Evolution a new revelation?

Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Evolution a new revelation?

 

Nowadays it seems the theory of evolution is used by some atheists to give meaning to their worldview, it has to be understood that the theory of evolution does not go as far as these atheists oftentimes take it. They attempt to use it as some kind of justification for metaphysical claims such as: ‘’God is superfluous to requirement’’, ‘’the universe is meaningless and blind’’ As such, the theory of evolution does not provide rigorous basis for these claims. Yet the atheist persists, this is why Darwin’s theory is so precious to him, because he uses it to bridge some gaps in his ideology, its gives him a robust scientific basis on which to launch unjustified assumptions. Just look at all of the atheist forums, all of these have sections about evolution, sometimes large sections are devoted to this. As for myself, I take a different path. To me evolution is a mechanism created by God to which the life matter of this world is bound; it is a natural law of this world, of the same type as gravity etc.  As a catholic I see no problem accepting the theory of evolution as fact, as the great John Paul II said: if the body comes from pre-existing matter the soul is of God. Just as the body matured from infant without reasoning capacity or strength so did the human race, and along with this maturity comes responsibility. Our responsibility to turn ourselves towards God and to search for him with all of our heart, only then will him who dwells within us be revealed. Know that if the universe was meaningless we should have never found out it was meaningless, just as if we were in total darkness at all times we should of never found out about light. So I invite you to reflect, where does this idea we have that the universe is meaningless come from? And where can we find ultimate meaning?


 

 


 

In a truly beautifull prayer, the aging SAugustine of Hippo laments: Late have I loved you,
O Beauty ever ancient and so new,
Too late have I loved you!

You were within me, but I was outside to seek you. Unlovely myself, I fell heedlessly upon all those lovely things which you created.

And always You were with me, but I was not with you.
Created things kept me from you;
yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all.

You called, you cried,you broke through my deafness.
You blazed, you gleamed, and you drove away my blindness.
You breathed your fragrance on me;
I drew in breath and now I long for you.

I have tasted, now I hunger and thirst for more.
You touched me, and now I burn with desire for your peace.

Amen


 

 


 

In a sense our journey to God isn’t as different as Augustine‘s whose words are as actual today as they were thousands of years ago.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Still living up

TWD39 wrote:

Still living up to my "atheists are jerks" stereotype,  huh?  Oh, you poor narrow minded atheists.  You can only comprehend things in a physical nature.  I guess you only believe in things that you can experience with the human senses huh?  God changes lives when people are willing to turn away from sin.  Of course, they are still free to return to that sin.

 

I haven't had a good sin in years --- years!  I can't even get away with gluttony anymore.  Sigh.... if I gotta go to hell, I could at least enjoy my last years on earth, but no, like every other poor sucker on this planet, my health has to give up the ghost before I am ready to.  You would think a most perfect and wonderful god/s/dess would have had a better plan.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Wow so you have

TWD39 wrote:

Wow so you have personally seen Mr. Moore's most recent MRI scans to conclusively say as FACT that he as a dead spot?  Umm no, it's more assuming on your part to find some way to dismiss this miracle.  It doesn't matter what miracle story I present or the degree of  hardcore evidence.  You're going to reject it immediately. 

 

You still have ZERO proof that God is a figment of my imagination and I am really speaking to myself.  Are you seriously suggesting that atheists are the only sane people out there?  95% of the US population is delusional?

 

No, I don't have to see an fMRI scan to know there are dead spots (likely more than one).  Dead neurons do NOT regrow.  Until you can dredge up a peer-reviewed scientific paper documenting neuron regrowth after a stroke, I am not believing in fairy tales.  Now, it looked as if Mr. Moore had a hemorrhagic stroke and the release of blood directly in the brain will cause swelling and impairment.  That swelling and impairment will abate if the cause of the stoke is treated quickly.  Again, I refer you to Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor.  She is a scientist and her book explains what happens during and after a hemorrhagic stroke.

I will go look at Beyond's links.  I may be wrong.  If that is the case, I will change my beliefs.

I have been as polite as I know how.  I do not lie.  I do not exaggerate.  Yet you were willing to assume I was lying and made little of my personal experience.  I would expect better behavior from someone who professes to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I won't hold my breath in your case.

As for delusions ---  from the DSM-IV (the manual of psychology for diagnosing mental illnesses):

Quote:

A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility. Delusional conviction occurs on a continuum and can sometimes be inferred from an individual’s behavior. It is often difficult to distinguish between a delusion and an overvalued idea (in which case the individual has an unreasonable belief or idea but does not hold it as firmly as is the case with a delusion).” DSM-IV, p. 765.

 

Note that religious beliefs have to be explicitly excluded from the definition, otherwise, we would have to start treating 95% of the population.  A daunting task for any group of care providers.

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained......." Stop right there.  There is no evidence for god/s/dess, no prayers are answered, no one speaks to anyone but them-own-selves.  As others have mentioned, one guy recovers from a stroke and that is a miracle.  The other poor slobs who prayed for miracles, whose family prayed for them for a miracle, and nothing --- they die or they are permanently disabled.  So what makes Mr. Moore so much more special than all the other christians who prayed and hoped and got nothing?

Why didn't god/s/dess answer all those other prayers?  Ah, I'll bet it is a plan - a plan only known to you because god/s/dess tweets you everyday with the details.  Got it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
for the sake of my name

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Still living up to my "atheists are jerks" stereotype,  huh?  Oh, you poor narrow minded atheists.  You can only comprehend things in a physical nature.  I guess you only believe in things that you can experience with the human senses huh?  God changes lives when people are willing to turn away from sin.  Of course, they are still free to return to that sin.

 

I haven't had a good sin in years --- years!  I can't even get away with gluttony anymore.  Sigh.... if I gotta go to hell, I could at least enjoy my last years on earth, but no, like every other poor sucker on this planet, my health has to give up the ghost before I am ready to.  You would think a most perfect and wonderful god/s/dess would have had a better plan.

 

 

Shit. I hate that I know what you mean.

 

Even prisoners on death row get food, shelter, clothing, medical attention, a good last meal of their choice and then their life is terminated as quickly as possible. And "nobody" loves them.

What WOULD it be like if a god without a huge ego loved us?

 

Ezekiel 20:21-22 wrote:

But the children [Israel] rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws—although the man who obeys them will live by them and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the desert. But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.

 

Ezekiel 36:22-23 wrote:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Sovereign LORD, when I show myself holy through you before their eyes.

 

And all knowing, all powerful, all loving god wouldn't need to worry about what tiny humans think about him. Politicians and the religious with their agendas worry about that shit. 

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
They attempt to use it as some kind of justification for metaphysical claims such as: ‘’God is superfluous to requirement’’, ‘’the universe is meaningless and blind’’

Why is it believers think a god would have a silly human concept of "meaning" must less that it would create one for the universe? Same goes for the human idea of purpose. And then why do they jump beyond that arbitrary assumption and assume it would be a "meaning" that is in some manner of interest to humans much less comprehensible?

The purpose of the universe is to prop up a desk leg so it doesn't wobble.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Damasius wrote:
I for one think that God does not make available the kind of evidence that could be sufficient to establish his existence without a shadow of a doubt, scripture is very clear on this issue.

Hold on there. The subject was evolution. What you THINK is meaningless. You may have a testable hypothesis. Please describe the manner in which you tested and confirmed that hypothesis.

Quote:
If everyone were able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did.

More of the same. You now claim to know a lot of fundamental things about this god of yours but you have yet to tell us how you confirmed the truth of those statements.

Lets stick with your opening positions. You need to explain in detail how you tested and confirmed those positions.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
I had a long week of

I had a long week of studies, university just started, and with the number of courses I decided to take this time Im not out of the woods yet, Il take a look at the pertinent points brought up and will attempt an answer, remember english isnt my first language, rather its my third, so bear with me.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Re : ..

danatemporary wrote:

Re : .. teetering on the counterproductively absurd:

Damasius wrote:
.. able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did. As for your second claim, '' things in the bible never happened'' it has to be know that by the catholic tradition, scriptures are not read literally, it takes a certain amount of tradition and also a certain amount of deep thinking. This is how the old testament is not old but made new with what is revealed trough this non literal interpretation

 

 

 

  Damasius I know your busy but I would still like an answer on what I previously asked about (no rush).

  We all in agreement then, no then I'd be wrong to say this. Ironically, You are the type of Catholic the Protestants would take issue with; when the Catholics are almost always saying "'Protestants don't believe anything'". As to your interpreting the passages. You dont seem to realize how teetering on the counterproductively absurd your statement is or to rest on this and in so leave people with 'this' in actuality. Taken to its' extreme you might as well be saying it's all one giant fable outside of a minor portion that could be considered historical. Exactly 'how' is it made new again ? Moreover, In this you are being vague, to such a degree, it flat out tops anything Saint PAUL the Apostle ever wrote about the descriptions of 'Heaven'. It is sad you'd even try this, it's that bad. Maybe in saying this, it will tease out some more information. And if 'the soul is from god' (your OP), what is the state of the 'soul'?.

 

 

Dear Dana,I concede that while arguing against protestants it becomes easy to ask them what is litteral and what is not, in a sense I understand their difficulty answering this question, but for the catholicchurch who for thousands have recieved the tradition from the apostolic fathers who themselves were having it from the very apostoles of the lord, what is meant to be taken litterally is made evident by the work of theologians and from the oeuvres of great men who had these things revealed and whose serious study of sripture is most valuable. This holds true of the old testament like I said, it is made ever new thanks to the message that is revealed from it, like I said , in a way the old testament is a journey towards christ and the one living God.

 

As for your other question as to why I am here, I think it comes from a noble intention to clear missunderstandings and possibly to help people.

 

 

 

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Straying a bit from the

Straying a bit from the first object of the topic, I would like to add that the best argument for the existence of the christian God, is the resurrection of Jesus, who was not ressucitated as a corpse, or revived and then would die at a latter date, but is infact transformed by this miracle, he has entered a new life. Wether Jesus merely '' was'' or ''is'' depends on the ressurection. They are many historical facts that testify to the truth of the resurrection.

 

 

One of reasons ( and they are many) why i think the resurrection is true is the fact that the disciples believed hard as iron that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and had appeared to them, whereas before they had been cowardly and scared: now they were rady to die for this beleif ( and indeed some did) Just think about it, what kind of transformative event would be required to create such a change in the disciples attitude? Nothing in jewish beliefs would of gave them the slightest idea that Jesus would indeed be risen from the dead by God.

 

To quote scholar William Lane Craig on this:

1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz26rBvaX2h

 

 

 

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Damasius

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Damasius wrote:
I for one think that God does not make available the kind of evidence that could be sufficient to establish his existence without a shadow of a doubt, scripture is very clear on this issue.

Hold on there. The subject was evolution. What you THINK is meaningless. You may have a testable hypothesis. Please describe the manner in which you tested and confirmed that hypothesis.

Quote:
If everyone were able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did.

More of the same. You now claim to know a lot of fundamental things about this god of yours but you have yet to tell us how you confirmed the truth of those statements.

Lets stick with your opening positions. You need to explain in detail how you tested and confirmed those positions.

 

 

 

Its not rocket science and is agreed amongst many serious scientists that evolution does not make any claims about the nature of reality, questions like : ''why do I exist instead of not'' or ''what is the purpose of life'' are questions evolution does not and cannot answer, since it is not the purpose of science in general to answer these questions, what I deplore is the attempts of some individuals to use the theory of evolution to answer such or similar questions. As for my knowledge about God, I have had a staunch catholic education, I am still young ( 22 years old) and still have much to learn, everyday in my program of physical anthropology I learn  new and beautifull things about the world we live in, however I would be unsatisfied with my search for the truth if I would of only stopped there. I have come to the conclusion that humans need God as much as much as they need water & air and that inevitably a search for truth will lead to the truth of the gospels and to christ, in wich are all things. This is something that was recognized troughout history, this is why christianity has gone from the smallest mustard seed to what it is today. Hence Aristides the philosopher, a greek philosopher says of the christians:

''Henceforth let the tongues of those who utter vanity and harass the Christians be silent; and hereafter let them speak the truth. For it is of serious consequence to them that they should worship the true God rather than worship a senseless sound. And verily whatever is spoken in the mouth of the Christians is of God; and their doctrine is the gateway of light. Wherefore let all who are without the knowledge of God draw near thereto; and they will receive incorruptible words, which are from all time and from eternity. So shall they appear before the awful judgment which through Jesus the Messiah is destined to come upon the whole human race.''

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
  In addition to mistaking

 

 

In addition to mistaking assertions for facts, the human-hating bishop of hippo To me, Augustine's words attest to his bizarre and unsupportable delusions. But the fact this repulsive religious bigot found beauty in the material world supports my argument that there is subjective meaning on Earth aplenty.

 

 

 

How exactly is someone who devotes his life to his fellow humans ''human hating''?helping the poor, teatching, doing good works, here I would say that the reason you find Augustine's words Bizzare and unssuportable delusions is because I suspect you havent read augustines work, nor do you have any idea about the man himself, other that things cribbed from bad atheistct websites.

 

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Straying a

Damasius wrote:

Straying a bit from the first object of the topic, I would like to add that the best argument for the existence of the christian God, is the resurrection of Jesus, who was not ressucitated as a corpse, or revived and then would die at a latter date, but is infact transformed by this miracle, he has entered a new life. Wether Jesus merely '' was'' or ''is'' depends on the ressurection. They are many historical facts that testify to the truth of the resurrection.

 

 

One of reasons ( and they are many) why i think the resurrection is true is the fact that the disciples believed hard as iron that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and had appeared to them, whereas before they had been cowardly and scared: now they were rady to die for this beleif ( and indeed some did) Just think about it, what kind of transformative event would be required to create such a change in the disciples attitude? Nothing in jewish beliefs would of gave them the slightest idea that Jesus would indeed be risen from the dead by God.

 

To quote scholar William Lane Craig on this:

1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz26rBvaX2h

 

 

 

 

 And...  Where do you get all this info? ahh, the bible,  which was written by people with a vested interest in assuming christ was a superhuman...  Got any sources from around the time of christ for these events outside the bible?  I read this book the other day about a wizard who goes to a school called hogwarts and fights evil and i know it's true because it says so in the book i read about the wizard so it must be true... 

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Straying a bit from the first object of the topic, I would like to add that the best argument for the existence of the christian God, is the resurrection of Jesus, who was not ressucitated as a corpse, or revived and then would die at a latter date, but is infact transformed by this miracle, he has entered a new life. Wether Jesus merely '' was'' or ''is'' depends on the ressurection. They are many historical facts that testify to the truth of the resurrection.

 

 

One of reasons ( and they are many) why i think the resurrection is true is the fact that the disciples believed hard as iron that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and had appeared to them, whereas before they had been cowardly and scared: now they were rady to die for this beleif ( and indeed some did) Just think about it, what kind of transformative event would be required to create such a change in the disciples attitude? Nothing in jewish beliefs would of gave them the slightest idea that Jesus would indeed be risen from the dead by God.

 

To quote scholar William Lane Craig on this:

1. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to throw off Israel’s enemies (= Rome) and re-establish a Davidic reign—not suffer the ignominious death of criminal.

2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him out to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God (Deut. 21.23). The catastrophe of the crucifixion for the disciples was not simply that their Master was gone, but that the crucifixion showed, in effect, that the Pharisees had been right all along, that for three years they had been following a heretic, a man accursed by God!

3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection at the end of the world. All the disciples could do was to preserve their Master’s tomb as a shrine where his bones could reside until that day when all of Israel’s righteous dead would be raised by God to glory.



Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus#ixzz26rBvaX2h

 

 

 

 

 And...  Where do you get all this info? ahh, the bible,  which was written by people with a vested interest in assuming christ was a superhuman...  Got any sources from around the time of christ for these events outside the bible?  I read this book the other day about a wizard who goes to a school called hogwarts and fights evil and i know it's true because it says so in the book i read about the wizard so it must be true... 

 

 

 

Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is not a historical source, however critics and a consensus of scholars disagree: the Bible historically relevant. If Harry Potter was purported as being a book of history then you might have a point, however this is not not so, so the whole edifice of your claims fall appart. AS for a ''superhuman'' Jesus was not a ''superhuman'' he was fully God and fully human, this is one of the mysteries of God, his reversal of proportions, the israelites were expectings a ''superhuman'' messiah instead they got a prophet who rides into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, in a way the kingdom of God is so depicted in our world, it is the smallest seed of mustard, yet who beleives will get a huge reward and life everlasting.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The simplicity, the absence

The simplicity, the absence of embellishement in all of the ressurection accounts all attest to their veracity, also the accounts of the appearence of Jesus to the disciples are elaborated with such maladresse that this reinforces the point that they must have been true. No embellishment and special forms of style that are indicative of myth are present, it is the simple truth revealed.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister

ex-minister wrote:

Damasius,

Evolution is just another facet to where is this god you speak of. Evolution is not an atheist discovery, but a human discovery.

 

This has been going on for the past 400 to 500 years.

 

The bible says the earth does not move, that the sun goes around the earth. This is in a God-breathed book so it must be right, right?.

Whoops. Along comes Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno and they say something different. The latter gets burned at the stake by those who refuse to accept the obvious. So why did God tell us through His word these such a thing. It will take 400 years before the Catholic church apologizes for that one. John Paul to Galileo. 

Science continues...

God controls all things. If you get struck by lightening, God is punishing you. Along comes Ben Franklin and his lightening rod. Are we controlling God? Or is that another place God doesn't exist like we thought.

God punishes us by using diseases. Science finds out about micro-organism. Wait I thought that was controlled by God. How can we have any influence over it and cure and prevent diseases? I guess God is not their either.

God surely controls earthquakes. Science identifies plate teutonics. We know exactly where earthquakes will happen. Why isn't that more random influenced by God's personality instead?

Newton laws show that space is not absolute. The earth is not the universal rest point. God is absolute. How come space is not? 

Einstein shows space/time is relative. How can that be? Wasn't god very specific in the bible. 6 days to create the universe.

Well, we know that God only created life once in 6 days. No new species should happen. Along come Darwin who wasn't the first to come up with it, but the first to really document it in great detail, life evolved. New species were "created" many times over the course of history and many different places in the world, not just the garden of eden. Why does the bible say it was only created once? What is all this about "kinds" when we see evolution crossing that supposed barrier? 

Well, the bible says the universe is only 6000 years old. What's the deal? Science in many areas of study shows the universe and earth are much older than that.

So, it is not evolution. It is everything humans continue to discover. Everything in the literature of the bible is getting dismantled. They wrote God was intimately involved in everything. The bible even says God controls the rolling of each dice. The early scientist were Christian or Jews. They studied nature thinking they would find God, but each discovery pointed out "God is not here". It wasn't atheist discoveries.

But some Christians just couldn't deny this stuff anymore and had to pick up their goal post and move it out. Catholics and higher protestants have done this. Fundamentalist have not and they are only looking crazy especially when they try to become "scientists".

An atheist sees where the end game is going. After 500 years of slowly picking up the goal post and moving them out over and over, the atheist says, "There simply isn't any proof of a god and until then I see no reason to worship something that apparently has no existence or footprint"

So until you show some hard evidence I will find meaning in my life with education, my family, my friends and my hobbies. No god need apply unless he makes some kind of effort.

 

 

 

Your post demonstrate serious problems with your understanding of the Bible. I suggest you should try to do carte blanche and start over as this is painfull to read. First off I think it would be important for you to understand that the Bible apart from being the word of God, is also a reflection of the scientific knowledge of ITS time, so you miss the point when you talk about the science in  the Bible that was accepted by all scholars of the time, pagan etc. Secondly, what is all this babble about tectonic plates, lightning and God punishment,you have either never read the bible, or have all of your information from the bad sources. As for the discoveries that point towards '' God is not here'' thats just your idea, many scientists and many of us see the hand of God behind the natutral world, if you dont see it as such then, dont waste another day dont waste another minute, open up your heart. When we understand that the Bible is not a Book of science, but rather by course of its historicity, would reflect the scientific tought of the time, all of these ''contradictions'' dissolve, and we are left with a testimony of ancient humans whom already had their idea of science, changing and innacurate, such as science is today, they gave us another kind of knowledge, one that is forever, that does not change and that is pure truth.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

 I for one think that God does not make available the kind of evidence that could be sufficient to establish his existence without a shadow of a doubt, scripture is very clear on this issue. If everyone were able to see God just like that, then we would not have any choice but to believe, and God does not work like that, he wants our love and out belief yes, but he wants it from a free choice, and I strongly believe that he who seeks him will find him, just as I did.

So in other words, that is like having three or four children, abandoning them at birth, and saying that I love those three or four children very much. But, I only will reveal myself to the ones that are honestly looking for me ? BTW, I ferverently prayed on my knees every morning, attended early morning mass everyday, had Bible readings at the family dinner table, and was a good altar boy. I spent hours in the bell tower of my church on my knees ( I would not put my knees on the comfortable places to kneel, I wanted them on the concrete floor to cause discomfort while I prayed to venerate my love of god) praying to Mary and Jesus. I walked barefoot in the snow one time and never touched any meat on Fridays during Lent, I even considered the Franciscans at one time, because I thought there could be no greater glory than poverty, chastity, and denying oneself all of life's pleasures for god. Well, no god ever revealed itself to me. It was all a lie and a deception. And the Catholic Church loved keeping the guilt about my feelings of wanting sex with women heavy on my head, guilt for a white lie, guilt over stupid things. So, please explain that one to me since you have IGNORED my previous posts. Why no miracles, stigmata and revelations for me ?

 

Damasius wrote:

 As for your second claim, '' things in the bible never happened'' it has to be know that by the catholic tradition, scriptures are not read litterally, it takes a certain ammount of tradition and also a certain amount of deep thinking. This is how the old testament is not old but made new with what is revealed trough this non litteral interpretation and a honest and serious search for the truth. Its easy to take events like the biblical flood, and gloat at them because of the absence of scientific evidence etc, but if we read them seriously their inner meaning makes itself apparent to the reader, this is exactly the job of theology, to appreciate and squeeze out this inner meaning. People who wrote the bible back then had a very different  way of transmitting messages and information, one of these ways was trough mytical stories and parables. Some of the writting in the Bible is historical in nature and other aspects are doctrinal etc.

So your religion ( and my former one) has the right interpretation and correct way to read a bunch of superstitious myths and fables with perverse lessons involved in them, but all those moronic Baptists and Pentecostal assholes do not ? Granted, I have no love for those Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Muslims, Buddhists or any other religion that venerates horseshit. But I always find it interesting how the religious people are good at the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

You have heard of that Fallacy right ?

 

 

Dear Harley, the first part of your post is easily answered: what were you expecting? My advice to you would be not to give up, God has not forsaken anyone, and outside of him no peace can be found. I think your longing for the truth is what made you do all of these things, you thirsted and hungered for God. how does it follows that after all of this all of what you done that God was a ''Lie and a deception'' ? Yes their is prayer, but their is also  a life lived by the values of the Gospels. And yes their is doubt, sometimes a profound doubt a genuine doubt, but as the scriptures say, he who will hang on to the end, who amongst the sorrows of this life, amongst all of the pain, the doubt, will keep faith in God, in a crumbling world, who will keep this HOPE, only he will be saved, as it is said, faith is to believe what you do not see, the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. Therefore let us not lose hope, let us exit tis world, not as demoralized and doubting men, but as those who in spite of everything will have kept hope alive and burning, and it is this burning hope that will indeed save us.

 

Let us think about the saints who were steadfast and lived for their beliefs, who were not affraid of entering the arena to be fed to the wild beast, and whom did not see this as somehow a sing of their being forasken by God, but rather they were animated by this hope,and were kept alive by it, until they were grind under the theeth of the wild beasts so that they may be found the true bread of christ!

 

In a sense, we are all on our journeys towards the wild beast of the arena, some of these take the forms of the forms of the hardships of this life, others take the form of cruel and sharp doubt, others still are the confusion of the postmodern world, I strive to face these beasts with the same courage of the saints and their true faith and hope in the one living God.

 

 

In your second part, I am glad that you grant that the catholic church has the one interpretation that is closer to the pure truth.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wrong

 

Damasius wrote:

 

In addition to mistaking assertions for facts, the human-hating bishop of hippo To me, Augustine's words attest to his bizarre and unsupportable delusions. But the fact this repulsive religious bigot found beauty in the material world supports my argument that there is subjective meaning on Earth aplenty.

 

How exactly is someone who devotes his life to his fellow humans ''human hating''?helping the poor, teatching, doing good works, here I would say that the reason you find Augustine's words Bizzare and unssuportable delusions is because I suspect you havent read augustines work, nor do you have any idea about the man himself, other that things cribbed from bad atheistct websites.

 

 

Augustine taught that all humans were debased and vile, a mass of perdition, suffering from 'a privation of righteousness which every man ought to possess'. He embraced predestination, believed women were to be blamed for being 'stimulating', claimed women were beneath men, maintained the serpent spoke to eve because she was weak and that adam ate the fruit out of a sense of companionship with eve, nothing more. "Flesh stands for the woman, spirit for the man," he wrote. 

He claimed hell was 'made for the inquisitive' that curiosity was lust. 

He wrote:

 "How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!"

He wrote:

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”

And.. "Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." And... "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

 

And...

“But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression.”

All these assertions with no material proof. Augustine's writings drove the wicked and baseless concept of original sin for well over 1000 years. Such was his bleak influence Fox wrote in 1600: “The abysmal, theologically one-sided dominance of Augustine over Jesus and the prophets must cease.”

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your point rests on

Quote:
Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is not a historical source, however critics and a consensus of scholars disagree: the Bible historically relevant.

Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is a historical source, however a fast growing number of critics and a consensus of scholars who aren't biased, to support the very religion they serve, disagree: the Bible is historically and scientifically irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Saying that the bible is

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You and I saw two different

You and I saw two different claims from the same sentence. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:  In your

Damasius wrote:

  

In your second part, I am glad that you grant that the catholic church has the one interpretation that is closer to the pure truth.

 

I never granted no such thing. I was pointing out the idiotic it was to believe such a thing.

As for the rest of your appeals to emotion. 

Save yourself the typing space. I have heard all of that before from former members of my faith, I reject the catholic church still.

I reject all of it's doctrines and it's teachings.

I reject god and the holy spirit and say they are all a lie.

Is that making my message and feelings clear enough ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

  

In your second part, I am glad that you grant that the catholic church has the one interpretation that is closer to the pure truth.

 

I never granted no such thing. I was pointing out the idiotic it was to believe such a thing.

As for the rest of your appeals to emotion. 

Save yourself the typing space. I have heard all of that before from former members of my faith, I reject the catholic church still.

I reject all of it's doctrines and it's teachings.

I reject god and the holy spirit and say they are all a lie.

Is that making my message and feelings clear enough ?

 

Its your choice to reject God, In your other post you tried to say that he rejected you, I asked you ''what did you expect'' you never answered this question and instead said I was appealing to emotions etc.. funny how you feel justified appealing to your own emotions for rejecting God tough. I sure do hope you find peace.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Saying

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

As I have said, a majority of scholars, amongst these some that are not even religious agree on the question of the historicity of the Bible, I could go on but this is not the topic of this thread, you diplay a poor understanding of how history is conducted tough.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Saying

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

Here is a site that is well vulgarised that you could read if you are interested in the subject.   http://www.answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Quote:Your

Vastet wrote:
Quote:
Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is not a historical source, however critics and a consensus of scholars disagree: the Bible historically relevant.
Your point rests on the premise that the Bible is a historical source, however a fast growing number of critics and a consensus of scholars who aren't biased, to support the very religion they serve, disagree: the Bible is historically and scientifically irrelevant.

 

 

You have to demonstrate this '' fast growing concensus'' until you do Il just dismiss this as wishfull thinking on your part. Besides, what does science has to do in this? you clearly didnt read my other posts. If you are going to  erect wishfull thinking at least get it right.

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Clearly you are ignorant to

Clearly you are ignorant to trends in the scholarship.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Clearly you are

Vastet wrote:
Clearly you are ignorant to trends in the scholarship.

 

Well, put up or shut up, give me names, who is this  ''a consensus of scholars who aren't biased, to support the very religion they serve, disagree: the Bible is historically and scientifically irrelevant.'' I want names, I want their works, I want dates etc.

 

 

When are you gonna start feeding us beef instead of the same old bullshit youve been posting  on this thread so far?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:I asked you

Damasius wrote:

I asked you ''what did you expect'' you never answered this question and instead said I was appealing to emotions etc.. funny how you feel justified appealing to your own emotions for rejecting God tough. I sure do hope you find peace.

I found peace. I just have little patience with people that float about with their heads in the clouds as though they have any sort of logical grasp of reality, all the while pretending that all of the hypocrisy, lies and downright evil that has been perpetuated in the name of a non-existent god on the promise of an everlasting life has credibility and continue to ignore the truth about the world around them.

I hope you find freedom from delusion.

What did I expect ? Well, truth to be told, I expected very little other than a service to god. Too bad most of my life was wasted on all the indoctrinated fairy tales that my family bought into.

Save your preaching.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Beyond Saving

Damasius wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

Here is a site that is well vulgarised that you could read if you are interested in the subject.   http://www.answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html

lol, yes I'm the one who has a poor understanding of how the study of history is conducted. Obviously, it is conducted by taking a single manuscript, assuming it is true because you want it to be true and you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be true and therefore, assume it is true. All the while ignoring that the story told doesn't make sense based on what we know of reality. Obviously, historians don't consider whether or not a story makes sense before deciding it is a credible source. That is why you had to link to a site with a blatant agenda and an essay that sounds like it was written by a middle school student. I'm sure all the people who write for historical journals and devote their lives to studying history simply take the bible on face value....or maybe they don't understand how the study of history is conducted. 

You are a joke and more of a sad one than a funny one.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

I asked you ''what did you expect'' you never answered this question and instead said I was appealing to emotions etc.. funny how you feel justified appealing to your own emotions for rejecting God tough. I sure do hope you find peace.

I found peace. I just have little patience with people that float about with their heads in the clouds as though they have any sort of logical grasp of reality, all the while pretending that all of the hypocrisy, lies and downright evil that has been perpetuated in the name of a non-existent god on the promise of an everlasting life has credibility and continue to ignore the truth about the world around them.

I hope you find freedom from delusion.

What did I expect ? Well, truth to be told, I expected very little other than a service to god. Too bad most of my life was wasted on all the indoctrinated fairy tales that my family bought into.

Save your preaching.

 

I was granting for the sake of the argument that you indeed were searching for God, but now Im not so sure. What do you mean by very little other than a service to God? I don't understand please expound. Mabe the fact you have ''very little patience'' is one of your character traits that made you err is your search for God?  If you dont want your posts to be dissected here in the atheist vs theist section and are so angry for percieved preaching, then dont show up here doing your own appeals to emotions  awaiting the rest of us to swallow it hook line and sinker without a shred of inquiry. Also what is this jabbering about evil and hypocrisy? your own bias is showing, so in conclusion I think your telling us porkers about your searching for the one God with a honest and with all your heart.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Damasius

Beyond Saving wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

Here is a site that is well vulgarised that you could read if you are interested in the subject.   http://www.answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html

lol, yes I'm the one who has a poor understanding of how the study of history is conducted. Obviously, it is conducted by taking a single manuscript, assuming it is true because you want it to be true and you can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be true and therefore, assume it is true. All the while ignoring that the story told doesn't make sense based on what we know of reality. Obviously, historians don't consider whether or not a story makes sense before deciding it is a credible source. That is why you had to link to a site with a blatant agenda and an essay that sounds like it was written by a middle school student. I'm sure all the people who write for historical journals and devote their lives to studying history simply take the bible on face value....or maybe they don't understand how the study of history is conducted. 

You are a joke and more of a sad one than a funny one.  

 

It has nothing to do with the strawman you are constructing here. Look, I have things to do, by the look of it i would be wasting my time talking with you about such things as source material and about the general work of historians etc etc etc By the light of what you have written you are extremely ignorant of the topic at hand and not really worth anyones time of day, come back when your answers at least make some sense. '' assuming its true because you want it to be true'' '' the story doesnt make sense'' sigh.... I figured I was helping you by linking an easy read as you are most definately in need of it.

 

Your account name '' beyond saving'' is true and accurate, had I noticed it earlier i would not have wasted my time futher.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: It has

Damasius wrote:
 

It has nothing to do with the strawman you are constructing here. Look, I have things to do, by the look of it i would be wasting my time talking with you about such things as source material and about the general work of historians etc etc etc By the light of what you have written you are extremely ignorant of the topic at hand and not really worth anyones time of day, come back when your answers at least make some sense. '' assuming its true because you want it to be true'' '' the story doesnt make sense'' sigh.... I figured I was helping you by linking an easy read as you are most definately in need of it.

lol, well I will grant the read was easy. It was also completely intellectually vacant. 

 

Damasius wrote:
 

Your account name '' beyond saving'' is true and accurate, had I noticed it earlier i would not have wasted my time futher.

Of course it is. Everything I say is true and accurate. I shall await for you to link me to a number of historians that grant the bible credibility as being completely accurate and a "trustworthy reliable source". Linking to a half educated theist specifically arguing for the existence of god does nothing. You will certainly find historians who will say the bible is "historically relevant", you will find historians that argue that some of the events described in the bible most likely happened, you will find historians arguing over whether or not the cities described in the bible existed at the time the events of the bible supposedly took place- you will not find a respected historian stating that the bible is 100% true as an indisputable historical source like the person you linked me to was trying (and failing) to argue. Even a historian who is christian is going to admit that you have to rely on faith to believe much of the bible. Making the claim that most historical scholars believe the bible is an indisputable source is either stunning ignorance or blatant dishonesty.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Clearly you are

Vastet wrote:
Clearly you are ignorant to trends in the scholarship.

 

That might be over stating it?

The Bible as a historical document is obviously accepted, but the Bible as an accurate account of real events is obviously disputed.

 

I'm not sure if there is "consensus" one way or another though, and it's difficult since most Biblical scholars are theologians. I would expect non-theologian Biblical scholars to view the miraculous events in the Bible as myth, like any other, at least for the most part.

 

But I don't think I've ever seen statistics about that...

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
WTF?

Damasius wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

As I have said, a majority of scholars, amongst these some that are not even religious agree on the question of the historicity of the Bible, I could go on but this is not the topic of this thread, you diplay a poor understanding of how history is conducted tough.

 

No they bloody well don't. The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography. The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history. 

Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT in a way that does not simply recognise the existence of another proof-less cult or later insertion by church fathers like that ratbag Eusebius.  

If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait. 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Vastet

mellestad wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Clearly you are ignorant to trends in the scholarship.

 

That might be over stating it?

The Bible as a historical document is obviously accepted, but the Bible as an accurate account of real events is obviously disputed.

 

I'm not sure if there is "consensus" one way or another though, and it's difficult since most Biblical scholars are theologians. I would expect non-theologian Biblical scholars to view the miraculous events in the Bible as myth, like any other, at least for the most part.

 

But I don't think I've ever seen statistics about that...

 

Ah, well its true that their is some dispute, however, a concensus of scholars agree that the Bible is historical in nature and not only a ''book of myth'' Back in the 70's the trend amongst certain scholars was to say that Jesus never even existed! however , views changed,and nowadays I can safely say that a consensus of scholars bith secular and religious view the bible as historical.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 Atheistextremist

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

As I have said, a majority of scholars, amongst these some that are not even religious agree on the question of the historicity of the Bible, I could go on but this is not the topic of this thread, you diplay a poor understanding of how history is conducted tough.

 

No they bloody well don't. The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography. The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history. 

Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT in a way that does not simply recognise the existence of another proof-less cult or later insertion by church fathers like that ratbag Eusebius.  

If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait. 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are your sources? All I see here are bare assertions, sorry but I wont accept these without the litterature to back them out. This is like your cherry picked quotes mines from augustine. what is your job around here? to collect all of the atheistic bias and prejudice and vomit them forth?

 

 

''The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography.'' This is a bare assertion, back it up.

 

''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. '' LOL! 4

 

 

''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history'' What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

''Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT''       Bare faced lie.

 

''like that ratbag Eusebius.'' Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

 

 

'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait''  Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 Atheistextremist

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Saying that the bible is "historically relevant" is very different from stating that it is an accurate historical source. Obviously it is historically relevant as it has been used for centuries by a lot of people as  "the truth" and wars have been fought over it. Naturally, there is quite a bit you can learn about the authors and the times from any book, fictional or otherwise. I would say that pretty much 100% of historians would also agree that the Iliad is "historically relevant", that doesn't mean they believe the events of the poem are an accurate depiction of history but much about ancient greek culture can be gleaned from it. 

Great political speeches, propaganda, news reports etc. are all "historically relevant" even though we know they are rarely historically accurate. Most historians seek to verify stories from a number of separate and distinct sources before they are comfortable enough to call it fact. Stories that are only supported by a single source and sources based on that single source are always considered highly questionable without significant archaeological evidence.

 

 

As I have said, a majority of scholars, amongst these some that are not even religious agree on the question of the historicity of the Bible, I could go on but this is not the topic of this thread, you diplay a poor understanding of how history is conducted tough.

 

No they bloody well don't. The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography. The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history. 

Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT in a way that does not simply recognise the existence of another proof-less cult or later insertion by church fathers like that ratbag Eusebius.  

If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait. 

 

 

 

 

 

Where are your sources? All I see here are bare assertions, sorry but I wont accept these without the litterature to back them out. This is like your cherry picked quotes mines from augustine. what is your job around here? to collect all of the atheistic bias and prejudice and vomit them forth?

 

 

''The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography.'' This is a bare assertion, back it up.

 

''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. '' LOL! 4

 

 

''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history'' What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

''Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT''       Bare faced lie.

 

''like that ratbag Eusebius.'' Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

 

 

'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait''  Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we see right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: I was

Damasius wrote:

 

I was granting for the sake of the argument that you indeed were searching for God, but now Im not so sure.

Like I really care what you think

Damsius wrote:

What do you mean by very little other than a service to God? I don't understand please expound.

 I wanted to enter into the seminary at one point. Particularly the Franciscan Order if you would like the spefics.

Damasius wrote:

Mabe the fact you have ''very little patience'' is one of your character traits that made you err is your search for God? 

Nope, that has nothing to do with it. Naked Assertion and speculation on your part.

Damsius wrote:

If you dont want your posts to be dissected here in the atheist vs theist section and are so angry for percieved preaching, then dont show up here doing your own appeals to emotions  awaiting the rest of us to swallow it hook line and sinker without a shred of inquiry.

Your not dissecting anything. Your making silly assertions (when your not gushing Augustine poetry of course). Baseless and senseless assertions.

Damsius wrote:

Also what is this jabbering about evil and hypocrisy? your own bias is showing, so in conclusion I think your telling us porkers about your searching for the one God with a honest and with all your heart.

Shall we start with the Inquisition and work our way up from to the child molestors to address hypocrisy and evil.

Oh, BTW. I could care less what you believe about me.

I think your liar when you say English is your third language. You seem to have an easy enough grasp when you want to ? Can I prove it ? Nope. Not any more than you can prove your assertions that I was lying about a search for god.

Want to keep this up ?

I have dealt with your kind many, many, many times. You won't be the first nor likely the last. Next baseless assertion please.

Did I ruffle your pious, holier-than thou feathers a little when I said to lay off the preaching ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:  As for

Damasius wrote:

 

 As for myself, I take a different path. To me evolution is a mechanism created by God to which the life matter of this world is bound; it is a natural law of this world, of the same type as gravity etc.
Did the pope have to first grant you that permission ? Or did you arrive at that one on your own ?  


 

 


 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:  So I

Damasius wrote:

 

 So I invite you to reflect, where does this idea we have that the universe is meaningless come from? And where can we find ultimate meaning?


 

Question begging on a false premise.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Get your

Damasius wrote:

Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.

Perhaps he is motivated by compassion for his fellow humans?  After all, his dislike of Saint Augustine stems from the Saint's condemnation of humanity as inherently evil. While I don't know enough about Saint Augustine to whether he made such a condemnation, I do know several Christians who do.

Also, do you actually think he deserves "the unextinguished flames of hell"?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh, what joy...

 

Damasius wrote:

Where are your sources? All I see here are bare assertions, sorry but I wont accept these without the litterature to back them out. This is like your cherry picked quotes mines from augustine. what is your job around here? to collect all of the atheistic bias and prejudice and vomit them forth?

 

''The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography.'' This is a bare assertion, back it up.

 

''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. '' LOL! 4

 

''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history'' What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

''like that ratbag Eusebius.'' Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait''  Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we see right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.

 

 

The fact you do not recognise the fundamental truth that the bible is not a literal history does you no credit. I own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT.  Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family. 

Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be. 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. ''

Dam wrote: LOL! 

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and others all argue that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah could not have held together an independent state. It was simply not large enough. The archaeology is inclusive at best and non existent at worst. It shows settlements and trade but no great kingdoms, no great cities, no large populations. Feel free to change my mind. New evidence will sway me in an instant. 

Damasius wrote:

AE Wrote: ''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history''

Dam wrote: What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

 

Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997) write that source criticism might be considered thus:

"Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations."

 

The bible was written long after purported events, by nobody knows who at least partly in a foreign language, partly in foreign countries. It incorporates elements of older mythologies and narratives. The NT is probably based on one book, is biased, is not an accurate historical rendering of the facts, offers no opposite motivations, is littered with assertions.

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT''  

Dam wrote: Bare faced lie.

 

Tacitus and Josephus are clearly histories, the authors announce their identities and intentions in the forwards of their books. But the bible is written in an entirely different style. The authors do not identify themselves. They are not written as a history. Nor do any histories written at the time of christ mention him in a conclusive way apart from the third century interpolation of Eusebius into the Jewish Wars in which Jospehus, a practising Jew, suddenly converts to christianity and back in the space of a single paragraph. Nor was Josephus a contemporary of Jesus. He was born after the alleged crucifixion. All other mentions of chrestes are scraps that offer inadequate support for the appearance on Earth of the Son of God. 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''like that ratbag Eusebius.''

Dam wrote: Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

 

In Australia, a ratbag is a naughty boy. If I'd wanted to insult him I'd have chosen far more singular invective. Regardless, the evidence suggests Eusebius, church historian, was a liar. 

 

 

"Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Eusebius

 

"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."

Eusebius

 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: 'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait'' 

Dam wrote: Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we see right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.

 

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion... 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 347
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:and above

Damasius wrote:

and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. 

You seem to think that humans are unable to do selfless things. Perhaps you, yourself, need the incentive of eternal reward and the threat of eternal punishment to act in a moral way. We don't. Is that simple enough for you to comprehend? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10723
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damn AE, nicely done.

Damn AE, nicely done.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

Where are your sources? All I see here are bare assertions, sorry but I wont accept these without the litterature to back them out. This is like your cherry picked quotes mines from augustine. what is your job around here? to collect all of the atheistic bias and prejudice and vomit them forth?

 

''The majority of scholars, including educated theologians, cannot come to a consensus on which parts of the bible are historical, which are metaphor, which are allegory and which are blatant haigiography.'' This is a bare assertion, back it up.

 

''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. '' LOL! 4

 

''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history'' What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

''like that ratbag Eusebius.'' Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait''  Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we see right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.

 

 

The fact you do not recognise the fundamental truth that the bible is not a literal history does you no credit. I own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT.  Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family. 

Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be. 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''The existence of the Kingdom of Israel itself is not supported by archaeology. ''

Dam wrote: LOL! 

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and others all argue that the empire of David and Solomon (United Monarchy) never existed and Judah could not have held together an independent state. It was simply not large enough. The archaeology is inclusive at best and non existent at worst. It shows settlements and trade but no great kingdoms, no great cities, no large populations. Feel free to change my mind. New evidence will sway me in an instant. 

Damasius wrote:

AE Wrote: ''Objective source criticism recognises that the value of any written work is significantly reduced by its tendency to bias. In other words the doctrine of a cult is not history''

Dam wrote: What objective sources? wheres the meat?

 

 

Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997) write that source criticism might be considered thus:

"Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations."

 

The bible was written long after purported events, by nobody knows who at least partly in a foreign language, partly in foreign countries. It incorporates elements of older mythologies and narratives. The NT is probably based on one book, is biased, is not an accurate historical rendering of the facts, offers no opposite motivations, is littered with assertions.

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''Furthermore, there are excellent histories dating back to the first century. They are comparatively carefully researched and they are written as histories. None mention key defining events described in the NT''  

Dam wrote: Bare faced lie.

 

Tacitus and Josephus are clearly histories, the authors announce their identities and intentions in the forwards of their books. But the bible is written in an entirely different style. The authors do not identify themselves. They are not written as a history. Nor do any histories written at the time of christ mention him in a conclusive way apart from the third century interpolation of Eusebius into the Jewish Wars in which Jospehus, a practising Jew, suddenly converts to christianity and back in the space of a single paragraph. Nor was Josephus a contemporary of Jesus. He was born after the alleged crucifixion. All other mentions of chrestes are scraps that offer inadequate support for the appearance on Earth of the Son of God. 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: ''like that ratbag Eusebius.''

Dam wrote: Your own bias is showing, if you can't resist these little insults then why should we take anything you have to say seriously?

 

In Australia, a ratbag is a naughty boy. If I'd wanted to insult him I'd have chosen far more singular invective. Regardless, the evidence suggests Eusebius, church historian, was a liar. 

 

 

"Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Eusebius

 

"It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment."

Eusebius

 

 

Damasius wrote:

AE wrote: 'If you are going to make these claims about a book littered with foolish mythology and naked assertion, you will need to defend yourself point by point. You could start by defining god and then explaining how creation worked. I can hardly wait'' 

Dam wrote: Once again, I cant wait to see you bring some SUBSTANCE to your claims, look, ive been trough this a thousand times, you are the archetype of the incredibly biased atheist, taking his info from bad atheistic website, you are a soldier of your own doctrine, give us all a break, we see right trough you, your whole sordid and tacky offerings in this topic have been nothing else than biased views, insults, and bare faced lies. Get your facts straight, and above all, what are you gaining in the long run from your tawdry little interventions? will you go to atheist paradise? no. will you enjoy salvation? no. They only thing you can look forward to is worms eating your decaying flesh, a cold grave , and the unextinguished flames of hell, so what motivates you? ''freetought'' or or '' clear thinking'' ? those worms will eat your rotting carcass with no less appetite for all of the ''freetought'' you will have invented yourself.

 

Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion... 

 

 

 

 

‘’The fact you do not recognise the fundamental truth that the bible is not a literal history does you no credit.’’


 

And one of the assertions you need to put substance around.


 

 


 

‘’own Harrelson's New Interpreter's Study Bible, Birch's Theological Introduction to the Old Testament and Powell's Introduction to the NT. Alongside these I have an extensive library that includes the Nag Hammadi texts, Arberry, Simeon, Bowker, Pelikan and god knows what else. Lots. As well as access to to the bookshelves of my family.’’


 

 


 

So ? that does not mean you actually read them intelligently let alone understood them.


 

 


 

‘’Given my father is a minister and my mother is a missionary, both having theology degrees, 2 of my brothers have theology degrees, one being a lay preacher, and one brother in law is a minister and both my sister in laws parents are ministers, and I have been in and around bible debate since I could speak, I am perfectly able to make my own observations of the arguments and divisions I've seen in the church. They are legion. Even in my own family there is intense debate over what is literal and what is metaphor, what is historical and what is allegory, what is true and what is hagiography. Even what is wrong and what is right in the eyes of god. That's just how intelligent people approach the bible. There are 40,000 recognised christians sects. I'll let you work out why that might be.’’


 

 


 

I dont give a shit what your background is. Once again wheres the substance? Il take these as weasel words given your past shortcomings, your calling Augustine a ‘’human hater being one of the most hilarious to date.


 

 


 

Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies. Israel Finkelstein and


 

 


 

Oh and you think we wont notice that all these are partisans of a view called biblical minimalism? ( a view that is very far from being concensus) Heres a fine quote from Wikipedia: ‘’most scholars stayed in the middle ground between minimalists and maximalists evaluating the arguments of both schools critically’’


 

I thought you were supposed to bring mainstream unbiased people to support your claims? Looks like you failed badly, try again next time.r


 

 As for the rest of your post and your quote mine of Eusebius you are still looking at one simple side of the medal, see? I predicted you would be biased, It didn’t take long for this prediction to come true.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Lets take Eusebius's quote

Lets take

 Eusebius's quote in its full context and an explanation of your nblatant quote mine viz;

 

1. All these things were fulfilled in us, when we saw with our own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down to the very foundations, and the Divine and Sacred Scriptures committed to the flames in the midst of the market-places, and the shepherds of the churches basely hidden here and there, and some of them captured ignominiously, and mocked by their enemies. When also, according to another prophetic word, “Contempt was poured out upon rulers, and he caused them to wander in an untrodden and pathless way.”25002500 Ps. cvii. 40.

2. But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them, as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.

3. Hence we shall not mention those who were shaken by the persecution, nor those who in everything pertaining to salvation were shipwrecked, and by their own will were sunk in the depths of the flood. But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.25012501 Gibbon uses this passage as the basis for his severe attack upon the honesty of Eusebius (Decline and Fall, chap. 16), but he has certainly done our author injustice (cf. the remarks made on p. 49, above). Let us therefore proceed to describe briefly the sacred conflicts of the witnesses of the Divine Word.

4. It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian,25022502 Diocletian began to reign Sept. 17, 284, and therefore his nineteenth year extended from Sept. 17, 302, to Sept. 16, 303. Eusebius is in agreement with all our authorities in assigning this year for the beginning of the persecution, and is certainly correct. In regard to the month, however, he is not so accurate. Lactantius, who was in Nicomedia at the time of the beginning of the persecution, and certainly much better informed than Eusebius in regard to the details, states distinctly (in his De mort. pers. chap. 12) that the festival of the god Terminus, the seventh day before the Kalends of March (i.e. Feb. 23), was chosen by the emperors for the opening of the persecution, and there is no reason for doubting his exact statement. At the beginning of the Martyrs of Palestine (p. 342, below) the month Xanthicus (April) is given as the date, but this is still further out of the way. It was probably March or even April before the edicts were published in many parts of the empire, and Eusebius may have been misled by that fact, not knowing the exact date of their publication in Nicomedia itself. We learn from Lactantius that on February 23d the great church of Nicomedia, together with the copies of Scripture found in it, was destroyed by order of the emperors, but that the edict of which Eusebius speaks just below was not issued until the following day. For a discussion of the causes which led to the persecution of Diocletian see below, p. 397. in the month Dystrus,25032503 Δύστρος, the seventh month of the Macedonian year, corresponding to our March. See the table on p. 403, below. called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Saviour’s passion was near at hand,25042504 Valesius (ad locum) states, on the authority of Scaliger and Petavius, that Easter fell on April 18th in the year 303. I have not attempted to verify the statement. that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom.25052505 This is the famous First Edict of Diocletian, which is no longer extant, and the terms of which therefore have to be gathered from the accounts of Eusebius and Lactantius. The interpretation of the edict has caused a vast deal of trouble. It is discussed very fully by Mason in his important work, The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 105 sq. and p. 343 sq. As he remarks, Lactantius simply describes the edict in a general way, while Eusebius gives an accurate statement of its substance, even reproducing its language in part. The first provision (that the churches be leveled to the ground) is simply a carrying out of the old principle, that it was unlawful for the Christians to hold assemblies, under a new form. The second provision, directed against the sacred books, was entirely new, and was a very shrewd move, revealing at the same time an appreciation on the part of the authors of the persecution of the important part which the Scriptures occupied in the Christian Church. The third provision, as Mason has pointed out, is a substantial reproduction of a part of the edict of Valerian, and was evidently consciously based upon that edict. (Upon the variations from the earlier edict, see Mason, p. 115 sq.) It is noticeable that not torture nor death is decreed, but only civil degradation. This degradation, as can be seen from a comparison with the description of Lactantius (ibid. chap. 13) and with the edict of Valerian (given in Cyprian’s Epistle to Successus, Ep. No. 81, al. 80), consisted, in the case of those who held public office (τιμῆς ἐπειλημμένους), in the loss of rank and also of citizenship; that is, they fell through two grades, as is pointed out by Mason. In the interpretation of the fourth provision, however, Mason does not seem to me to have been so successful. The last clause runs τοὺς δὲ ἐν οἰκετίαις, εἰ ἐπιμένοιεν τῇ τοῦ χριστιανισμοῦ προθέσει ἐλευθερίας στερεῖσθαι. The difficult point is the interpretation of the τοὺς ἐν οἰκετίαις. The words usually mean “household slaves,” and are commonly so translated in this passage. But, as Valesius remarks, there is certainly no sense then in depriving them of freedom (ἐλευθερία) which they do not possess. Valesius consequently translates plebeii, “common people,” and Mason argues at length for a similar interpretation (p. 344 sq.), looking upon these persons as common people, or individuals in private life, as contrasted with the officials mentioned in the previous clause. The only objection, but in my opinion a fatal objection, to this attractive interpretation is that it gives the phrase οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις a wider meaning than can legitimately be applied to it. Mason remarks: “The word οἰκετία means, and is here a translation of, familia; οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις means ii qui in familiis sunt,—not graceful Latin certainly, but plainly signifying ‘those who live in private households.’ Now in private households there lived not only slaves, thank goodness, but free men too, both as masters and as servants; therefore in the phrase τοὺς ἐν οἰκετίαις itself there is nothing which forbids the paraphrase ‘private persons.’” But I submit that to use so clumsy a phrase, so unnecessary a circumlocution, to designate simply private people in general—οἱ πολλοί—would be the height of absurdity. The interpretation of Stroth (which is approved by Heinichen) seems to me much more satisfactory. He remarks: “Das Edict war zunächst nur gegen zwei Klassen von Leuten gerichtet, einmal gegen die, welche in kaiserlichen Æmtern standen, und dann gegen die freien oder freigelassenen Christen, welche bei den Kaisern oder ihren Hofleuten und Statthaltern in Diensten standen, und zu ihrem Hausgesinde gehörten.” This seems to me more satisfactory, both on verbal and historical grounds. The words οἱ ἐν οἰκετίαις certainly cannot, in the present case, mean “household slaves,” but they can mean servants, attendants, or other persons at court, or in the households of provincial officials, who did not hold rank as officials, but at the same time were freemen born, or freedmen, and thus in a different condition from slaves. Such persons would naturally be reduced to slavery if degraded at all, and it is easier to think of their reduction to slavery than of that of the entire mass of Christians not in public office. Still further, this proposition finds support in the edict of Valerian, in which this class of people is especially mentioned. And finally, it is, in my opinion, much more natural to suppose that this edict (whose purpose I shall discuss on p. 399) was confined to persons who were in some way connected with official life,—either as chiefs or assistants or servants,—and therefore in a position peculiarly fitted for the formation of plots against the government, than that it was directed against Christians indiscriminately. The grouping together of the two classes seems to me very natural; and the omission of any specific reference to bishops and other church officers, who are mentioned in the second edict, is thus fully explained, as it cannot be adequately explained, in my opinion, on any other ground.

3255. Such was the first edict against us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison,25062506 As we learn from chap. 6, §8, the edict commanding the church officers to be seized and thrown into prison followed popular uprisings in Melitene and Syria, and if Eusebius is correct, was caused by those outbreaks. Evidently the Christians were held in some way responsible for those rebellious outbursts (possibly they were a direct consequence of the first edict), and the natural result of them must have been to make Diocletian realize, as he had not realized before, that the existence of such a society as the Christian Church within the empire—demanding as it did supreme allegiance from its members—was a menace to the state. It was therefore not strange that what began as a purely political thing, as an attempt to break up a supposed treasonable plot formed by certain Christian officials, should speedily develop into a religious persecution. The first step in such a persecution would naturally be the seizure of all church officers (see below, p. 397 sq.).
The decrees of which Eusebius speaks in this paragraph are evidently to be identified with the one mentioned in chap. 6, §8. This being so, it is clear that Eusebius’ account can lay no claims to chronological order. This must be remembered, or we shall fall into repeated difficulties in reading this eighth book. We are obliged to arrange the order of events for ourselves, for his account is quite desultory, and devoid both of logical and chronological sequence. The decrees or writings (γρ€μματα) mentioned in this paragraph constituted really but one edict (cf. chap. 6, §8), which is known to us as the Second Edict of Diocletian. Its date cannot be determined with exactness, for, as Mason remarks, it may have been issued at any time between February and November; but it was probably published not many months after the first, inasmuch as it was a result of disturbances which arose in consequence of the first. Mason is inclined to place it in March, within a month after the issue of the first, but that seems to me a little too early. In issuing the edict Diocletian followed the example of Valerian in part, and yet only in part; for instead of commanding that the church officers be slain, he commanded only that they be seized. He evidently believed that he could accomplish his purpose best by getting the leading men of the church into his hands and holding them as hostages, while denying them the glory of martyrdom (cf. Mason, p. 132 sq.). The persons affected by the edict, according to Eusebius, were “all the rulers of the churches” (τοὺς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προέδρους π€ντας; cf. also Mart. Pal. Introd., §2). In chap. 6, §8, he says τοὺς πανταχόσε τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν προεστῶτας. These words would seem to imply that only the bishops were intended, but we learn from Lactantius (De mort. pers. 15) that presbyters and other officers (presbyteri ac ministri) were included, and this is confirmed, as Mason remarks (p. 133, note), by the sequel. We must therefore take the words used by Eusebius in the general sense of “church officers.” According to Lactantius, their families suffered with them (cum omnibus suis deducebantur), but Eusebius says nothing of that.
and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifice.2507


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
''Ad hominem, ad hom, ad

''Ad hominem, ad hom, ad hom, &c &c, appeal to force with trollishness, appeal to consequence on a bed of bald assertion...''

 

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly  quote mining.

 

 

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 347
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius

Damasius wrote:

Quote:

‘’The fact you do not recognise the fundamental truth that the bible is not a literal history does you no credit.’’

And one of the assertions you need to put substance around.

I somewhat understand how Christians can believe (hey, I once did!). However, it baffles me how anybody in the world that is not insane can believe that the bible is the entire literal truth. 

1. Contradictions: Without even examining anything outside of the book itself, it has so many internal contradictions that you must absolutely assert that only one of the conflicting verses are true. That makes the book impossible to be taken literally from start to finish. 

2. Science: There are many claims of a scientific nature in the bible that are very incredible, and likely false. There are others that we know are absolutely wrong.

3. History: There are many claims in the narrative that we know historically to not be true.

It really takes very little time to identify problems in all 3 categories. Let's do one each for now. 

1. Was Joseph Jesus' father? 2 Timothy 2:8: Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David

So yes, but Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Bonus: While we're on genealogy, who was Joseph's father? Heli, or Jacob?

2. The entire Genesis narrative on the creation of the earth is obviously wrong. The moon is not a light. "He made the stars also"....all hundreds of trillions (perhaps quadrillions of stars) just at the end of one day?? But spent most of the 6 days on the earth and surrounding area? Nowhere does it indicate that the sun has more in common with "the stars" than it does with the moon, and that the moon has more in common with the Earth than it does with the sun.

3. In several gospels, it tells of all sorts of phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion. Earthquakes, unscheduled 3 hour periods of darkness (by unscheduled, I mean the daytime). Nowhere outside of the gospels are these things documented.

Bonus: History was being documented in other parts of the world at the estimated time of the alleged world-wide flood. No such catastrophe was record. Care to say why?

 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Il pour any

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly  quote mining.

 

But your not guilty of any of that right ?

Like when you attacked AE for being "one of those Americans that bought into protestantism?"

YOUR religion is right and the protestants are wrong. Funny. The protestants would probably make the claim that they are right and your the one who is wrong.

Which I find comical. You guys all have the same Bible but kill each other in places like Belfast in the name of the SAME god and the SAME book and each are convinced the other is going to hell. If that does not demonstrate the insanity of religion. I don't know what else can.

I can see the Christians vs. the Islamics ( nutcases that both religions are) but at least they have SOMETHING to fight about.

Protestant vs. Catholic are fighting over the "proper" interpretation of a book that they claimed has divine inspiration.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Il pour any

DP


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

 

harleysportster wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Il pour any scorn and contempt as you are guilty of discoursive criminality, cherry picking data, citing only authors that agree with your preconcieved atheist narrative and also blatlantly  quote mining.

 

But your not guilty of any of that right ?

Like when you attacked AE for being "one of those Americans that bought into protestantism?"

YOUR religion is right and the protestants are wrong. Funny. The protestants would probably make the claim that they are right and your the one who is wrong.

Which I find comical. You guys all have the same Bible but kill each other in places like Belfast in the name of the SAME god and the SAME book and each are convinced the other is going to hell. If that does not demonstrate the insanity of religion. I don't know what else can.

I can see the Christians vs. the Islamics ( nutcases that both religions are) but at least they have SOMETHING to fight about.

Protestant vs. Catholic are fighting over the "proper" interpretation of a book that they claimed has divine inspiration.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

 

Harley, there is a fundamental question you need to answer here, any failure to do so will have me regard you as dishonest namely: WHY DO YOU FEEL JUSTIFIED TO APPEAL TO YOUR EMOTIONS FOR YOUR LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD (THE WALKING IN THE SNOW, THE KNEES ON CONCRETE ETC) AND THEN GO CALL ME OUT FOR PERCIEVED APPEALS TO EMOTION? If you dont provide me with a good answer to this then il dismiss you as an intellectual lightweight and any futher contributions from you will be dismissed by the critical thinkers here.

 

 

this is yout appeal to emotions: ''So in other words, that is like having three or four children, abandoning them at birth, and saying that I love those three or four children very much. But, I only will reveal myself to the ones that are honestly looking for me ? BTW, I ferverently prayed on my knees every morning, attended early morning mass everyday, had Bible readings at the family dinner table, and was a good altar boy. I spent hours in the bell tower of my church on my knees ( I would not put my knees on the comfortable places to kneel, I wanted them on the concrete floor to cause discomfort while I prayed to venerate my love of god) praying to Mary and Jesus. I walked barefoot in the snow one time and never touched any meat on Fridays during Lent, I even considered the Franciscans at one time, because I thought there could be no greater glory than poverty, chastity, and denying oneself all of life's pleasures for god. Well, no god ever revealed itself to me. It was all a lie and a deception. And the Catholic Church loved keeping the guilt about my feelings of wanting sex with women heavy on my head, guilt for a white lie, guilt over stupid things. So, please explain that one to me since you have IGNORED my previous posts. Why no miracles, stigmata and revelations for me ?''

 

 

Now, when I answered with a heartfelt answer of my own why did you accuse me of ''appealing to emotions'' and then dismissed al of my answer based on this while not realizing this is precisly what you had done in the aformentionned paragraph? This is what is at core here and I think we have our finger on the problem. So once again answer the question, or Il view your double standarts as reprehensible and any credibility you might of had you will have lost.