities, but because he actively and purposefully tries to stifle the conversation, and I take offense to that as a fellow human being. I know he is a smart and very knowledgeable man. The problem I have is that he chooses not to use it and share it in a constructive, useful way. I have the same problem with him that I have with young earth creationists. It's that unwillingness to accept the facts and recognize the bigger picture. He claims to be all logic and facts, but at the heart of it is exactly as he said here, "Yes, I am attacking your faith. Well done to have figured that out." Just look at the amount of time he spends here. This is a man on a mission. A misguided and ill-informed mission at that. He wrongly points the finger at religion as the whole problem and winds up behaving exactly as those he's condemning. He's divisive and intolerant. Like it or not, we're all in this together and division is never the right answer, no matter which side of the proverbial aisle the offender sits on. He could choose to contribute what he knows, but he instead chooses to be combative and disrespectful of the views of others, which is exactly what religion did and exactly what he complains about. And he's right to complain about it, I don't disagree. So why repeat the same mistakes? In actuality, religion is just another example of humans being humans. It's not a God thing or a Catholic or Baptist or Jewish or Muslim thing, it is a human thing. It's just wiser all the way around to look at the big picture, acknowledge what we do not yet know for sure, and learn from the past.
That is a lie.
Another lie.
You are not providing facts, hence nothing of value to accept.
That is another fallacy and a lie.
Another lie.
Another lie.
You want to be respected? Stop lying, then.Now you are a lie detector? Lighten up and rest easy, sister.
Okay, dude. You can say I'm lying, but the evidence that supports what I'm saying is cataloged here in the forums of hubpages. And there is ample proof. Literally thousands of comments.
Yes, and we've all been pointing them out as we go along, but we know you've been ignoring that in favor of your beliefs.
Okay, here we go again with this 'we've all been pointing them out' nonsense. These underhanded tactics are only necessary when you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.
Keep in mind that this is an opinion from one person's perspective.. An opinion on perspective is not necessarily a lie.. It is the truth as the person sees it. Just like you express your opinions based on how you see things.
These comments go towards a point I'd like to make pertaining to the bit in Proverbs 3 that says, "Lean not on your own understanding." You have chosen of your own free will to require proof that satisfies your own understanding.
So, if that is the path you have chosen, knowing (I assume based on your knowledge of the bible) that this was specifically warned against by a man revered for his wisdom (Solomon), then can you understand how you're hampering your own ability of ever really understanding by first reducing God down to a simplistic and flawed one dimensional character? If within your own understanding everything pertaining to God and the bible is viewed as being the product of the imagination of bronze age people? Have you not already made your mind up? What hope do you ever have for understanding if your mind is already closed?
For example ...
In these discussions about Adam and Eve the same problem can be seen. Rather than attempting to reach understanding by viewing God in the context of these stories as an all powerful being capable of creating the entirety of existence, you instead read these stories through the eyes of someone who already thinks they know that these are just man-made stories from the imagination of less knowledgeable people. And from that perspective you see flaws.
Yet, in the eyes of someone who does respect the idea of God and gives His existence real weight and consideration, this story makes a profound amount of sense. Even more so now given our understanding of the natural world. We recognize that this existence is a delicate balance of numerous individual parts in a symbiotic relationship working as a collective whole. We understand that there are very specific laws that all matter and energy adheres to. Laws that govern and actually shape this universe and which are depended on by those very elements that make up that delicately balanced environment. And even within our own bodies we see similarities in that numerous individual parts work together in such harmony as to make it seem as though our bodies are one entity. And much like the way in which the delicate balance of the natural world depends on those natural laws being constant and unchanging, our bodies also depend not only on those laws, but that the DNA code that determines our body's makeup is depended upon as well.
Now, here, in this story of Adam and Eve you have this God who is described in the chapter before as being the creator of everything in this natural world, including us. The laws, the matter, DNA, all of it. Then you have this rather elegant depiction of one very specific creation of this God being capable of behaving contrary to Him. This would be the equivalent of behaving contrary to gravity, or the cells in your body behaving contrary to your DNA code. Now more than ever we are capable of understanding the full weight of this. And the weight and the impact of this is significant. It's then seen as a theme throughout the rest of the bible. These humans behaving contrary to what this God says. Over and over again. It's what the whole thing is about. And it started here in this story.
I say all of that, not to convince you, but more to illustrate a point. Can you see how your way of looking at things could greatly affect your ability of ever really understanding?
Related Discussions
- 103
If you do not believe in God, then what is your perception on this?
by Retrohawaii 13 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
- 38
Does god love punishment?
by pisean282311 13 years ago
was reading about noah's ark...something captured my attention...In the Genesis narrative, God observes that humanity is corrupt and decides to destroy all life.So god observed that humanity is corrupt...god forgot that humans are mere one of species of millions of species and to punish humans what...
- 93
How did you decide upon and verify your own beliefs?
by Elizabeth 10 years ago
How did you decide upon and verify your own beliefs?As an atheist who constantly strives to learn and grow in a culture that is largely religious, I'm constantly engaging with theists of many types. Often, they provide philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but I've never met one...
- 129
What's wrong with using the bible against christians?
by Stump Parrish 9 years ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas approaches there seems to be a proliferation of comments from people who tend to...
- 61
What makes someone who wants to believe in a God incapable?
by Peeples 11 years ago
What makes someone who wants to believe in a God incapable?No matter how much I want to be part of the majority my brain just doesn't allow for the belief in a God. What is different about the brains of non believers (or maybe it's just me) that makes me/us incapable of belief even when their is a...
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 4 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...