...and this is back tracking so far.  I get your issue with babies.  Jimenezi was right, you weren't there, you don't know anything about who was there and what actually happened to cause any of this to happen the way it did.  I gave you many hypotheticals that are just as rational as you claiming God killed innocent children yet for some reason you can't buy that people were sacrificing all their children, abusing them, raping them, etc. causing them to have a more terrible life if it continued.  

You still can't wrap your head around the idea either that if this God is real and actually caused this event, that death is not the end and that the children if really innocent are being protected by Him and still alive.  You either can claim this is a terrible event that naturally happened, it didn't happen at all, or that it did happen and everyone was treated justly before, during and after their death... If you're going to try to claim a morality card with God, then you need to take all the factors into consideration.  

e.g. is it immoral for God to "end a childs physical life" a child who's life was nothing but abuse and torture so that they may live in the spirit in a safe protected environment?  notice the statement concludes that the child is still living even after its physical life is ended.  

I would call you immoral if you decided to let the child suffer considering I know there is life after death.  

So far your explanation has been quick whipped responses that have little support if any.

 I have looked into links you gave me and ultimately came to the conclusion that it does not support your perspective despite it Possibly refuting one of the over 250 sources that this person used.. which still does not negate the formula as a whole.

It is clear your argument is one sided.

but you're selfish.. you want to keep this amazing research to yourself and just drop hints suggesting that you've spent countless hours refuting all the different formulas that propose that the probability of life is almost nil.

I am probably one of the most open minded individuals you will discuss with on this site.

considering all the aspects that had to come together to create life

the probability of the ripple effect not affecting the result of life forming is much less likely than life itself.

So when we create an intelligent robot capable of reproduction, growth and adaptation, is it alive? Our definition of "life" is based on what we know to exist at this moment. We can already imagine a few possibilities where "life" isn't such a clear definition. Who knows how many possibilities there are that we haven't imagined. The point is, we don't know that life as we know it is the only possibility. Maybe there is life out there that doesn't reproduce, that is inorganic, that doesn't adapt etc. Just because it doesn't exist here on Earth doesn't mean it is non-existent elsewhere. And just because it doesn't exist now, doesn't mean it can't exist in the future. 

Not really. Scientists argue a variety of hypothesis that vary in detail, but all of them are based on explaining actual observed phenomena and are consistent with what we have found. God on the other hand isn't consistent with the data we have collected. Does it disprove an omnipotent god? Of course not. An omnipotent god is 100% impossible to disprove because an omnipotent god could easily hide 100% of the evidence of his existence because when you are omnipotent you can do whatever you want. There is no reason to believe that an omnipotent god exists because there is no evidence that suggests he does, so you are just introducing a random variable that does nothing to explain our observations.

"Good" isn't perfect. A good person can do terrible things. I'm sure you have done some bad things in your life, hurt people often without even thinking about it. Have you stopped to consider the people around the world who starve to death because you bought gas with ethanol in it raising the price of corn to a point many in 3rd world countries can't afford it? Probably not and that doesn't make you a bad person.  

 

caposkia wrote:

...as far as we know.  I can't answer that.  It sounds to me as if those tools were available.  If the flood story is true, it is likely that a lot of technology had been washed away with the people... maybe buried deeper than we've searched yet... There were discussions on another thread I think about how it has been found that axes existed around 2 million years ago... if that's true, then it's not too far fetched to assume other types of tools may have existed as well that we haven't found.  

Ridiculous. We have found technology and bones from millions of years ago. If there was more modern technology it is likely that we would have found evidence of it since modern technology is generally better built and more durable to last millions of years. We have found dinosaur bones that are hundreds of millions of years old, so we have been digging plenty deep enough. If the story were true, there would be physical evidence left behind. Since we have not found this evidence yet, it gives a good reason to doubt the story. When we find advanced tools that are 2 million years old, then you have evidence to support the story. Until then, you don't.

I'm judging based on what is stipulated. God killed everyone. Period. That is the only information I need to form a judgement  because I hold that genocide is immoral. It is the equivalent of a murderer pleading guilty. There is no denial. So it is the burden of the murderer to show that the killing was justified, something God has clearly failed to do. Assuming that infants existed is a very valid assumption in the absence of evidence that they didn't exist. And again, the only reason I bothered to mention infants is because they are by definition innocent. God has done nothing to prove that all the adults he killed were terrible people deserving to be killed. All we have is his word. The actual evidence we have suggests that ritual human sacrifice, cannibalism and those sorts of things were uncommon.

If you are ever in court you should really want me on your jury as my default position is that humans are generally good and don't deserve death. God isn't the one you want, he might kill you because of something your grandfather did. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Are you reading what you write???

Are you? Further, are you reading your own ludicrous responses?

caposkia wrote:

If you have shown this repeatedly and irrefutably, then there's no possible way I can claim that you have not shown it, but yet here I am, still claiming it.

And you are proving how ignorant and irrational you are by doing so.

caposkia wrote:

You can call it denial all you want, but unless you can back yourself up in a way that actually supports your perspective, you ultimately would be the one in denial.

I'm calling it what it is: denial. You've given not one single counter argument to all the facts I've presented. You can delude yourself as long as you choose to, but you ARE deluding yourself.

caposkia wrote:

instead of coming up with excuses on why I might be missing it, why don't you try to irrefutably explain it.

I did that already.

caposkia wrote:

If I'm suggesting that there's a flaw in the equation and that there then might be 0 probability of life forming... and you accept that, then we must both agree that God has to be the possibility or life would not have formed.  Somehow I feel that is not going to happen though.

If the equation is flawed then the equation is flawed and you presented a flawed equation as evidence for the probability of life forming. It in no way can be both accurate and simultaneously innaccurate; hence your delusional claim that its innaccuracy proves god created life is one of the most ridiculous suggestions anyone has ever made on this forum or anywhere else. ALL it proves is that the author failed to calculate the probability of life forming.

caposkia wrote:

Does that then negate God, of course not,

Quit dodging. Whether or not there's a god has nothing to do with the basic probability of life forming. There could be a god and still be a probability of life forming on its own.

We're getting on hypotheticals.  If we're going to discuss anything, we have to assume the words in question are based on what we know now.  If we create an intelligent robot capable of reproduction, it is still made up of inorganic material, it doesn't metabolize and most likely would not physically adapt to the changing environment.  If it met all of that criteria, then likely we have created life.  As dynamic as the word is used today, I can give life to a bouncy ball by bouncing it off a wall and when it continues to bounce around the room it is said to have life. 

We can't keep going on what could be when the topics get difficult.

just to say that scientists argue a variety of hypothesis that vary in detail is suggesting there is no scientific evidence of what really happened before the Big Bang.  Sure we can come up with hypothesis based on observed data... hate to break it to you but what do you think believers are basing their belief on?  True believers are not basing it just on a book. 

I have yet to see any data that is inconsistent with God, so I would be interested in discussing that data with you.

I have actually thought about how my everyday actions can affect those who are hurting around the world, but beside that I of course have done bad things in my life.   No you're right, it doesn't make me a bad person, but I am still responsible for what I've done good or bad.  I know many stories of good people who have "murdered" someone.  Immediately that defines them as a bad person for most people, but consider that it was the only bad thing they ever did in their life.  Are they still bad?  Would feeding every starving child in the world exempt that person from the responsibility of the person they murdered?  I'm pretty sure they could have been a world hunger advocate donating milliions of dollars to all kinds of charities saving thousands of lives over seas, but the second they murder someone, they're going to be tried and sentenced for it.  Good people do bad things all the time.  Just because they're good people doesn't excuse them for doing what they've done.

 Ridiculous. We have found technology and bones from millions of years ago. If there was more modern technology it is likely that we would have found evidence of it since modern technology is generally better built and more durable to last millions of years. We have found dinosaur bones that are hundreds of millions of years old, so we have been digging plenty deep enough. If the story were true, there would be physical evidence left behind. Since we have not found this evidence yet, it gives a good reason to doubt the story. When we find advanced tools that are 2 million years old, then you have evidence to support the story. Until then, you don't.

...and yet, every day that passes, we still find something new...

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/march-2013/article/chemical-analysis-leads-to-new-discoveries-in-archaeological-research

This as late as 2006.

 

BTW, genocide is the attempt to wipe out a particular group for one reason or another, not all of life that you're responsible for creating. 

    The actual evidence we have suggests that ritual human sacrifice, cannibalism and those sorts of things were uncommon. If you are ever in court you should really want me on your jury as my default position is that humans are generally good and don't deserve death. God isn't the one you want, he might kill you because of something your grandfather did.

. . um... cannibalism and human sacrifice was not that uncommon in history throughout different cultures.  Again, we don't know anything.

..yet for some reason you can't buy that people were sacrificing all their children, abusing them, raping them, etc. causing them to have a more terrible life if it continued.

When reading the Bible, we need to take into consideration the author, time period, the audience and the perspective... [therefore] each can be correct perspectives when looking at this text.

Reading scripture today takes a lot more education than it did then because today we look at the words completely different than the people intended to read it so long ago.

then you need to take all the factors into consideration . . .

I think the biggest mistake most people make about the Ark story is making assumptions as to what kind of animals existed at the time . .humanity had not been around very long, which by our time scales would indicate an event a little under 200,000 years ago.

He wrote :: "The skill of shipbuilding was not developed in the geographical area, in which Noah was described as having inhabited. He/they were not seafaring people. They would not have had the skills, to build or operate a ship. There are no (what would be) antecedent or post-facto examples of any (at all) large boats/ships fragments in the area. It simply would have been a total cultural anomaly. That sort of thing does not happen, out of the blue." . . . , Bucky_Ball

If the flood was caused by rain for 40 days and nights, and rain covered the earth, then it would need to rain 112 million cubic kilometers each day. The water vapour that’s needed to be suspended in the air to achieve this would render the air unbreathable - people would have drowned by breathing this air. How did Noah and his family survive this?

>> "The storm-winds tossed the huge boat on the great waters".

 

First . . .

  

BeyondSaving wrote:

    The actual evidence we have suggests that ritual human sacrifice, cannibalism and those sorts of things were uncommon. If you are ever in court you should really want me on your jury as my default position is that humans are generally good and don't deserve death. God isn't the one you want, he might kill you because of something your grandfather did.

caposkia wrote:

. . um... cannibalism and human sacrifice was not that uncommon in history throughout different cultures.  Again, we don't know anything.

caposkia wrote:

..yet for some reason you can't buy that people were sacrificing all their children, abusing them, raping them, etc. causing them to have a more terrible life if it continued.

 

   IF your mind is like a jig-saw puzzle set, that you could never  piece together, it couldn't help any type of apologetic. The question should be, Would you see any children sacrificed in idols ? That is a provocative & highly presumptuous suggestion (Cap) you're making on your part. Care to provide evidence of where it's shown, given the major concession of a pre-diluvian world (biblical framework); wherein their (ancient) infants were honestly being sacrificed to the gods and idols ? A valid question to ask. Where-is the evidence ?  In the case of those Babylonians, Amurru's "Amorites" and especially the  Phoenicians.  Greatly assisting our viewing or the frame of mind formed, is extra-biblical information from the ancients. Where we find neighboring civilizations abhorred at and attesting to the fact of child sacrifice. Off the top of my head, even archaeological evidence (e.g. -- physical evidence) especially with the  Phoenicians .  With the South American continent, We have handwritten Mesoamerican codices, depicting human sacrifice. Then researchers found  bundles OF SACRIFICIAL offerings of their children placed on sacred hills, who were obviously sacrificed to their gods. There's a pretty grizzly tale about who was offered to Coyolxauhqui ("golden bells " ) a mesoamerican moon goddess. But, See how that works ?!??  Those you can use as examples. It's a bit tired, the argument that something like the Great Flood scoured  clean all evidence of the past, far too many concessions can be made too.  It comes across as if people are grasping at anything. While pimping both archaeology and religion.  (Hopefully, Good relations will NOT be shoot down in flames between us. I wanted to be as powerfully accommodating,  as is to be expected  ( ± ), Lol) ,.

 

    IMHO, Past day nine on the Ark, according to the account, they'd face a veritable mountain  of difficulties.. the longer the animals would stay aboard an   Ark.  So according to the story, Righteous Noah and a hand full of souls were on the Ark for approximately 370 days? A specie's regulating their own system to conveniently  live off reserves to say hibernate or over-wintering shouldn't/didnt happen over-night, if granting such concessions. That isn't even dealing with distances both to and from an Ark for the long journey for most of  the animals' respective habitats?  Regardless of what you think. It doesnt depend upon whether it seems reasonable to you (Cap), but what was necessary on the ground, to do actually what  was said  in the text(s).

    Speaking of nine, there is something puzzling me about another version of the Flood account. In the Hindu version of the Great Deluge, the mentioning of a unit of time is somewhat confusing due to its' overall length. There are presumably their  Hindu unit of time or a night would be approx. 4.34 billion years on aboard a ship for the animals, if it were a full night. Essentially the destruction phase. But that cannot be correct  when every summary of the story says simply nine days and nine nights. Considerably less time aboard than w/ Noah's vessel, if a sum total of a week was all!  Two kalpas constitute a day and night of Brahma the only religion that mirrors the time-scale of modern Cosmology. It is very possible the astronomically inflated numbers are what truly represents what the original authors were conveying or perhaps he caught the tail end of it? But the numbers are clear enough to cause confusion for most.  This is from a people where one of their saintly  figures was to have lived 2,000,000 yrs.  and one I am thinking of that lived for 36,000 yrs. of age. No using my functioning calulator the number from the entire night is a whopping  4,320,000,000 to 4,340,000,000 earthly years is the number ( I think ).  For ease of use, We read where, For a hundred years, prior,  there was a terrible drought on earth.  The drought led to famine and people died of starvation.  Meanwhile, the sun blazed in fury. Hence King Manu (also known as Satyavrata) put a little fish in a jar, showing mercy, instead of allowing to be devoured as a prey item. After this, It grew more and had to be transferred to a pond, then a river and finally had to move it to the ocean.   When it (the fish) was put in the ocean, the fish asked (talking) the king to build a boat and take along with him all types of seeds, eggs, animals and birds. King Manu realised that this was no ordinary fish but was the avatar of none other than the Lord Vishnu himself, as 'Matsya', again the avatar of the Hindu god Lord Vishnu in the form of a great fish!  Conspicuous Matsya revealed vital information that in seven or nine days (not sure if it was earthly solar days or not) destruction of the creation would come. However the man is graciously  promised rescue, this Manu at the time of pralaya, (he also received a boon). From the gathering clouds, rain began to pour and soon, water engulfed the entire earth.  The land mass was flooded.  As instructed by Vishnu, Manu gathered together living beings inside the boat.  And when the fish appeared, he tied the boat to the fish’s horn. While the boat was being dragged around by the fish. What the time spent abroad is unclear because it has to do with the destruction of all the living things. A clue is said in this .."Unwearied, this for years on years the fish propelled the ship across the waters." This is still very confusing and altogether wrong to not specify exactly what is meant by the word 'day' (or generation) given the Hindu context, and there two variant meanings.  One a day and the other  a mind boggling lengthy swathe of 'time'. With this Manu , accord to the sacred texts, was the progenitor of humanity, and  in the selfsame way a Noah if you will having come out of it alive, all others not aboard perished.  There are said to be fourteen Manus (periods) in Hindu cosmology, headed by an individual;  since there are fourteen manvantaras or Manu-deluges, (which are not necessarily a deluge because in Hinduism the destruction can come either by fire or by water,) in every kalpa. Hindus suggest modern man's lineage, makes us the descendants of the first Manu. Each day of brahma, is composed of a day and a night of equal length  is called a Kalpa, and this itself is a very huge number.  Whereas, according to the Old Testament, all people on the Earth today do descent at Noah (within the considerably biblical genealogy). Most formalized studies of the history of the Biblical accounts, do readily recognize the Book of Genesis was both highly influenced and compiled from older sources. The Hindu's  Manu has been confused w/ the West's Adam, at times, also closely associated with each epoch or Manus. He receives a wife by very special means; the same thing could be said of  'Adama'.  Again, Was he to wait  the entire 'night of Brahma', for the destruction of the cosmos to culminate, before his salvation on the waters, according to the Hindu version ?  It's still wrapped in this dissolution of all the worlds,. Made even more evident, in one account, with the incredibly heavy serpent Shesha appearing as the tow-rope, for the great ship he was on. Without having to resort to making calculations for a breakdown per unit. Matsya appeared during the first manvantara  (Svayambhuva) about 2 billion years ago (source online). Manu is famous for a list of Laws accredited to him. One of the codified Laws stated, "For a long journey, the boat-toll should be in proportion to the time (of the journey) and the place (of destination)''.  Who could afford that toll?   But, That would be mistaking the grandson of Brahma, the one credited for the Laws/Code  with the seventh Manu (our Noah). Then Unless I am miss reading. Patience broke its' back, across this fish avatar's instruction.  The man  was to wait 2.16 billion earthly years for the process of the Night of Brahma, no twice that long to wait.  For finishing up the dissolving/disintegration (completely) of all the known worlds, by its' end.  And, What of the nine days and nine nights ? Solar days?  Suspended Animation ? DeIfying  ? This is NOT Yama at all. Yami is believed to be the very first woman, who is the twin of her brother Yama (and everyone should know Yama). Who knows ? The problem is the story is so familiar to the Hindus, everyone knows this,  I mean, Really!  If you could answer what was specifically said, "seven to nine days from then". From when ? Sorry.  All is well, that ends well. Manu comes off the ship to dry land.   According to the traditional beliefs in the Atrahasis, written before the 17th Century BCE (on the other end of the calender dateline ), a little closer to home,  there was the god Enlil's patience having ended.  And he thought of the Flood as a means to get rid of humanity once and for all, be done with them. Enki (his princely rival), however, warned him (Atrahasis) of the impending disaster and had him build a boat in which he saved himself, his family, and all animals. After the flood had abated and the ship was grounded. No problem with variant time considerations there. With the Hindu epoch is a full 1,975,320,000 years of the day of Brahma elapse before the appearance of the Supreme Lord; so what a night is I am almost sure of. (See: Above).  Back to our Hindu story, Svayambhuva Manu, meaning  Man, performed very difficult tapsaya and obtained a wife named Anati. With this inclusion existing for Manu's needs. Who is she ? The woman spoke, I am the daughter. Some of the demigods wished her for themselves. Each replied, Say that thou art ours! She answered, No. But, he who hath begotten me, his I am.  And the one who narrates this tale "will certainly have all his or her's ambitions fulfilled''

I'm saying I have yet to see any data that is inconsistent with God... you know.. the data you claim exists? 

Considering observable data, it's mostly statistical congruency be it that no one has yet been able to put a sample of "God" into a petri dish or been able to find traces of spirit... or at least none that can be harnessed.  

now for your starters for inconsistent data... Significant evidence that the sun, moon and stars existed before vegetation... sure I agree.... and on the first day God created light... if it wasn't from the sun, what was it from?  

Yes I know, we go down to vs. 14 and it talks about let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.... could those be lights that typically aren't visible when the sun is up???  maybe?  I mean your starting inconsistent evidence isn't exactly inconsistent, it just shows that we don't fully know what is being talked about or exactly what is happening during creation.  Also likely that the author didn't exactly know what they were writing... this whole creation story was written from a vision as generally understood. This person was trying to peace it all together.  

e.g. before anything, there was light but no sun??? hmmm  Then the sun, moon and stars were created... or was it that they were all there, but then God decided to make it so that they would all be separated so that they can be visible and trackable... "and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;"  Gen 1:14 NASB.  When reading further, it sounds like day 4 was more of sorting and organizing if you will.  if it's a question of vs. 16-18 it sounds like an afterthought be it that light was already there however it may have been.  

So far there's still consistency.  What else?  If you disagree, let's discuss it instead of coming up with excuses on why I might not be seeing your POV.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Irrelevant. We are not talking about people who committed murder being punished. 

really... you're sure about that?

Yes, that is what happens when you base your beliefs on evidence rather than try to force the evidence to fit your preconceived belief. I fail to see how anything in that link suggests some massive technology loss. 

Evasive except that I offered to go through it with you... suggesting a different thread obviously.  

You say: "perhaps pointing to the best starting point linking the historical mentinons to the biblical ones would be something you might do... " like I am currently doing with PJTS on OT stories myth legends or real thread.  If that's what you're looking for, I'll see you on that thread.  it has a very focused progressive intention and so nothing that would distract from the current focus please.

I'm simply asserting that it takes decades... something you can investigate... probably with a few simple google searches and discover yourself... kind of takes the assertion out of it doesn't it?

It's one thing to claim the Bible says X then to claim ti didn't happen, but a whole other ball game to realize that your comprehension of X was a bit flawed and when you better understand X it seems much more plausible. 

People get doctoral degrees in this stuff, are you really going to dispute the idea that it takes years to understand the finer details of scripture?  

You're very good with coming up with the "it didn't happen because there's no evidence" tactic, but we've established in this thread that this particular reasoning is not sufficient enough to deem something false.  Instead, if it didn't really happen, then what evidence do we have of a timeline in the place of this one?  Is there evidence of something else that took place in the location and during the timeline in question?  

I suppose the Bible is true because that's what I understand... no one has given me sound reason to consider otherwise.  presupposed internal contradictions have been presented and debunked... unless i forgot something... you can bring it up again.  I'll look into the contradiction to see.  

You seem to think it's much simpler than it is, so please do explain to me what I'm missing here.  I want to understand.

You know, that makes sense really.   Though it still doesn't explain its continued success and its migration from the north to the south.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your last quote here pretty much sums up the only rebuttal you have to what I've said. You believe that if Christianity spread due to powerful theocracies, that there would be a lot less believers. Yes, other religions have died out, but not all. Why is Islam, for instance, still big? They're creeping up on your numbers slowly. Is it because it's also true, despite not being compatible with Christianity? You refuse to consider ANY sociological reason that people are Christian, and keep on asserting that it's due to the truth of it. I think we're pretty much done here. You said you've been open, when clearly, you're not. If you started a post with "well yes, sociologically, X, Y, and Z, could contribute. But here is WHY I think that they are not enough. Here is WHY it requires divine help. Here is WHY the bible is an incoherent piece of trash but I still believe in 100% of what it says even though that's impossible. Here is HOW things were twisted to fool you into thinking it's untrue." 

You try to demote my defenses, but you've been taking the same approach... typically with less support.  I see what you're saying, yes that has an influence on why these particular religions had gotten big, but the progression of Christiandom cannot be supported with that understanding anymore.  it is diminishing in the north and growing like wildfire in the south.  (I mean hemispheres, not U.S.)

I have considered and accepted your sociological reasonings for growth... that supports the historical progression of the religions very well.. what about today, Is it still supported in the same manner?  if not, why still so strong?  

Jabberwocky wrote:

It clearly implies that prayer is enough for salvation. It also seems to suggest in the OT that Jesus is a false prophet since he claimed, himself, to be god. 

This is the very understanding that not only led to Jesus' crucifixion, but also what keeps Jews of the time and current Jews from accepting Jesus as the true Messiah.  This could be a discussion in itself, but to get there, we need to accept the possibility of God first and foremost, then the validity of at least OT scripture in history.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have a bunch of scriptures all of different religions. You claim that all of them are false, except for one. I claim that all of them are false. My position is consistent. Yours is not, because you claim one single exception. You must now justify why that one holy book is exempt from your dismissing them as mythology. 

I've attempted to go there, but you're all over the board.  We can discuss those other religions, how the Bible is 1000's of separate unrelated scripts from separate authors and scribes whereas the Quran, book of Mormon, etc are written by one person claiming to have special insight into the texts in question that claim nothing else is to be added or taken away.  How the Muslims accept Jesus as a powerful prophet yet ignore that even secular historians who accept that Jesus was at least a real person claim that He was suggesting to be Gods son and not just another prophet which contradicts their understanding of who He is.  

You need to be focused though... are you really interested in the differences or are you flying all over the place just trying to find holes?  

...and here's the difference between someone who is trying to find problems solely to support their understanding vs. someone who is trying to understand and with that understanding possibly modify their understanding.  You will see what you want to see and that's fine.  Let me know when you want to have a progressive rational conversation

 Misc. -- Image Upload   on  the  definition  of the term 'Yom"   The word of  Yom,  in its'  common  use,  as  seen in the Pentateuch

 

 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not going to debate that it takes decades to understand the bible. It is a very long book, an old book written in languages that are noticeably different from their modern descendants, and had many writers (not to mention were chosen to be compiled by yet another group of people). This is a very complicated thing to understand. However, your suggestion is that those who study the bible all think it is all true. That is not the case. 

I don't believe I ever suggested that.  I've personally met many of those individuals who study the Bible...among other religious texts yet don't think any of it's true.

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as your other thread, I have absolutely 0 interest in discussing anything in there with you, if you're going to throw out absolute crap like the following:

I discuss historical facts in that thread... I follow your lead here... though we are both in agreement that much of it could have happened on a smaller scale in many cases and I have brought up the alternative timeline to suggest that it didn't happen if anyone claims they "know it couldnt' have happened"....

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm sorry, but that is not how you evaluate claims. Not even close. In order of sentences:

1. Assertion that something has been established (I'm not sure if anyone in that thread actually agreed with you, and at this point, I'm willing to assume that it wasn't the case)

You're going to tell me how to evaluate claims??? ok here we go.

I have not asserted that anything was established, only claimed that if you're sure the Bible story didn't happen, you must have evidence that something else did happen. Otherwise you would be the one asserting.

Jabberwocky wrote:

2. When the bible says something, if we can't 100% actually prove what happened in that exact time and place, then we are to assume that the bible's assertion is true (which we are simply not willing to concede no matter how many times you suggest).

not true.  but along the same lines, if we can't 100% actually prove what happened in that exact time and place, then we are to assume the Bibles claims are false (which we are simply not willing to concede no matter how many times you suggest).

Jabberwocky wrote:

3. Yes. There is evidence that "something" took place, because there is evidence that the entire planet existed. So based on that, we know that a number of things could have happened. A very large number in fact.

To offer a refutation of a biblical claim, one does not need to demonstrate what happened in that time and place. However, the bible makes claims involving a supernatural occurrence. Zero supernatural occurrences have ever been validated. Since one has never been validated, it is not simply an assertion to say that the "timeline in the place of this one" was probably something involving normal natural events. It is refuting an extraordinary claim saying that something much more ordinary was almost infinitely more likely to occur. That is all. 

I must ask... If a "supernatural event" were to be validated; what exactly would the process be for doing so?  In other words, how would we validate a supernatural event if in fact they do happen or one did happen?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Debunked? In the very first page of your thread (post #30 to be exact) you comment on the contradiction of Adam and Eve not knowing that they were doing evil by eating of the fruit of the tree. You state that they didn't know all of good and evil, but knew at least that disobeying god was bad. Where does it state that they had such knowledge? If it doesn't, that is simply your assumption and nothing more. Furthermore, in the narrative, Adam and Eve having not communicated with anyone but each other and god, could have been very prone to trusting anyone who sounds smarter than them. The serpent with those qualities would have qualified. They received no warning that they should not trust other beings as they should god. 

I believe I remember that.. I did not go back to check.  I agree that they likely received no warning that they should not trust other beings as they should god.  However, I remember also bringing up numerous times that God warned them with the threat of death not to eat the fruit... and when Satan came along, he had to convince them that they would not die if they ate the fruit implying in context that they had a comprehension of a negative consequence for eating the fruit.  yes, this conversation had been debunked based on context.  

To put it in a greater perspective on a much more minor and smaller scale, it'd be like telling a child they'd sit a time out if they crossed the street without mommy or daddy.  This does not imply that the child knows the dangers of crossing a street or the consequences of doing so without someone more aware of how dangerous it is other than having to sit a time out.    Now if a friendly stranger from across the street called for the child to come see them, what do you think the odds are of that child crossing the street to see that person.. we'll assume here that like with Adam and Eve they likely have not been told not to talk to strangers.  We can also assume that this stranger went as far as to say mommy and daddy wouldn't ground them if they tried to cross the street like Satan had said to Eve.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Missionaries. The southern hemisphere is largely less educated than the northern in the majority of places. It is also typically mired in more poverty and disease. If you improve the lives of such people substantially (or at least convince them that you can), they will be very likely to listen to you. Prettyy

except that modern missionaries who go to untapped communities do not bring improvement necessarily to their lives due to new regulations to prevent tainting of the cultures.  

we can discuss this point all you want, I took a masters course in it and am fully qualified to represent the process and intentions of modern day missionaries.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

You try to demote my defenses, but you've been taking the same approach... typically with less support.  I see what you're saying, yes that has an influence on why these particular religions had gotten big, but the progression of Christiandom cannot be supported with that understanding anymore.  it is diminishing in the north and growing like wildfire in the south.  (I mean hemispheres, not U.S.)

I have considered and accepted your sociological reasonings for growth... that supports the historical progression of the religions very well.. what about today, Is it still supported in the same manner?  if not, why still so strong?  

Addressed above.

not sufficiently

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes that is probably what keeps Jews from accepting anyone as a true Messiah. That is also what probably led to the crucifixion of several self-proclaimed Messiahs of the time, including a Yeshuah if there was one claiming to be the Messiah. 

Now don't go telling me I need to accept any such thing. For someone who doesn't believe, they can examine these contradictions without believing a thing. However, if you hold the New Testament as a holy text, and the New Testament holds the Old Testament as holy text, then it is important for you (not me) that the New Testament doesn't say things that contradict the old. It's your problem, not mine. As I acknowledged in the previous paragraph, I agree with your statement about the Jews. So tell me, why are they wrong? 

I'm not telling you to accept anything.  I'm asking you to show me why I'm wrong.

Jews missed the boat based on a lot of texts in their scriptures.  The prophesy of messiah and king were misinterpreted by the Pharasees as the messiah being an Earthly king that would free Israel.  Not a heavenly king that would die for the sins of man and live a lowly life.  Among many OT verses, Isaiah has some very clear statements:

Isaiah 53:  "Who has believed our message?  And to whom has the arm of the Lord been reveiled? For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, and lik ea root out of parched ground;  He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.  He was dispised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like the one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.  sure our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;  Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and  afflicted.  But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities;  the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.  All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him. 

He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth;  Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth.  By oppression and Judgement He was taken away;  And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?    His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deciet in His youth.  But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief;  If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring. He will prolong His days, and teh good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.  As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied;  By His knowedge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.  

Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide teh booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors;  Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.  "

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

*snip*

You need to be focused though... are you really interested in the differences or are you flying all over the place just trying to find holes?  

So you find some holes in the belief of Muslims, then accuse me of just trying to find holes. Right. 

actually, i had asked you a question.  i did not make an accusation.  This sounds like a confession though... is it?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not to mention, once again, where are these historians that state that Jesus existed and claimed to be the son of god? Please show me. The only passage in history that puts together 

1. A person named Yeshua

2. The early Christian movement

is the Testimonium Flavianum, which is held by virtually every historian to be an interpolation (and it is hard to reach a consensus on which parts were authentically written by Josephus himself)

Just to be clear you're asking me about names of historians who claim that Jesus existed and claimed to be the son of god... then you reference to the only passage in history.... Are we discussing passages or historians?

while awaiting this answer, we can look into the studies of Markus Bockmuehl and Peter Stuhlmacher.  They claim to the Biblical Jesus.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

...and here's the difference between someone who is trying to find problems solely to support their understanding vs. someone who is trying to understand and with that understanding possibly modify their understanding.  You will see what you want to see and that's fine.  Let me know when you want to have a progressive rational conversation

Let me know how many more times you can use understand/understanding in a sentence. That made 0 sense. 

I'll put it strait.  You've been using special pleading and have been seeking out reasons to not believe or understand what I do.  You are clearly not making an effort to comprehend the facts of the discussion.  

No I haven't been. You recently gave a definition of special pleading in a thread that was not only inaccurate, but pretty well impossible to even understand. You are the one engaging in special pleading in saying that the bible is true unless we can tell you what events happened in place of the events in the bible.

You refuse to accept the burden of proof, and until you do, there is no reason to discuss anything further. Also, your blatant dishonesty (implying that we both agree on something, when I didn't agree any such thing regarding biblical events happening on a smaller scale) is discouraging me from discussing this with you further.

You are either in heavy denial, or a troll. You fail to grasp the concept of burden of proof, and even go so far as to imply that saying "an infinite number of events could have happened in place of what the bible says" is merely an assertion. Meanwhile, your insistence that what the bible says happened is not merely an assertion (according to you). Then you go on accusing myself (and others) of engaging in special pleading. If you can't see why you're wrong here, you probably never will. Frankly I'm done with you, because it's like banging one's head against a wall. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

No I haven't been. You recently gave a definition of special pleading in a thread that was not only inaccurate, but pretty well impossible to even understand. You are the one engaging in special pleading in saying that the bible is true unless we can tell you what events happened in place of the events in the bible.

it was quite accurate by definition, but anyway.

I'm claiming that we cannot falsify the Bible stories based on lack of evidence.  I have not claimed they are true because we can't find evidence.  Again, I'm saying to you all, if it's false, show me why.  special pleading won't work.  All the attempts to say that science is contradictory or that the Bible contradicts itself etc have been falsified not only by me, but by many others.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You refuse to accept the burden of proof, and until you do, there is no reason to discuss anything further. Also, your blatant dishonesty (implying that we both agree on something, when I didn't agree any such thing regarding biblical events happening on a smaller scale) is discouraging me from discussing this with you further.

blatant dishonesty huh.  I have always been honest and up front with you.  if i made a false claim about you agreeing on something, I apologize.  However, to go as far as to call me a liar seems like a desperate attempt to discredit me.  I've given you no reason to think I haven't been honest with you and I have said that explicitly a few times to boot.  

Just to put the liar claim into perspective, the only people who have called me a liar are Jehovah's Witnesses when I point out the false prophesies their former leaders have attempted to make, Muslims when I tell them why I believe in scripture and.... people like you who have difficulty defending their perspective and resort to trying to demote my credibility.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You are either in heavy denial, or a troll. You fail to grasp the concept of burden of proof, and even go so far as to imply that saying "an infinite number of events could have happened in place of what the bible says" is merely an assertion. Meanwhile, your insistence that what the bible says happened is not merely an assertion (according to you). Then you go on accusing myself (and others) of engaging in special pleading. If you can't see why you're wrong here, you probably never will. Frankly I'm done with you, because it's like banging one's head against a wall. 

It has been real.  

for the record, i've been asking you to show me why I shouldn't believe what i do.  I'm merely defending what I know to be true based on my research just as you have.  I'm sorry you feel that I'm insisting when I do that.. Just like you, I don't just buy into claims.  I need sound reasonsing, but unlike you, I've kept an open mind about everything everyone has been telling me despite what you might think.  

..***somehow it got erased, but special pleading is determining that everything that does not fit with what one thinks is true is mythical or false despite whether it's true or not because it does not fit with their ideals... is that not what you are doing when you claim that mine is mythical?  BTW, I do not dismiss all other alleged mythical writings as false by your standards.  Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean there's no true basis for their existence.

 

  Serpent mound isn't even close to Newark, it is in Peebles about 120 miles away. Didn't see any Nephilim activity when I was there. I thought most of the mounds around here were from the Adena. Of course, I am missing 7 "shocking" hours of teaching from the good pastor. 

. . Greek Myth is so much more entertaining . .

a few times before I post them yes.

How is it that instead of further trying to support your claims that I have repeatedly told you fail, you choose to try to blame me for not seeing it?  Isn't that what the religious nuts do?

Ah!  I see it now!  Thank you for clarifying (sarcasm intended)

I could claim the same

as I've said, if your issue is with this particular formula, pick another one... there's many more..  

You claimed to have refuted a years researched equation touting over 250 sources to back it up by an expert in the field  with a few short sentences......... please post a pic of your Nobel Prize.

Okay, but how can you state with any certainty that the bible is accurate when it is recording God's words? When you are reading any historical source, exact words should always be approached with skepticism unless the source can be demonstrated to be very reliable. For example, we might trust transcripts of political or legal proceedings because we know they have a high accuracy rate. However, if a quote is referenced in a letter by someone other than the person who made the quote, then it is quite likely that the phrasing is not exact at best and possibly the entire quote is inaccurate either intentionally or unintentionally. On the internet, it is very easy to find a number of quotes attributed to people from the past that they never said or are taken out of context. Yet you assure me that God said all the people he drowned were wicked and that he promised to never do it again. Even if we assume God is 100% honest (a baseless assumption imo), did he really say that? If the bible is inaccurate about the "non-consequential" details that we can independently falsify, that is a good reason to cast doubt upon the consequential details that are impossible to falsify.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I agree that it is unlikely that vegetation can survive without sunlight for ages, but again, the Bible talks about a light being there before the creation of the sun, moon and stars if they were created chronologically as it is written, so it's very likely that that light... whatever it was had the same or similar charactersistics that allowed plants to survive.  The question comes, if it is chronological, what was that light at the very beginning?  

Except we can say with as much certainty as we can say anything that the sun existed long before vegetation. The sun is about 4.6 billion years old. The first evidence of plants puts them appearing around 450 million years ago. 

 

Because we do know. We know that the order the bible claims things were made in is wrong. It doesn't disprove god, it does undermine the credibility of the bible as a historical record. 

I have little doubt that the people who wrote the bible believed it was all true. But just because they believed it was true does not mean it was in fact true. The bible was written by people who were extremely ignorant because of the technological limitations they had during their time. We don't have those limitations, so it is foolish for us to adopt their explanations when we have significantly more knowledge, significantly more puzzle pieces and a greater ability to put them together.

You ever find a stray puzzle piece and try to figure out what the picture of the puzzle is? It is impossible, but you might make some guesses. Most likely those guesses will be completely wrong. Say you guessed that there was a horse in the picture. Then you find the puzzle and start putting it together. The more pieces you add, the more accurate your guesses as to the subject matter of the picture are going to be. It would be absurd to stick to your original guess when you have more of the pieces and no horse appears. That is what religion does, you cling to the original guess, insisting that the horse you guessed was in the picture is on one of the pieces we haven't put in place yet. Well the number of pieces we are missing is shrinking and there is no indication that there is a horse anywhere.

Don't you agree that when a source is demonstrably wrong on one fact that it is a good reason to be cautious in accepting its accuracy on other facts?

So if numbers and names are wrong and dating is not exact, why should I trust the reports of what God and Jesus said as exact? 

The difference is that no one takes ancient writings as automatically being the Truth. No one quotes the Illiad as if it is an accurate representation of historical events. Historians recognize that many of the writings were written as historical tradition rather than an attempt to record events or factual information. They also recognize that the oral histories that were passed down through generations were more focused on passing along the central lesson of the story than accurately portray events. The purpose of history wasn't the academic interest we have today in knowing what happened, the purpose was so that the future generation would learn from the success and mistakes of previous generations. The moral of the story was far more important to people at that time than the factual truth behind the story.

Also, when telling stories, those that take literary liberties are far more entertaining and memorable than those that stick directly to the facts. That is why so many movies that are "based on a true story" bear little resemblance to actual events. In 5,000 BC, telling stories was a main form of entertainment. They didn't have TV and movies. And just like people eat up "based on a true story" movies and believe the events must be real even when a quick Google search reveals that 90% of the movie didn't happen that way, people back then probably believed the stories were mostly true and skeptics didn't have access to Google. 

When you view the Bible as mythology, it makes perfect sense. When you view it as an accurate historical record, it doesn't make sense at all. 

 

But if it is inaccurate in the ways listed above, how can you trust it is accurate in describing who God is?

Of course there were people who fit the characters portrayed in the bible. It is mythology and it is common for mythology to include real people. Many of the people in Homer's Illiad were also real people. Mythology is often "based on a true story", but that doesn't mean that the supernatural claims have any basis in reality. *snip

You insistence that blame can somehow only be assigned to one entity is ridiculous. Sure, the parents might deserve a portion of blame for putting their child in danger. A parent who lets a pedophile babysit their kid deserves some of the blame if they didn't take reasonable steps to research the person watching their child. That doesn't mean the pedophile is somehow blameless. There is no reason to assume that only one entity can be responsible. Yes, if the parents really had some warning that the world was going to flood and their kids were going to die they should have done something and deserve some of the blame. That doesn't mean God can somehow be excused from his portion of the blame for actually causing the flood.  

Why isn't it ingrained in my heart? My gut reaction to God is that he is barbaric and repulsive and always has been since I first heard the stories. Did he mess up when ingraining morality in my heart?

Your example of killing a cow for food is great evidence that morality is not ingrained in our hearts by some external source and is more a product of our culture. You have defeated your own argument. Some cultures in history have also taken the stance that rape is not immoral. They viewed women as having a moral obligation to please their man whether they wanted to or not. Frequently in history rape was seen as the just reward for soldiers upon conquering a city. If God ingrained the same morality in every humans heart he did a pretty lousy job.

I think a child has every right to question their parents rules. Many parents have terrible rules that children should ignore. Often children don't have the power to go against those rules, but that doesn't make the rules good or moral. As a society, we have many laws against a wide variety of rules and punishments parents might implement because we recognize them as bad. 

For the sake of discussion I am assuming that God is creator of everything. I do not grant him the automatic role as ruler of all. He might have the power to be ruler of all, and he may use his power to rule over all against our will. I do not recognize that him using his power to be ruler of all automatically makes him moral, makes his decisions just or somehow makes him exempt from the moral standards we hold other humans to. His morality ought to be judged based on his decisions and his actions- not on the basis that he created us. I judge him based on my morality the same way I judge any being that has power over me. The same way I judge the morality of a President, a cop, a judge or of a mugger who takes power over me with a gun or physical threats.  

caposkia wrote:

maybe you need to start talking about your alleged high school science classes... if it is really high school science, it shoudln't take long to summarize.

If high school science could be summarised in a few posts on an internet forum then why do we send kids to school for 3-6 years, in which between 1/8 and 1/2 of the time is spent on mathematics and applied science hmm? Your logic fails harder with every post.

caposkia wrote:

Last check on that formula, there were more than just 1 aspect that determined the possibility of life.  Again, you're trying to blame me for not seeing what you're explaining. Sure ok, 2 isn't 2, but what about the 3, 4, 5, 6, etc?

If the 2 is wrong, it doesn't matter if everything else is accurate or not, the result is flawed. 2+3+4+5+6 = 20. Unless 2 isn't 2. If 2 is 50 then the actual answer is 68. If 2 is a billion then the actual answer is 1,000,000,018. Maybe now you can see how a single variable can completely destroy an equation.

  I never saw it, . . I couldn't comment