|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2012 : 11:23:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Works never saved anyone in the old testament either. They were saved by grace and faith alone as well. |
That's not the message in Ecclesiastes. |
I disagree.
| Either the sinner will be punished or Jesus will be punished. |
That's one thing that makes Christianity so sickening: that people in the 21st century think it's a virtue to celebrate a blood sacrifice childishly demanded by an evil tyrant of a deity.
|
Well, that's not all there is to it, but I suspect you have studied the bible enough to know that.
Why do you call god of the bible an evil tyrant?
Also, how can you make a judgement on others actions and beliefs (sickening) if you also believe we were created by a natural process that has no directed purpose? Isn't that unfair to do? |
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 11:47:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Convinced
Works never saved anyone in the old testament either. They were saved by grace and faith alone as well. |
That's not the message in Ecclesiastes. |
I disagree. |
Well, the author clearly says that nothing we do here on Earth matters because after death there is nothing. To him, there is no possibility of salvation, because there is no afterlife.| Either the sinner will be punished or Jesus will be punished. |
That's one thing that makes Christianity so sickening: that people in the 21st century think it's a virtue to celebrate a blood sacrifice childishly demanded by an evil tyrant of a deity. |
Well, that's not all there is to it, but I suspect you have studied the bible enough to know that. |
No, people today thinking it's a good thing to celebrate a 2,000-year-old blood sacrifice is sickening, no matter how much of the Bible one has read.| Why do you call god of the bible an evil tyrant? |
Because he purposefully created flawed people and then metes out the harshest possible punishment to them for being flawed, all the while demanding worship and claiming he's doing it all out of love. Most Christians are victims of battered-spouse syndrome in that regard.| Also, how can you make a judgement on others actions and beliefs (sickening) if you also believe we were created by a natural process that has no directed purpose? Isn't that unfair to do? |
Are you claiming that if I accept evolutionary theory and modern cosmology, then I cannot make moral judgments? My morality is based on observations of the consequences of people's actions and a personal desire to see less suffering in the world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any scientific theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 13:10:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Me, too. Some verses are simply parable or metaphor, but usually that's made clear in context. Stuff like grasshoppers having four legs and bats being classified as birds has no conceivable metaphorical meaning, nor are they inventions for mythical reasons. These are simply erroneous pre-scientific statements about nature.
[Edited to try to fix quotes.]
|
They may well be. I don't see a problem with this. |
I do...| For example the bat being a bird is what the people believed to be true at the time. |
But the Bible is said to be divinely inspired. It is the Word of God. How can God All-mighty make such a big blooper? Surely God would know a mammal from a bird?
The conclusion is simple: The Bible is composed by bronze-age sheep-herders with a vivid imagination, but who barely knew anything about nature, and not divinely inspired.
So... The Bible is to be taken literally unless context is metaphorical, or the facts are wrong? (Excuse: they believed it to be true at the time)
So why didn't God set them straight while he was busy dictating His word to Moses (or whomever)?
Or was the bat actually a bird until very recently, when God performed a miracle which transformed all bats from birds into mammals, and all fossils of bat-birds into fossil bat-mammals? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/30/2012 13:16:16 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 14:00:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, the author clearly says that nothing we do here on Earth matters because after death there is nothing. To him, there is no possibility of salvation, because there is no afterlife. |
I think the author is pointing out that this life is meaningless without an afterlife. He is making a case for a moral necessity of an afterlife. If the author thinks there is no afterlife, then why does he talk about gods judgment?
In the end no one has to believe whether this author believed in the afterlife or not to be saved, but I think once someone is saved they will eventually believe the bible to be consistent.
| No, people today thinking it's a good thing to celebrate a 2,000-year-old blood sacrifice is sickening, no matter how much of the Bible one has read. |
Ok.
| Because he purposefully created flawed people and then metes out the harshest possible punishment to them for being flawed, all the while demanding worship and claiming he's doing it all out of love. Most Christians are victims of battered-spouse syndrome in that regard. |
Ok.
| Are you claiming that if I accept evolutionary theory and modern cosmology, then I cannot make moral judgments? |
No. I was asking on what basis you make moral judgments.
| My morality is based on observations of the consequences of people's actions and a personal desire to see less suffering in the world. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any scientific theory. |
Ok. Do you and what kind of morality do you expect from others?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 14:11:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I do...| For example the bat being a bird is what the people believed to be true at the time. |
But the Bible is said to be divinely inspired. It is the Word of God. How can God All-mighty make such a big blooper? Surely God would know a mammal from a bird? |
Yes, I agree he does know the difference.
| The conclusion is simple: The Bible is composed by bronze-age sheep-herders with a vivid imagination, but who barely knew anything about nature, and not divinely inspired. |
I believe otherwise.
| So... The Bible is to be taken literally unless context is metaphorical, or the facts are wrong? (Excuse: they believed it to be true at the time) |
I guess I don’t see why this matters. Couldn’t people have come up with a system of classification that included all winged animals as birds and then subcategorized them from there?
| So why didn't God set them straight while he was busy dictating His word to Moses (or whomever)? |
He did not dictate the bible to anybody. I also think god got it right.
Why do you think the bible should line up with a science textbook?
| Or was the bat actually a bird until very recently, when God performed a miracle which transformed all bats from birds into mammals, and all fossils of bat-birds into fossil bat-mammals? |
Maybe he did but there is no indication in the bible that is the case.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2012 : 20:19:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I think the author is pointing out that this life is meaningless without an afterlife. He is making a case for a moral necessity of an afterlife. If the author thinks there is no afterlife, then why does he talk about gods judgment? |
Actually, he points out that we cannot know what god's judgment will be in any particular case, so we might as well do whatever it is that makes us happy. He does specifically state that the dead "know nothing." What kind of afterlife is that?| In the end no one has to believe whether this author believed in the afterlife or not to be saved, but I think once someone is saved they will eventually believe the bible to be consistent. |
Of course, if they've made the investment in faith, they need to think that it'll pay off.
But then, I think that faith itself is a bad thing. So the idea that one can think of oneself as being "saved" is repugnant to me.| No. I was asking on what basis you make moral judgments. |
Well, it appeared you were trying to poison the well.| Do you and what kind of morality do you expect from others? |
Well, if they share my goals, I expect the same from them as I expect of myself. If they don't share my goals, I expect them to act consistently with whatever goals I know they have. In the absence of that knowledge, I use the sensible guidelines available to me (my own), since there are a near-infinite number of possibilities otherwise, and most of them are monstrous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2012 : 03:02:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The conclusion is simple: The Bible is composed by bronze-age sheep-herders with a vivid imagination, but who barely knew anything about nature, and not divinely inspired. |
I believe otherwise. |
Well, we know that most of the scripture was written by bronze-age sheep-herders with a vivid imagination.
The question is whether the inspiration came from God or Magic Mushrooms. Occam's Razor says it was the mushrooms: it's a simple, resonable, mundane explanation which does not require unevidenced supernatural interference.
| So... The Bible is to be taken literally unless context is metaphorical, or the facts are wrong? (Excuse: they believed it to be true at the time) |
I guess I don’t see why this matters. Couldn’t people have come up with a system of classification that included all winged animals as birds and then subcategorized them from there? |
Well, it's an elegant apology. By mentioning wings and not the ability to fly, you dodged the problem with flightless birds which would have spoiled the system. Like Phalacrocorax harrisi which is a cormorant (mentioned among the birds).
The Bible also mentions four-legged fowls. "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev 11:20) I have never heard of such, but perhaps photoshop-proficient Halfmooner can whip something up?
The author tripping on hallucinogens, now that is a very plausible explanation.
| So why didn't God set them straight while he was busy dictating His word to Moses (or whomever)? |
He did not dictate the bible to anybody. I also think god got it right. |
So what is the connection? Was Moses performing psychography?
| Why do you think the bible should line up with a science textbook? |
Because the science textbook attempts to objectively describe the natural world. The truth of reality. Unless God was lying, the "facts" about the world which God tells should line up with what science finds.
So we're back to square one: The Bible and science textbooks do not line up. Which is at fault? Do fowls have four legs? Do grasshoppers have four legs? Perhaps the author didn't know how to count farther than four?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 07:23:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Actually, he points out that we cannot know what god's judgment will be in any particular case, so we might as well do whatever it is that makes us happy. He does specifically state that the dead "know nothing." What kind of afterlife is that? |
Not a good one I would say. It is a hard verse. The author also says in verse 10 that:
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
Seems to be saying the same thing as verse 9:5.
There are a couple different explanations of these verses. Some I agree with and some I don’t. I agree with what I stated earlier about these verses that life is ultimately meaningless without an afterlife. I don’t know if you have looked into other possible interpretations of these verses and rejected them or not. But I think this brings up a more important issue on how you and I view the Bible and why I feel prolonged discussions of bible verses is fruitless.
I assume you don’t believe it to be inspired by God and that it has plenty of contradictions in it like this one. I view the Bible to be inspired by God and consistent in its teachings. I go by the saying “never read a Bible verse”. I think there must be a more systematic way of interpreting the Bible using verses to interpret other verses. This can give a clearer picture of what the Bible is teaching on any subject. Although I admit I do not understand all the verses in the Bible.
| Of course, if they've made the investment in faith, they need to think that it'll pay off. |
Maybe some do.
| But then, I think that faith itself is a bad thing. So the idea that one can think of oneself as being "saved" is repugnant to me. |
Why is it repugnant to you?
| Well, if they share my goals, I expect the same from them as I expect of myself. If they don't share my goals, I expect them to act consistently with whatever goals I know they have. In the absence of that knowledge, I use the sensible guidelines available to me (my own), since there are a near-infinite number of possibilities otherwise, and most of them are monstrous. |
Sounds reasonable.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 07:56:03 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. MabuseWell, we know that most of the scripture was The question is whether the inspiration came from God or Magic Mushrooms. Occam's Razor says it was the mushrooms: it's a simple, resonable, mundane explanation which does not require unevidenced supernatural interference. |
I agree your conclusion is reasonable but I do not agree with it.
| Well, it's an elegant apology. By mentioning wings and not the ability to fly, you dodged the problem with flightless birds which would have spoiled the system. Like Phalacrocorax harrisi which is a cormorant (mentioned among the birds). |
I may be misunderstanding you but isn’t a flightless bird still a bird with wings?
| The Bible also mentions four-legged fowls. "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you" (Lev 11:20) I have never heard of such, but perhaps photoshop-proficient Halfmooner can whip something up? |
The KJV is the only version I know of that uses the word fowl. All other translations use flying insects or winged insects which from what I have read is a more accurate translation. Even the king James 2000 Bible has changed the translation.
As far as the insects having 4 legs could be a more general expression to describe insects like we use the term millipede but do not expect these creatures to have 1000 feet, or a 2 x 4 is not expected to be actually 2 inches by 4 inches. Whatever the explanation is, it is doubtful that the writers of the bible were not aware that insects have 6 legs.
| the science textbook attempts to objectively describe the natural world. The truth of reality. Unless God was lying, the "facts" about the world which God tells should line up with what science finds. |
I agree, but you can’t expect the original writers to see the world as science sees it today. They may have described things in a different way than science does today.
| So we're back to square one: The Bible and science textbooks do not line up. Which is at fault? Do fowls have four legs? Do grasshoppers have four legs? Perhaps the author didn't know how to count farther than four? |
Not really. You don’t think they lineup. I think they do and where I can’t reconcile differences between the Bible and science I just simply say I don’t know.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 11:33:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Well, it's an elegant apology. By mentioning wings and not the ability to fly, you dodged the problem with flightless birds which would have spoiled the system. Like [i]Phalacrocorax harrisi which is a cormorant (mentioned among the birds). |
I may be misunderstanding you but isn’t a flightless bird still a bird with wings? |
I was giving you credit for not stumbling into a potential trap when classifying birds as winged.
A few of the flightless birds barely have any wings at all, like the ostrich or the penguine, but do have wings if you stretch the definition a little.
Saying that bats were birds, and at the same time claiming that the penguine wasn't a bird because it couldn't fly, would be a problem.
As far as the insects having 4 legs could be a more general expression to describe insects like we use the term millipede but do not expect these creatures to have 1000 feet, or a 2 x 4 is not expected to be actually 2 inches by 4 inches. Whatever the explanation is, it is doubtful that the writers of the bible were not aware that insects have 6 legs. |
I'm not convinced.
| the science textbook attempts to objectively describe the natural world. The truth of reality. Unless God was lying, the "facts" about the world which God tells should line up with what science finds. |
I agree, but you can’t expect the original writers to see the world as science sees it today. They may have described things in a different way than science does today. |
...and you've provided yet an argument in favour of fallible humans writing the Bible and not being divinely inspired. Wouldn't God have the foresight to instruct Its authors to write an accurate and objective description of the world even if it made no sense to the author, but knowing that at some point in the future, Man's knowledge would align to fit the Book? That would be powerful evidence.
| So we're back to square one: The Bible and science textbooks do not line up. Which is at fault? Do fowls have four legs? Do grasshoppers have four legs? Perhaps the author didn't know how to count farther than four? |
Not really. You don’t think they lineup. I think they do and where I can’t reconcile differences between the Bible and science I just simply say I don’t know. |
Or make up more or less contrived excuses to make them line up.
No other epistemology have the awesome record that science does in correctly discovering and describing the objective natural world around us. Whenever science has clashed with religion, science has kicked religion's ass. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2012 : 19:05:03 [Permalink]
|
Re: God lied
You're just doing science wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw
 |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 04/04/2012 19:05:18 |
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2012 : 13:56:20 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse I'm not convinced. |
Ok. I am not going to go back and forth on this issue. Apologetics will do nothing for an unbeliever to believe. That is the work of God.
| and you've provided yet an argument in favour of fallible humans writing the Bible and not being divinely inspired. Wouldn't God have the foresight to instruct Its authors to write an accurate and objective description of the world even if it made no sense to the author, but knowing that at some point in the future, Man's knowledge would align to fit the Book? That would be powerful evidence. |
If I provided examples would you honestly consider them or just find ways to reject them? It’s ok if you have already made up your mind and rejected the bible, I just want to know.
| Or make up more or less contrived excuses to make them line up. |
Where did I do this? I never said my explanations were correct just that there are some explanations to consider. There are probably better ones than I found.
| No other epistemology have the awesome record that science does in correctly discovering and describing the objective natural world around us. Whenever science has clashed with religion, science has kicked religion's ass. |
I can agree on this. The bible is not a textbook to look at to discover how gravity works. Science has done wonders to discover how our natural universe works. I am not anti science. I actually enjoy science and learning about how our universe works. But I don’t believe it is the only source of information about our universe.
I do agree that where the bible speaks of natural things it should line up with science or else either science is wrong, the bible is wrong or we just don’t understand enough about the bible to reconcile them. Just like scientists don’t have all the answers, theologians don’t either.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/07/2012 : 16:19:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
If I provided examples would you honestly consider them or just find ways to reject them? It’s ok if you have already made up your mind and rejected the bible, I just want to know. |
The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.
I think it's called a tautology.
It's circular reasoning which I feel justified to dismiss as bullshit.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2012 : 12:07:39 [Permalink]
|
| I'd like to clarify: The Bible seems to be written mostly by bronze-age sheep-herders. There is no evidence than any of it is true. Granted, parts of it may be historically accurate. Like there being a town called Jerusalem, and Jericho. But then, according to The Amazing Spiderman, Peter Parker lives in New York. But just because we know that New York exists that doesn't make The Amazing Spiderman true. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
One could understand
