If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:There is

caposkia wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

There is evidence supporting the hypothesis of the big bang. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of god. 

 

that is a long time debate really.  I think anyone who takes one side over another on this is ignoring a lot of evidences from either side.  What evidences for God?  well like i said, this is a long time debate... many have had debates for many years as to whether there are evidences or not.  After listening to many of them, I think it takes more faith and belief to buy the guesses as to what caused the Big Bang than it is to accept that there could be a higher power behind the Big Bang.    The thing is, evidence is there that there was a great expansion... that in no way disproves a God behind it, so that takes us back to before the Big Bang, as to which there is no scientific evidence.

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit.

Evidence for the Big Bang, like all valid science, is based on observation. You are either ignorant of the evidence, or being willfully ignorant to perserve your belief.

Also, I like your "God Of The Gaps" nonsense too, just because we cannot disprove something does not give you a reason to believe it.

We can't disprove that a magical fairy created the universe, but we don't believe that either.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Jimenezj

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:
There is a diffrence between formal judiciary and informal judgment . We cannot pronouce judiciary judment on them. Only a judge .

I never asked you to pronounce judiciary judgement on them. I asked you to make a moral judgement on what is good and what is bad. I never assumed that you have/had/should have any kind of judicial power to actually punish them and you know it. 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

How do you know they could not walk, where you there ? Read the bible .

Infants can't walk and there is substantial archaeological evidence that human babies never came out of the womb walking. Does the bible say that infants could walk at one day old? 

...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.  

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Beyond Saving

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Define life. 

the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes orginating internally. (dictionary.com)

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

There is evidence supporting the hypothesis of the big bang. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of god. 

 

that is a long time debate really.  I think anyone who takes one side over another on this is ignoring a lot of evidences from either side.  What evidences for God?  well like i said, this is a long time debate... many have had debates for many years as to whether there are evidences or not.  After listening to many of them, I think it takes more faith and belief to buy the guesses as to what caused the Big Bang than it is to accept that there could be a higher power behind the Big Bang.    The thing is, evidence is there that there was a great expansion... that in no way disproves a God behind it, so that takes us back to before the Big Bang, as to which there is no scientific evidence.

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.

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I never said everything humans do is ok. Humans do all sorts of terrible things. I also never claimed humans were perfectly moral. You have claimed that god is perfectly moral. 

no, you said humans are "good"... yet they do all sorts of terrible things?

"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.

 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, it is not a "just as likely possibility". It is an absurd assumption you introduced to avoid the issue.  

It's very clear that I'm trying to avoid the issue.  I can see that, it must be why we're still talking about it right?    

what I'm trying to show you is not avoidance, but assumptions that are just as rational as what you're coming up with.  We have pretty much no information on the culture/people of the time and who they were, how many, how far spread etc and you're coming up with these things that must mean God made a bad immoral decision.  Your passing judgement on a being that not only witnessed the event, but had a direct hand in it.  Ultimately it's like you hearing about something happening 10 years ago from the other side of the globe, then coming to that country ready to testify against the person based on what you know from the news.  I hope if I'm ever in court, you're not in my jury of peers.

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. 

 

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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:...and this

caposkia wrote:

...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.  

 

Ah the "death isn't bad when god does it" argument. Irrelevant. Even if life is peachy for them now, the children died a horrific death. Drowning is not a picnic. And God, being omnipotent, could have killed them all instantly without pain. So even if you don't want to hold him accountable for death, he is at least guilty of torture. Hell, we get upset with water boarding which is only simulated drowning. He could have stopped the rape/abuse or whatever terrible things were happening without drowning the kids. He is omnipotent.

If I see someone about to sacrifice a human child on an altar, I am pulling the good ol' .40 and giving them an extra hole in the head. I'm not going to shoot the kid too!

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
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Are you

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:So far your

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

Denial. All of my responses have been short, to the point, accurate, and containing all necessary information that wouldn't require me to walk you through the entirety of high school science classes.

caposkia wrote:
 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.

Absolutely ridiculous. First of all you're clearly allowing your bias to colour your conclusions. No other explanation is possible for reading the material that implicitly agrees with me and coming to the conclusion that it doesn't.
Second of all, ANY flaw in ANY equation invalidates the entire equation. This is the most simple and basic rule of mathematics. 2+2=4 is invalid if 2 isn't 2. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:If I'm

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It is clear

caposkia wrote:
It is clear your argument is one sided.

Projection. I'm not discounting a god in this discussion, I'm saying only that the probability of life forming is 100%. And you've still provided nothing to refute it.

caposkia wrote:
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 gave you clear directions on how to obtain the required information to falsify the equation you presented, and even personally refuted many of its calculations.
I have yet to see a valid probability equation suggesting the probability of life forming is nil. Why would I bother refuting something that doesn't exist?

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

Ridiculous. You are just as close minded as any other theist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: I know you

caposkia wrote:
I know you have convinced yourself otherwise...

You convinced me otherwise all by yourself.

caposkia wrote:
mainly because you can't convince me with quick witted refutes, but like most rational thinking people, I need logical reasoning, which you are not giving, to deny what I now know

You keep telling yourself that. If even one theists eyes have been opened by your irrational claims and ridiculously unsupported assertions then my time refuting you has been well spent, even if you yourself never accept the truth.

caposkia wrote:
The butterfly effect has been tested and is proven..

I never contested its existence, I contested your application of it. Something you did without any evidence.

caposkia wrote:
There is nothing to suggest that one action over X amount of time won't have a larger impact.

And there is no evidence to suggest the effect won't be negligible or insignificant either.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:considering

caposkia wrote:
considering all the aspects that had to come together to create life

You don't even know what they are. Your only claim to such knowledge is an equation I obliterated with a few sentences.

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

Not when you include things that have no measurable effect on life or Earth or the solar system or even the galaxy entire it doesn't. In order to suggest a galaxy a million light years away had to be exactly where it was and exactly as big and dense as it was in order for life to form, you have to show what effect it has/had and how it made a difference. Neither you nor the author of your refuted equation has done this, and so your claim is meaningless and irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Again, we're

caposkia wrote:
Again, we're talking about statistics here, nothing to get youself hung up on, but the many formulas make it clear that the odds of life were never 100% as you originally claimed.  That is the refuted point so we don't lose focus.

So we don't lose focus, you still haven't refuted that point. I have refuted all of your attempts to refute it.

caposkia wrote:
I don't care what you call it, they do know that something is out there

No they don't. You're backsliding on a point you already conceded.

caposkia wrote:
unless like your link suggests we manipulate the very laws of gravity as we understand them.

And how do you know that isn't what we have to do?

You're still operating on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So when

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

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.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.

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.

Beyond Saving wrote:

"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.  

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.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

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.

...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. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

 

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

I honestly think you're trying to reach a bit too far here.  I mean; "a valid assumption in the absense of evidence that they didn't exist"... really?  Ok fine, due to the abscence of evidence that God doesn't exist, He does.  Do you buy that?  no?  I don't either.

Again, i don't take Gods word on it based solely on this story.  apparently you do.  That's fine, most people think that way, guilty until proven innocent, I get it.   Again, the reason why I wouldn't want you on my jury of peers.  God on the other hand would find me guilty of everything I have done, yet propose time served due to the fact that Jesus already served my sentence and i have accepted that.  The thing is with God, i don't have to prove my innocence.  A sacrifice has already been made on my behalf. 

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. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Ah the

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ah the "death isn't bad when god does it" argument. Irrelevant. Even if life is peachy for them now, the children died a horrific death. Drowning is not a picnic. And God, being omnipotent, could have killed them all instantly without pain. So even if you don't want to hold him accountable for death, he is at least guilty of torture. Hell, we get upset with water boarding which is only simulated drowning. He could have stopped the rape/abuse or whatever terrible things were happening without drowning the kids. He is omnipotent.

If I see someone about to sacrifice a human child on an altar, I am pulling the good ol' .40 and giving them an extra hole in the head. I'm not going to shoot the kid too!

well... actually I'm under the impression that death sucks... no matter how it comes.  we may say that someone died a painless death, but do we really know that for sure?  The Bible makes it clear that death is not something we want to have to go through, but we ultimately have to. 

I'm with you on saving that child, but based on the life we live today and what i Know of my God, sacrifice is useless because Jesus fulfilled that requirement, therefore any sacrifice being made is not being made to my God.   No human sacrifice has ever been made to my God.

I'm sure you'll try to turn this one around, but just take it as it is.  despite your attempts, I really do say what I mean.

You're looking at this whole scenario through a papertowel tube.  What you see through that is not the whole story.  You can come up with all the hypotheticals all you want, but when it comes down to it, you're ultimately asking God to leave countless number of children orphaned to fend for themselves.  Noah as one person had a family to take care of and if there were as many people as you have suggested in teh past, there's no way anyone would expect one person to raise so many children.  Some would absolutely suffer.  God could do this and God could do that, but in the end God HAS made US responsible for ourselves.  That includes our children, grandchildren, parents, uncles, aunts, etc.    When we hand custody over to another person for our children, we are no longer responsible for their welbeing.  What you're suggesting is that we blame the parent who is no longer responsible... or to look at it a better way so you don't try to twist the scenario around to say that God abandoned His children, we can say that you're making the grandparents responsible for what their grandchildren have done when it's their children who are responsible. 

Look at it any way you want.  This is I think the 4th or 5th scenario I've shown you that puts the responsibility directly on the parents for what happened to any hypothetical children.  It's obvious we're never going to see eye to eye on this.  You're always going to claim guilty until proven innocent and I'm always going to claim responsibility on those who are understood to be responsible.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Are you reading what you write???
Are you? Further, are you reading your own ludicrous responses?

a few times before I post them yes.

Vastet wrote:

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.

so be it.  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?

Vastet wrote:

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.

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

We could be here until the internet crashes because I could come back with... and I've refuted it already... and here we are again.  If that's true, then let's start again... Obviously I'm missing something here.  I'm honestly trying to see what you're saying.  I've been honest with you from the get go... but somehow still we've ended up in a loop.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
So far your explanation has been quick whipped responses that have little support if any.
Denial. All of my responses have been short, to the point, accurate, and containing all necessary information that wouldn't require me to walk you through the entirety of high school science classes.

I could claim the same, but it's obvious it's not enough for you.. 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.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
 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.
Absolutely ridiculous. First of all you're clearly allowing your bias to colour your conclusions. No other explanation is possible for reading the material that implicitly agrees with me and coming to the conclusion that it doesn't. Second of all, ANY flaw in ANY equation invalidates the entire equation. This is the most simple and basic rule of mathematics. 2+2=4 is invalid if 2 isn't 2. Period.

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.  Explain it better.  Sure ok, 2 isn't 2, but what about the 3, 4, 5, 6, etc?  considering your example, just like the one part you brought up that may possibly not be true, but has not been fully refuted, you still are only talking basic math at this point.  if you want to refute the whole equation, you must get into some complicated math. 

e.g. 2 isn't 2 in our eqation that concludes a number in the trillions... so instead of being (random number) 10 trillion with a decimal point of .345, its 10 trillion with a decimal point of .344... what now?  This math is statistical, not Law. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
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.

as I've said, if your issue is with this particular formula, pick another one... there's many more..   this one just happens to be the most detailed I've found... and again, just so we don't forget... your refute was a hypothetical


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
Again, we're talking about statistics here, nothing to get youself hung up on, but the many formulas make it clear that the odds of life were never 100% as you originally claimed.  That is the refuted point so we don't lose focus.
So we don't lose focus, you still haven't refuted that point. I have refuted all of your attempts to refute it.
caposkia wrote:
I don't care what you call it, they do know that something is out there
No they don't. You're backsliding on a point you already conceded.
caposkia wrote:
unless like your link suggests we manipulate the very laws of gravity as we understand them.
And how do you know that isn't what we have to do? You're still operating on assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions.

instead of being redundant, I decided to skip to this post be it that pretty much all the other posts are going to have the same response. 

You have not refuted the equation

your basing your conclusion on a hypothetical

My assumptions are based on science, yours on... apparently highschool science... either way, it seems we're both making assumptions based on science

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.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:We're getting

caposkia wrote:

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.

The entire topic is hypothetical. The entire formula is nothing but hypothetical every step of the way. And it is assuming that our particular brand of life is the only possible brand. An assumption that we can't make.

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

Holy shit! Are you saying that there is observable data that provides affirmative evidence for the existence of a god? Why have you been sitting on it for so long. Let's see it...

Data inconsistent with the bible? Well for starters, we have significant amounts of evidence that the sun, moon and stars existed before vegetation. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

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.

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

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 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.

caposkia wrote:

...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.

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

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. 

Yeah, we don't have a word for wiping out all of humanity because no human has been insane enough to try it. 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No Subject)

 See ::  Image (some example verses on . . .)



 

 

  F i n

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
> "The storm-winds tossed the huge boat on the great waters".

>> "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) ,.

Caposkia wrote:
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.

Caposkia wrote:
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.

    The OT, the text, is illuminated for people like us who are culturally removed from its' origin by a determined effort in thoroughly examining the other religions of the wider region in the holy land. Without looking  at neighboring religions confusion can result, when reading the pages of the holy bible. Simple example is 'Baal'.. a.k.a. “The Cloud Rider” Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baal is repeatedly called the one who rides the clouds, or the one who “mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baal Hadad, NOT to be confused with the Amorite's Storm-Deity. And, there's no better education than bothering to read the reference.

__________

From the first ..“A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick He will not snuff out"

__________

caposkia wrote:
then you need to take all the factors into consideration . . .

 

 

Caposkia wrote:
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.

    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''

 

 . . . ( Actually it is Manu ) Yes, there are more than one; we are talking about the one who made it through the Deluge; and not a later one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IMG][/IMG]

 

 

 

 

 

:

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Brian Thomas (of ICR) says,  . .Therefore, the biblical Ark was more realistic a vessel than the one depicted in the Sumerian translation.,

 

 

Bucky-Ball wrote:
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


 

 

 

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
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?

  A small quibble with the GodsUseForAMosquito in the other thread. About the amount of rainfall. That is not taking into account the reference to the fountains of the deep. Creationists are split on its' potential meaning. However it would indicate a major portion of the water was added to the overall numbers from below, according to what is written in Genesis. However, Dr. Robert R. Cargill writes, "because only 1.7% of the earth’s water is stored underground, there unfortunately is not nearly enough water in groundwater storage beneath the earth’s surface to account for the amount of water necessary to flood the entire earth to the extent described in the Bible."  In that case, (idiom) 'fat lot of good' it does, in an accounting for, . 

{ Creationist  Website (quote) - Disclaimer not all Creationist's site think alike. }

  "Large quantities of water were evidently placed between the earth's crust and mantle in what might be called giant subterranean reservoirs. This water was probably under high pressure to begin with (causing artesian springs and geysers do abound), but after the fall of man and the angels-when some of the heavier atomic elements . . could  have heated the subsurface to a point of criticality where it could do nothing else" And, Where is the place for all that water now-a-days ?  It must have gone back beneath the upper mantle, again, via the subduction zones in the earth's seas.

 

 

   There's a humorous Ad online, depicting Noah's Ark  where the Jackalope never made it in.  In reading three reviews of Woodmorappe's work. Inescapably, he made this  LUDICROUS  outlandish suggestion/claim of a Noah figure, having trained a host of the wild animals to defecate, where he wanted them to  (no joke).

 

 

   F i n


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

*cut*

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

Holy shit! Are you saying that there is observable data that provides affirmative evidence for the existence of a god? Why have you been sitting on it for so long. Let's see it...

Data inconsistent with the bible? Well for starters, we have significant amounts of evidence that the sun, moon and stars existed before vegetation. 

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?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

 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.

caposkia wrote:

...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.

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. 

It doesn't... instead it falsifies your claim that we would have found evidence of it since modern tech. is generally better built and more durable to last millions of years.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, we don't have a word for wiping out all of humanity because no human has been insane enough to try it. 

nor has ever had the authority to do so under the Law... and yet it would still be irrational for them to try... which is why it's irrational for you to try to categorize God under humanistic actions of murder when He judges based on the Law.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:>> "The

danatemporary wrote:

>> "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) ,.

it's all good.  I like your input.  My intention is to suggest that my highly presumptuous suggestion is no less presumptuous than the other.  That's the main point.  I never claimed that it actually happened, but someone IS claiming that they know that the children had better lives and would have had better lives if left alive... I'm wondering where the evidence is for that be it that scripture states clearly that there was nothing but evil in their hearts.  (likely the adults in this case)

Considering evidences of child sacrifices, I had said let's look in history... just a search in Wikipedia denotes not only proof that a child was killed intentionally with a weapon in prehistoric Britain.  The book of Micah said to be written by and 8th century B.C. monk talks of child sacrifices... which goes pretty far back in history.  One source puts the oldest human sacrifice found to be at over 5,000 years ago... that puts it further back, but still far enough away from the time in question to make sacrifice questionable for this Biblical story.... IF you look up child canabalism you will find this exists in history including religious canabalism of aborted infants... 

I say for a culture to have been called so bad that they had absolutely nothing but evil in their hearts... are we to say that these examples above could be worse than the pure evil this generation is described as being?  In my understanding, I don't think there is a generation since that God could claim was pure evil as He did with this particular generation of people.  It would be logical to compile all the worst evils that we have records of and apply the possibility to this story.... considering the canabalism story I happened to trip upon looking this up, it seems that it's very possible that many of these children everyone is so worried about may have been aborted and eaten before the flood... the ones that did survive could have been sacrificed to idols and the ones that weren't sacrificed I'm sure were being raised to continue the horrors.   If people were aware of the impending flood, it is very likely that the number of sacrifices increased beforehand in hopes that the gods they were sacrificing to might save them.

danatemporary wrote:
 

    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''

the thing is, you're going to find stories of "the flood" from cultures all over the world... there are likely hundreds.  We know we don't have the original texts of Genesis and thus the version we have is from older scripts we haven't been able to get our hands on.  Beyond that, it is not uncommon for a scribe who compiled a writing to use other sources that support the story at hand to fill in gaps where needed.  I had said this is a vision, but the author is unknown.  This author might have been the original writer that all the other flood stories came from.  

either way, just the fact that there are so many varying accounts of such a flood happening should weigh on its liklihood in history. Though everyone loves to make a case out of chronology and time lengths, the focus of the story really isn't time... it could have been 40 days or 4 billion years, but in the end, the flood happened.  The story is about the flood, not the length of time living creatures were on the boat.  Yes it does raise to question how they survived or how it was all possible.  To answer that, we'd need to know exactly what creatures were on the ark and under what circumstances they were able to stay, also what resources... were some animals brought on just as a food sacrifice for others and thus that species ceased to exist as well?  Were they all in hybernation that God may have put them into?  We can only guess, but again, despite all the variations in all the stories, the purpose of all the stories were to depict the fact that this catastrophic flood happened.    We can only speculate from there.  All stories seem to also be in agreement that pretty much all life was wiped out and that there was a surviving family/person that had other living creatures on a boat of sorts.  Those congruencies again further support the idea of these events taking place.  

Some try to cry out conspiracy, but if that were the case, the stories from all different cultures would not be varied as much.. in fact, they'd likely be almost identical.  To make people believe in something, consistency in a story is teh way to go.  Differences as we know cause people to doubt.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
↑ There are going to be Flood stories all over the world . . .

  Re ::  Spooky . .

 

 



 

 





 



  There are going to be Flood stories all over the world that are given in the cited account(s), (Sarcasm cutting you yet) ? (?)  Awhhh, You shouldn't be so sweet .. you.

 

 


 

 



      =======================================================================================================================================================


  :


 
  








 


 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I'm saying I

caposkia wrote:

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.

The bible is very clear, on day 3 he made vegetation and fruit. On day 4 he created "two great lights" the Sun and the Moon. Then the stars. We know that it was the other way around, so the Bible is wrong about the order (and wrong that the moon is a light and that the sun is different from the stars and wrong that it all occurred in a span of days). We know that land existed before the oceans, we know that life existed before our current oxygen atmosphere and we know that many species had come and gone long before humans. We also know that humans were not human originally. We know that humans are mammals and are not significantly different than other mammals.

The Bible is simply completely wrong about the order and the length of time all these things took to form. It is exactly what you would expect to be thought up by an ignorant person with no scientific knowledge. Could there be a God? Sure, it is a possibility. Is the Bible an accurate representation of what happened? Clearly not. So either no God exists or the Bible is not an accurate representation of God.   

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

really... you're sure about that?

*sigh* Yes. We have been over this a million times. Infants cannot commit murder, there was at least 1 infant on the planet, God drowned that infant. You have admitted to all of that. 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

It doesn't... instead it falsifies your claim that we would have found evidence of it since modern tech. is generally better built and more durable to last millions of years.  

How does it falsify my claim that we would have found evidence of it? We have found technology that is that old and it is close to the technology we expect to find from around those times. Occasionally we have a really exciting find and discover our initial assumptions were a few thousand years off. We have yet to find any evidence that farming occurred 2 million years ago. Until we find that evidence, there is no reason at all to believe it existed. We might all be part of a fancy computer program and be nothing but a big fancy computer, but it is completely irrational to believe that unless there is evidence that suggests we are. There is no evidence. 

 

caposkia wrote:

nor has ever had the authority to do so under the Law... and yet it would still be irrational for them to try... which is why it's irrational for you to try to categorize God under humanistic actions of murder when He judges based on the Law.

It is irrational to assume that just because a being is powerful that it is good and/or moral. 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Misc. -- Image Upload on the definition of the term 'Yom"

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

 



 

 

___________

   Suppli .  Comment  :: What that ICR's  MORRIS,  GISH  AND especially HAM need is   a) To Introduce Falsifiability  in adopting a true characteristic of science which allows the falsifiability of its' theories  b) Give me the money and I will do a real  Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, for real.  That would do the Institute  proud.  Instead of coming across like a  pop-up book (pretty)! Graphic artists can go back to starving! Seriously! Covering everything from Beam spans -- Torsional and shear stresses -- to Hull integrity; based on the anecdotal information reported from alleged eyewitness accounts which talk of beams of 24'' or 26'' square  within  the  dimensional Beam,  including the spans and failure point(s)  .. to working backwards  to find out just what it would take to endure the highly dynamic monster waves, which rarely are conditions such to exist , etc.  c) Immediately scrap/discarded  Fun land plans for a Theme park (not money well spent Matt. 25:22-26,  parable of the talents)  And d)  Implementation of serious computational modeling of what the seas would be like in a Super Storm.   For any lurkers   I am willing to offer my services.  Contact me through my Yahoo! account.

  F i n


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Evasive

caposkia wrote:

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?  

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. 

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:

caposkia wrote:

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'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)

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).

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:
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.

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. 

caposkia wrote:

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

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

caposkia wrote:

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?  

Addressed above.

caposkia wrote:

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.  

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? 

caposkia wrote:

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?  

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

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)

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. 

 

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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The bible is very clear, on day 3 he made vegetation and fruit. On day 4 he created "two great lights" the Sun and the Moon. Then the stars. We know that it was the other way around, so the Bible is wrong about the order (and wrong that the moon is a light and that the sun is different from the stars and wrong that it all occurred in a span of days). We know that land existed before the oceans, we know that life existed before our current oxygen atmosphere and we know that many species had come and gone long before humans. We also know that humans were not human originally. We know that humans are mammals and are not significantly different than other mammals.

The Bible is simply completely wrong about the order and the length of time all these things took to form. It is exactly what you would expect to be thought up by an ignorant person with no scientific knowledge. Could there be a God? Sure, it is a possibility. Is the Bible an accurate representation of what happened? Clearly not. So either no God exists or the Bible is not an accurate representation of God.   

yet that response is what you would expect by an ignorant person with no Biblical knowledge.  (no offense intended, just using your words)

The problem with your claim of time frame is it's a translational issue, not a origins issue.  The word in Hebrew was translated day... then in another part of Genesis, "generation".. yet in another part "ages"... in other words.. the original writer intended it to be a reference to a process that happened, then ended and had steps to it... in no way can we see from the original language any specifics as to how long all that really took.  We translated it into "days" because it is the easiest way to portray a process of a series of time periods of creation to the amateur reader.  Yes, they could have used other words and if I had a say in it, I would have suggested so as well, but day is the easiest way to understand that a period of time passed and also that a process of work started and ended.   It also brings home the whole reference to the night and day reference by the writer.  Considering that, if the writer really thought it was all in reference to a 24 hour period, it would be sensible to think they would use the Hebrew word for "day" which they did not.  

Considering your claim of the Bible being wrong about when the sun and moon were created, to confirm this you must know what the light was on the first day then... if it wasn't the sun, moon or stars, what was it?  If it was one of those, then why have such a reference in a later time period to being created?  

Also, the bible is not an exhaustive concordance of history, it is a timeline of literally a specific family genealogy.  It did say that the beasts of the Earth were created before people... as to what species came and went before humans came that's up for debate and the Bible gives no reference to any of that including how long it really was before people came.  

You say we "know" that humans were not human originally... due to fossil gaps, I have a hard time buying that.... and yes there are gaps.  I have had extensive discussions on this very topic and despite desperate efforts to fill in those gaps, they still existed.  namely that the creatures that humans allegedly evolved from have particular features that according to fossil records were there one day and then suddenly were gone the next... no evidence of those features evolving away... one of them namely would be the indented brow that was very pronounced in the alleged predecessors.  

and just to finish this off, it would be ignorant of anyone to think that a human writer of of 2nd millenium B.C. would have any scientific knowledge to the degree they would need to comprehend how long creation would actually take.  All in all, your conclusion about the Bible is poorly researched and not well thought out.    Sorry

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

really... you're sure about that?

*sigh* Yes. We have been over this a million times. Infants cannot commit murder, there was at least 1 infant on the planet, God drowned that infant. You have admitted to all of that. 

*sigh* but it was the people who brought on the demise of humanity by the law, not the infants... unless you're suggesting that infants were to blame for the adults actions.  infants are always the victims of adult issues.    this is where you go back to special pleading about how God could have spared them...

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

How does it falsify my claim that we would have found evidence of it? We have found technology that is that old and it is close to the technology we expect to find from around those times. Occasionally we have a really exciting find and discover our initial assumptions were a few thousand years off. We have yet to find any evidence that farming occurred 2 million years ago. Until we find that evidence, there is no reason at all to believe it existed. We might all be part of a fancy computer program and be nothing but a big fancy computer, but it is completely irrational to believe that unless there is evidence that suggests we are. There is no evidence. 

It's irrational to assume something isn't just because you haven't found it yet.  That's what that was all about.  We're still finding something new that we wouldn't expect to find even in just the last few years. 

Beyond Saving wrote:

It is irrational to assume that just because a being is powerful that it is good and/or moral. 

that's why I don't assume that based on power.  We've been discussing a lot of assumptions, where did you get the idea that I was basing morality off of power?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Misc.

danatemporary wrote:

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

 



 

 

copied from: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yom_with_number.pdf

 

"The Hebrew Word “Yom” Used with a Number in Genesis 1

Whatdoes“yom”meaninGenesis1?

 by Rodney Whitefield, Ph.D.

© Rodney Whitefield 2006 This document may be freely distributed provided it is complete and unchanged.

Recently, a reader of my book Reading Genesis One 1

asked about the use of a number with the Hebrew

word “yom.” Specifically, I was asked to comment on the statement, “Day” with numerical adjectives in

Hebrew always refers to a 24 hour period.”, which appears in John MacArthur’s Study Bible in reference

to Genesis 1:5.

The quoted statement is one which is commonly offered to justify eliminating the long “extended period of

time” meaning of the Hebrew word “yom” in Genesis 1:3-31. Eliminating the “extended period” or “age”

meaning would then give support for a 24 hour interpretation for the duration of the creative times. In the

first chapter of Genesis, the singular Hebrew word “yom” appears with a number at the conclusion of

each of the creative times. Subsequently, in this article, “yom” refers to this singular Hebrew word form.

In order to illustrate the differing opinions which have been offered as interpretation, I will very briefly

quote two well-known Bible scholars about the numbering of the word “yom.” Both scholars hold “extended

period” or “age” views of the meaning of “yom” as describing the duration of the creative times.

Subsequently, I will explain why the opinion of these two scholars has substantial support in the Hebrew,

in contradiction to the claim in the MacArthur Study Bible. First the quotes:

Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pages 60-61, Baker 1982:

“ There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days

of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite

article in the Hebrew text; the translations “the first day,” “ the second day,” etc., are in error. The Hebrew

says, “And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one” (1:5). Hebrew expresses “the first

day” by hayyom harison, but this text says simply yom ehad (day one). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom

hasseni (“the second day&rdquoEye-wink but yom seni (“a second day&rdquoEye-wink. In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite

article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be

omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well

adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.”

Gleason Archer was Associate Editor of the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. In the quote above,

the first two italicized letters ha of words like harison indicate the Hebrew prefix “heh” meaning “the.”

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, page 271, Zondervan 1999:

“Numbered days need not be solar. Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all numbered

days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days. Even if there were no exceptions in the Old Testament, it

would not mean that “day” in Genesis 1 could not refer to more than one twenty-four-hour period. But there

is another example in the Old Testament. Hosea 6:1-2 . . . . . . Clearly the prophet is not speaking of solar

“days” but of longer periods in the future. Yet he numbers the days in series.”

Now, given MacArthur’s statement and the above two quotes, a reader of the Bible is faced with contradictory

claims by established authorities. How is this to be resolved? My view is that MacArthur’s statement is not

supported by the underlying Hebrew text, and that the Hebrew text does support Archer and Geisler. My

analysis will first consider the numbering of the singular word “yom” from the numbers two (second)

through six (sixth).

1. READING GENESIS ONE: Comparing Biblical Hebrew with English Translation ISBN 0-9728782-0-3 The book is

available from Amazon.com The Table of Contents is available for viewing online at the website creationingenesis.com

1 of 3"


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'm not

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.  

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

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. 

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.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:yet that

caposkia wrote:

yet that response is what you would expect by an ignorant person with no Biblical knowledge.  (no offense intended, just using your words)

I freely admit I have not spent a lot of time studying the bible. There is too much real knowledge to devote my valuable brain capacity to. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem with your claim of time frame is it's a translational issue, not a origins issue.  The word in Hebrew was translated day... then in another part of Genesis, "generation".. yet in another part "ages"... in other words.. the original writer intended it to be a reference to a process that happened, then ended and had steps to it... in no way can we see from the original language any specifics as to how long all that really took.  We translated it into "days" because it is the easiest way to portray a process of a series of time periods of creation to the amateur reader.  Yes, they could have used other words and if I had a say in it, I would have suggested so as well, but day is the easiest way to understand that a period of time passed and also that a process of work started and ended.   It also brings home the whole reference to the night and day reference by the writer.  Considering that, if the writer really thought it was all in reference to a 24 hour period, it would be sensible to think they would use the Hebrew word for "day" which they did not.

Which makes it even more unlikely that vegetation existed before the sun. It could theoretically survive one day without sunlight. It cannot survive for ages. I'm skeptical of your explanation about the time because the bible says there was evening and then there was morning for every day. It doesn't say there were many evenings then many mornings. But I'll let it slide as a translation issue, although that brings into question why I should take everything else in the bible literally when there are known translation issues. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Considering your claim of the Bible being wrong about when the sun and moon were created, to confirm this you must know what the light was on the first day then... if it wasn't the sun, moon or stars, what was it?  If it was one of those, then why have such a reference in a later time period to being created?  

I don't know, those are great questions which don't have an apparent answer and provide a good reason to doubt the story. I don't claim the story has any truth whatsoever, you do, so when it appears to contradict reality it is your job to explain why it doesn't, not mine. The great thing about fantasy is that it isn't constricted by the rules of reality so you can just make up a light source regardless of whether or not it could have existed. Kind of like George Lucas didn't really feel a need to explain why Death Stars had such obvious construction flaws that a single missile could destroy them- he left that up to Family Guy.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

Also, the bible is not an exhaustive concordance of history, it is a timeline of literally a specific family genealogy.  It did say that the beasts of the Earth were created before people... as to what species came and went before humans came that's up for debate and the Bible gives no reference to any of that including how long it really was before people came.

According to the bible he did it all in the same "day". 

 

caposkia wrote:

You say we "know" that humans were not human originally... due to fossil gaps, I have a hard time buying that.... and yes there are gaps.  I have had extensive discussions on this very topic and despite desperate efforts to fill in those gaps, they still existed.  namely that the creatures that humans allegedly evolved from have particular features that according to fossil records were there one day and then suddenly were gone the next... no evidence of those features evolving away... one of them namely would be the indented brow that was very pronounced in the alleged predecessors.

The classification of human is pretty arbitrary. We know there were many species of intelligent hominids that made tools, built fires and contributed to our DNA. So were they human insofar as the bible is concerned? 

 

caposkia wrote:

and just to finish this off, it would be ignorant of anyone to think that a human writer of of 2nd millenium B.C. would have any scientific knowledge to the degree they would need to comprehend how long creation would actually take.  All in all, your conclusion about the Bible is poorly researched and not well thought out.    Sorry

Of course they were ignorant. That is why they came up with such an absurd explanation. And I didn't research, I read the first page and I found that the claimed order is completely wrong. I notice you didn't address any of the issues with the order of things. Whether a day is a day or a million years is irrelevant to the order things came to be. And if the order is wrong in Genesis because the rubes who wrote it down made a mistake, does that not imply there might be other mistakes in the bible as well and therefore it should not be taken literally without evidence beyond the bible?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

*sigh* Yes. We have been over this a million times. Infants cannot commit murder, there was at least 1 infant on the planet, God drowned that infant. You have admitted to all of that. 

caposkia wrote:

*sigh* but it was the people who brought on the demise of humanity by the law, not the infants... unless you're suggesting that infants were to blame for the adults actions.  infants are always the victims of adult issues.    this is where you go back to special pleading about how God could have spared them...

 

No it isn't. 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

 

caposkia wrote:

It's irrational to assume something isn't just because you haven't found it yet.  That's what that was all about.  We're still finding something new that we wouldn't expect to find even in just the last few years.

I am not assuming anything doesn't exist. I am saying there is no evidence that it exists and therefore it is foolish to believe it does exist absent evidence. There is no evidence that people farmed 2 million years ago, there is a lot of reasons to believe that they probably didn't because we have found the technology they used and it was not sufficient to farm. It is possible that some point in the future we will have some great find. Until that is done, there is no more reason to believe they farmed than there is to believe they had spaceships. You have exactly as much evidence for your explanation as Scientologists.

 

caposkia wrote:

that's why I don't assume that based on power.  We've been discussing a lot of assumptions, where did you get the idea that I was basing morality off of power?

You have repeatedly said that God defined what is good when he created us and whatever God says is good, is good solely on the basis that he created us. 

Post #606

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Considering sin, this being doesn't hold a different morality, or if He does, then it is us that has a lower morality, not God.  God asks for animal sacrifices.  

How do you know that God's morality is better than ours? 

God created us based on His own characteristics, based on that alone, we could not have a higher morality than He.  Also, our morality seems quite subjective to the situation and has changed dramatically from one moment to the next let alone one generation to another.  God's morality is objective to the Laws He put forth and have not changed as far as we can tell from the beginning.

Post #651

Beyond Saving wrote:

Unless you can explain to me why you blindly accept whatever god says is good as good I don't think this particular tangent can go further.

caposkia wrote:

Beyond that we believe what God has defined as good is good because He created in our hearts and minds what is determined as good or not?  

 

You even once said that if God decided rape was moral it would be moral. 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

The simple answer is yes... but you have to understand that if rape was moral it wouldn't be considered rape as we understand it to be which is a very immoral act... our whole dynamic of morality would be different because it is based off of God's morals.

So if God was what we today called pure evil, you would still call him good and moral. Why? The only reason you have to offer is that he created us. So solely on the basis that he had the power to create us you give him absolute moral authority. 

 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:No I

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.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

yet that response is what you would expect by an ignorant person with no Biblical knowledge.  (no offense intended, just using your words)

I freely admit I have not spent a lot of time studying the bible. There is too much real knowledge to devote my valuable brain capacity to. 

I understand your take on it, but to argue as you are, it might be beneficial to have some of that... I don't know what you'd call it... fake knowledge????    

If anything, it's real to the point that the Hebrew language is a historical written language and teaches you a lot about the culture that used its written form.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Which makes it even more unlikely that vegetation existed before the sun. It could theoretically survive one day without sunlight. It cannot survive for ages. I'm skeptical of your explanation about the time because the bible says there was evening and then there was morning for every day. It doesn't say there were many evenings then many mornings. But I'll let it slide as a translation issue, although that brings into question why I should take everything else in the bible literally when there are known translation issues. 

well first, you shouldn't take everything else literally and you should always double check with translational issues and/or contextual and generation gap issues that also exist.  I know most Christians don't do that. 

The thing with believers is, whether we believe it happened in 7,000 years or 7 billion years, it doesn't change the core beliefs of Christianity and is not necessary knowledge for following Jesus Christ.   a lot of Christians consider details like these non-consequential. Talking to people like you make me realize how important it is to understand these alleged "non-consequentials".  

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?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I don't know, those are great questions which don't have an apparent answer and provide a good reason to doubt the story. I don't claim the story has any truth whatsoever, you do, so when it appears to contradict reality it is your job to explain why it doesn't, not mine. The great thing about fantasy is that it isn't constricted by the rules of reality so you can just make up a light source regardless of whether or not it could have existed. Kind of like George Lucas didn't really feel a need to explain why Death Stars had such obvious construction flaws that a single missile could destroy them- he left that up to Family Guy.

I agree we don't have an answer to that... we just don't know... but I don't see that as a reason to doubt it especially with the understanding of how the story was written.  The problem with your conclusion about it being fantasy is that if people writing it wanted it to be seen as fantasy, they would have made a lot more fanatical claims as consistent with other intentionally fanatical stories, however, if they were trying to trick people into thinking it was real as many non-believers claim about scripture, they would have been careful not to add anything that would make people question its validity.  

For the record because it seems others are missing my intentions here.. I'm not using this as a reason to believe it, only as a rationality to not discredit it based on such information.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

According to the bible he did it all in the same "day". 

if you read the link I posted to dana's reply, it talks about how the literal Hebrew used a unique phrasing of words to describe these days as "a day" not "the day"... which basically means is that after the creation period ended a day also ended.. it could have been day 1 or day 10,000,000, but it was a day that ended at the end of that period.  So according to the Bible, it happened all in the same time period and not necessarily a 24 hour time period... likely with a small break between creation periods.  

The link explains it better, so please read that before critiquing what i wrote... 

Beyond Saving wrote:

The classification of human is pretty arbitrary. We know there were many species of intelligent hominids that made tools, built fires and contributed to our DNA. So were they human insofar as the bible is concerned? 

As far as I understand it, humans were humans... if there were diferent species of intelligent hominids, I would assume they all would have also had to have some sort of recognizable complex spoken language like humans do and a means of building and creating... sounds like they had at least a part of that.  

The Bible makes no mention of species of humans.  I don't know the answer to that.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Of course they were ignorant. That is why they came up with such an absurd explanation. And I didn't research, I read the first page and I found that the claimed order is completely wrong. I notice you didn't address any of the issues with the order of things. Whether a day is a day or a million years is irrelevant to the order things came to be. And if the order is wrong in Genesis because the rubes who wrote it down made a mistake, does that not imply there might be other mistakes in the bible as well and therefore it should not be taken literally without evidence beyond the bible?

There are other mistakes in scripture... like numbers and names.  However, those do not change the point of the story or the possibility of the story happening as told.  e.g. instead of Bob doing X, Phil did X, and instead of it happening in the Soviet Union, it happened in Russia.  In other words, writers sometimes used the names of places that they knew of in their time vs. what the place was probably called in the time the story is said to take place.  Dating is known to not be exact either.  

None of this however is unique to the Bible and can be found in many other ancient scripts of the same caliber.  Resources were very limited and many times stories were told before being written... when witnessed, a lot of times they were notated later, then compiled even later... eventually to be scribed by monks even later.  You can research that of all ancient texts that go though this process, the Bible scriptures happen to be the most consistent through the ages which leads most to believe that they are also the most accurate to the originals vs. other texts of similar caliber.  

..but with that said, I also take science, external history, archaeology and personal experience among other things into consideration for my belief... so i don't rely just on scripture to believe in God.   Scripture is my guide once I believe to better understand God and my purpose in life.  

I have also learned and take into consideration many things people like you have told me.  That has also helped me grow in my following.  

So agreed, it should not be taken literally wihtout evidence beyond the Bible... the Bible doesn't teach me the language, writing styles and literature of the times, historical congruencies, discrepencies in scientific understanding then and now, etc...  It does teach me who God is, why I'm here and how I should be living my life.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

No it isn't. 

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

sounds about right.  God doesn't work by double standards... God wanted to destroy humanity due to the fact that they had nothing but evil in their hearts continuously..  infants were human... to claim that they were ok, were surviving and thriving, or that even one was destroyed by God without considering that the one if not destroyed by God could have either suffered and died because there would have been no adult left to take care of them or would not have been destroyed by an adult before the end is special pleading.    It's suggesting that these people were evil... oh, but not that evil because they would never do bad stuff to their young ones.  

 This link doesn't exactly make the issue easier to understand because it only compares adults to other adults.  Point and case though, there is no double standard when it comes to God.  Consider there's no God... I'm sure that's easy for you.  If humanity manages to destroy itself. (which many believe is an inevitability)  will infants survive or die?  If they die, why?  they didn't do anything to destroy humanity.  

I know where you'll likely go with this, that in my example there's no one that can make a choice to save them, but with God He had a choice... But this is where I say humanity ultimately destroyed itself by turning allegedly pure evil.  Humans can make a choice today to not destroy itself.  But we won't.   God only executed a consequence based on the law... which in this case was total destruction.   Just as in my scenario, adult humans are and were responsible for the deaths of any young ones considering they weren't already killed.  There's really no other way to put it.  The worst consequence for a parent is to know your child suffered because of something you've done.  It's never the child's fault.  

Again we can only make assumptions about what these people were like, about how kids were surviving and what life was like for them... and if they were spared, what would become of them or would it have ultimately been worse?  e.g. long suffering to death vs. drowning.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I am not assuming anything doesn't exist. I am saying there is no evidence that it exists and therefore it is foolish to believe it does exist absent evidence. There is no evidence that people farmed 2 million years ago, there is a lot of reasons to believe that they probably didn't because we have found the technology they used and it was not sufficient to farm. It is possible that some point in the future we will have some great find. Until that is done, there is no more reason to believe they farmed than there is to believe they had spaceships. You have exactly as much evidence for your explanation as Scientologists.

that is a logical conclusion based on the subject being discussed.  I don't base my belief off of Genesis chronology or the flood story.  Due to what I understand based on many other factors, I deduce that these stories are true.  

There's no evidence that people farmed 2 million years ago, there's also no evidence that I dug holes with my hands in my back yard and planted sunflowers 10 years ago... it doesn't mean I didn't do that... and yes farming can be that simple.  I'm no historian, but I'd put my life savings on the idea that farming started without legitimate tools as found in archaeology.  

What there is evidence of is many other aspects of scripture including a person in history whom fits the character of the Biblical Jesus Christ and many of the kings mentioned in the OT among other things

Beyond Saving wrote:

You have repeatedly said that God defined what is good when he created us and whatever God says is good, is good solely on the basis that he created us. 

Post #606

But that's not basing on "power".  The fact that God created everything that we know of into existence does play a factor in defining an understanding, but that's just position in stature, not power.  Parents define for a child what is good and bad, likewise God does that for us.  It is good to follow the Law and consequences for breaking the law are also good.  Those who have to suffer or even witness the suffering of the consequences may have a differing opinion of good, but that does not make the consequence or the law bad.  

Can I put this in perspective of the flood story?

I'm not sure how those people thought at the time... probably didn't think much beyond themselves, but I put myself in that situation where I was considered evil... which I would not deny.  If such a consequence came upon me,  I would understand that my son would also have to suffer it.  I would blame myself for not turning away from it all when I had the chance.  I would know that I brought that demise upon my family, not God.  God would have spared my whole family if even I had an ounce of repentance for my actions, but considering I was one of those people at that time, I wouldn't have.  It is such a terrible thought, but God would have destroyed no one if they had turned away from the evil God had seen.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

How do you know that God's morality is better than ours? 

God created us based on His own characteristics, based on that alone, we could not have a higher morality than He.  Also, our morality seems quite subjective to the situation and has changed dramatically from one moment to the next let alone one generation to another.  God's morality is objective to the Laws He put forth and have not changed as far as we can tell from the beginning.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Post #651

talks about good... and how it's ingrained into our hearts... So deep down we know what is good and what isn't, but morality still is subjective with us isn't it...  Lets just say a lot of "bad" according to God's law is moral to most of the world today, whereas so many years ago it would not have been so.  It takes years of modification, but we can convince ourselves beyond that ingrained good what is right and wrong according to our own standards... that does not change the origins that we are born with.  I'm not sure how this supports your take..

Beyond Saving wrote:

You even once said that if God decided rape was moral it would be moral. 

you're right, because it would be.. to even bring that up is such a hard concept to wrap our mind around, but consider morality of killing a cow for food.  people in India feel it's severely immoral, but Americans (in general) don't think twice about it.  

With your rape example, rape wouldn't be rape.  plain and simple.  It would just be another form of procreation... also likely if rape was moral, then possibly the opposite would be true that mutual sex would be immoral.  it's a twisted way of thinking about it, but considering the twisted example you brought up, we'd have to consider that likelihood.  

This immorality has been so ingrained from conception of creation that it's nearly impossible to perceive such a claim, but it is what it is, ingrained.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God was what we today called pure evil, you would still call him good and moral. Why? The only reason you have to offer is that he created us. So solely on the basis that he had the power to create us you give him absolute moral authority. 

...

I guess I'm not understanding how you can demote the one who created everything we know to be real including ourselves and abilities AND the Laws set forth in scripture that is the ultimate standard for humanity to follow.  

to me that's like a child having the ability to determine moral standards for their parents based on not agreeing with the consequences given because they broke the rules.  Maybe you can explain that a little further for me???

Considering your question of "why" to me.  I'm not sure I can answer that until I understand your position on demoting God to be subject to your morality as you have.  When answering I need to understand as if you believe that God is who scripture says He is. (almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.  Above all, ruler and creator)   It's just as boggling to me for you to have your position I think as you are about me accepting God as He is.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Ok, so before we proceed further, this is your definition (from the "flood thread&quotEye-wink of special pleading:

caposkia wrote:

..***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.

 

That's not what special pleading is at all. What special pleading is, is making an exception to a generally understood rule or convention, in order to incorrectly assert that your position is sound, when it really isn't. I have stated that I believe all scriptures of every religion to be myth. While they may reference real historical places, people, and yes, on occasion even events, I believe it is unwise to assume any of it as authentic unless verified from outside the scriptures.

I hold the above view on 100% of scriptures. My position is consistent. Either, now, you believe all scriptures are true? This would of course include the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon...and even that nutty Christian Science Textbook. Or do you not believe they all are true? If it's the first answer (which I know it's not, as you have stated you don't accept the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon as fully true) then you are definitely believing in an inconsistent set of propositions. Since we have ruled that out, it is the second one.

You do NOT believe that all scriptures of every religion are true. You do, however, believe that the Christian bible is. This is the part that is, by definition, special pleading. Let's lay this out again:

1. Many scriptures exist. You do not say about all of these scriptures "these are all true"

2. You do say about the bible "this is all true"

It is now your job to explain why you have chosen to make this one exception. Until you actually highlight why the bible sets itself apart in the realm of authenticity from these other scriptures, then special pleading is what you are doing. Pretty simple. 

 

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.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I understand

caposkia wrote:

I understand your take on it, but to argue as you are, it might be beneficial to have some of that... I don't know what you'd call it... fake knowledge????

I don't see why. Greek mythology is so much more entertaining.   

 

caposkia wrote:

If anything, it's real to the point that the Hebrew language is a historical written language and teaches you a lot about the culture that used its written form.

I'm sure it does. The only language I have studied in that manner is Chinese, which piqued my interest for awhile. 

 

caposkia wrote:

well first, you shouldn't take everything else literally and you should always double check with translational issues and/or contextual and generation gap issues that also exist.  I know most Christians don't do that. 

The thing with believers is, whether we believe it happened in 7,000 years or 7 billion years, it doesn't change the core beliefs of Christianity and is not necessary knowledge for following Jesus Christ.   a lot of Christians consider details like these non-consequential. Talking to people like you make me realize how important it is to understand these alleged "non-consequentials".

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:

I agree we don't have an answer to that... we just don't know... but I don't see that as a reason to doubt it especially with the understanding of how the story was written.  

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:

The problem with your conclusion about it being fantasy is that if people writing it wanted it to be seen as fantasy, they would have made a lot more fanatical claims as consistent with other intentionally fanatical stories, however, if they were trying to trick people into thinking it was real as many non-believers claim about scripture, they would have been careful not to add anything that would make people question its validity.

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.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

For the record because it seems others are missing my intentions here.. I'm not using this as a reason to believe it, only as a rationality to not discredit it based on such information.  

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?

 

caposkia wrote:

As far as I understand it, humans were humans... if there were diferent species of intelligent hominids, I would assume they all would have also had to have some sort of recognizable complex spoken language like humans do and a means of building and creating... sounds like they had at least a part of that.  

The Bible makes no mention of species of humans.  I don't know the answer to that.

Assuming they had complex spoken language is a huge assumption. Whether or not Neanderthals were anatomically capable of broad speech patterns is a great subject to get into if you want to start an argument at an anthropology convention. And even if they were anatomically capable of it, that does not necessarily translate into them actually creating a language. It is quite unlikely that homo-erectus, homo-ergaster and other species were anatomically capable of speech. Whether the had some kind of complex language is pure speculation. We know they lived in groups, built tools, fires, and hunted in groups.

Many argue that these activities suggest they had some form of language to cooperate at such levels. I'm not convinced. As someone who frequently hunts, my hunting partners and I frequently joke about how after a couple weeks in the field that language disappears and we revert to "caveman" speech patterns of grunts. A lot of information can be conveyed without speech and when you are hunting, hand signals are preferred to avoid scaring the prey, whistles and hoots can be heard more clearly over long distances and spoken language doesn't seem so necessary.

Many others argue that those species didn't have advanced enough brains to create anything beyond the most basic speech. That they were able to create rudimentary hand signals and basic sounds to convey basic ideas and emotions on a level similar to Koko. 

Of course, that doesn't demonstrate that language didn't exist, only that it is not a necessity. The problem is that the spoken word leaves absolutely no physical evidence, so all we have is anatomy and speculation. How language formed is probably a piece of the puzzle we will never have unless time travel is possible. Some point in the future we might be able to create a species and observe how they create language. Probably not in our lifetimes though. 

 

caposkia wrote:
 

There are other mistakes in scripture... like numbers and names.  However, those do not change the point of the story or the possibility of the story happening as told.  e.g. instead of Bob doing X, Phil did X, and instead of it happening in the Soviet Union, it happened in Russia.  In other words, writers sometimes used the names of places that they knew of in their time vs. what the place was probably called in the time the story is said to take place.  Dating is known to not be exact either.

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? 

 

caposkia wrote:

None of this however is unique to the Bible and can be found in many other ancient scripts of the same caliber.  Resources were very limited and many times stories were told before being written... when witnessed, a lot of times they were notated later, then compiled even later... eventually to be scribed by monks even later.  You can research that of all ancient texts that go though this process, the Bible scriptures happen to be the most consistent through the ages which leads most to believe that they are also the most accurate to the originals vs. other texts of similar caliber.  

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. 

 

caposkia wrote:

..but with that said, I also take science, external history, archaeology and personal experience among other things into consideration for my belief... so i don't rely just on scripture to believe in God.   Scripture is my guide once I believe to better understand God and my purpose in life.

Yet you have no scientific or historical evidence of god.

 

caposkia wrote:
 

I have also learned and take into consideration many things people like you have told me.  That has also helped me grow in my following.  

So agreed, it should not be taken literally wihtout evidence beyond the Bible... the Bible doesn't teach me the language, writing styles and literature of the times, historical congruencies, discrepencies in scientific understanding then and now, etc...  It does teach me who God is, why I'm here and how I should be living my life.

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

 

caposkia wrote:

that is a logical conclusion based on the subject being discussed.  I don't base my belief off of Genesis chronology or the flood story.  Due to what I understand based on many other factors, I deduce that these stories are true.  

There's no evidence that people farmed 2 million years ago, there's also no evidence that I dug holes with my hands in my back yard and planted sunflowers 10 years ago... it doesn't mean I didn't do that... and yes farming can be that simple.  I'm no historian, but I'd put my life savings on the idea that farming started without legitimate tools as found in archaeology.  

What there is evidence of is many other aspects of scripture including a person in history whom fits the character of the Biblical Jesus Christ and many of the kings mentioned in the OT among other things

There probably is evidence that you planted sunflowers 10 years ago if you did unless you went through great pains to try to hide it. Whether or not anyone will ever find that evidence is an open question.

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.

Like I said, the flood story makes complete sense if you look at it as myth based on a real event. If Noah was a man from a village that was devastated in a terrible flood and took shelter inside a boat with his family and a few farm animals. Perhaps, they were the only people to survive from the village and went on to start up a new village. The myth simply takes a few literary liberties by including a warning from God, claiming it was the whole world rather than just Noah's village (which for his purposes was his whole world), and a few domesticated animals being exaggerated into every animal on the planet.

Those exaggerations aren't any more significant than Homer claiming that Achilles was invulnerable except for his heel. In fact, I find it quite plausible that there was a warrior named Achilles who killed many of the enemy and people believed he was invincible until he was wounded on his heel which then got infected and caused him to die.

It is foolish to believe supernatural claims just because they include a few real life characters. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter includes a very real historical character too.

   

caposkia wrote:

But that's not basing on "power".  The fact that God created everything that we know of into existence does play a factor in defining an understanding, but that's just position in stature, not power.  Parents define for a child what is good and bad, likewise God does that for us.  It is good to follow the Law and consequences for breaking the law are also good.  Those who have to suffer or even witness the suffering of the consequences may have a differing opinion of good, but that does not make the consequence or the law bad.  

Can I put this in perspective of the flood story?

I'm not sure how those people thought at the time... probably didn't think much beyond themselves, but I put myself in that situation where I was considered evil... which I would not deny.  If such a consequence came upon me,  I would understand that my son would also have to suffer it.  I would blame myself for not turning away from it all when I had the chance.  I would know that I brought that demise upon my family, not God.  God would have spared my whole family if even I had an ounce of repentance for my actions, but considering I was one of those people at that time, I wouldn't have.  It is such a terrible thought, but God would have destroyed no one if they had turned away from the evil God had seen.

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.  

 

caposkia wrote:
 

talks about good... and how it's ingrained into our hearts... So deep down we know what is good and what isn't, but morality still is subjective with us isn't it...  Lets just say a lot of "bad" according to God's law is moral to most of the world today, whereas so many years ago it would not have been so.  It takes years of modification, but we can convince ourselves beyond that ingrained good what is right and wrong according to our own standards... that does not change the origins that we are born with.  I'm not sure how this supports your take..

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?

 

caposkia wrote:

you're right, because it would be.. to even bring that up is such a hard concept to wrap our mind around, but consider morality of killing a cow for food.  people in India feel it's severely immoral, but Americans (in general) don't think twice about it.  

With your rape example, rape wouldn't be rape.  plain and simple.  It would just be another form of procreation... also likely if rape was moral, then possibly the opposite would be true that mutual sex would be immoral.  it's a twisted way of thinking about it, but considering the twisted example you brought up, we'd have to consider that likelihood.  

This immorality has been so ingrained from conception of creation that it's nearly impossible to perceive such a claim, but it is what it is, ingrained.

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.

 

caposkia wrote:

...

I guess I'm not understanding how you can demote the one who created everything we know to be real including ourselves and abilities AND the Laws set forth in scripture that is the ultimate standard for humanity to follow.  

to me that's like a child having the ability to determine moral standards for their parents based on not agreeing with the consequences given because they broke the rules.  Maybe you can explain that a little further for me???

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. 

 

 

caposkia wrote:

Considering your question of "why" to me.  I'm not sure I can answer that until I understand your position on demoting God to be subject to your morality as you have.  When answering I need to understand as if you believe that God is who scripture says He is. (almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.  Above all, ruler and creator)   It's just as boggling to me for you to have your position I think as you are about me accepting God as He is.  

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.  

 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of conversation . . .

For the  sake of conversation  . . .

 See :: Image 5 Dvd Box Set  --

What the living BEEEEP happened to the Giants?

 See :: Image --

 

[IMG=http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8719/fr9n.jpg][/IMG]

 

  Haven't had a glance myself,  however, within the local lore and Newspaper clippings, from the 19th Century, do speak of burial sites that have been found in Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky and New York, and they're burial sites similar to the well-known mounds featured in the Ad  for  the Box  Set. When during the 19th Century's colorful interest in them.
 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Serpent mound isn't even

 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. 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A cross between Herbert W. Armstrong's & David Icke, I think:

Beyond Saving wrote:

  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. 

   I was hoping to just bounce this off of Caposkia than anything else. And, Discretion is the better part of valor.  I don't feel comfortable in commenting on a series I haven't actually sat down and took the time to watch for myself, (*cough* Caposkia).  I almost broke down and bought the series But, I almost broke down, just yesterday, in my truck; so I might have to deal with that first, before frivolous spending or I am walking. My knowledge about this series is fragmentary, by knowledge I mean what these two are espousing. It so bad I was going by cover art at points for some of one of the ministers' take on the site. It is blatant eisegesis, reading in any mention of "serpents", they view through this self-imposed len. Complex interaction between  many prehistoric cultures existed undoubtedly; which clouds the issues. Enough so to where anomalous findings allow for any pet crack-pot  theory to be given life with no regard as to  what the actual findings must actually signify. But, I am breaking a rule in characterizing them without knowing enough of their position to do so fairly. There are less than subtle signs my characterization may be right.

 

  As you already know .. F.Y.I. --  The 19th Century reporting standards in Newspapers were notnotorious for their melodramatic flare   without a shed of factual reporting Britain/United-States

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
. . Greek Myth is so much more entertaining . .

  **Attributions Wiki page; Attributions to that 'notorious' tertiary source of Wikipedia

   In Greek myth, Athena was to have sprang fully clad in armor, chastity in tact (phew), no thanks to attempted rapes (See Quote), from Zeus's head. Many ancient accounts didn't require Vaginal intercourse or conventional mating to conceive offspring for various gods, throughout the world, going way back.  "(Quote)According to the Bibliotheca, Athena visited the smith-god Hephaestus to request some weapons, but Hephaestus was so overcome by desire that he tried to seduce her in his workshop. Determined to maintain her virginity, Athena fled, pursued by Hephaestus. Despite Hephaestus' lameness, he caught Athena and tried to rape her, but she fought him off. During the struggle, his semen fell on her thigh, and Athena, in disgust, wiped it away with a scrap of wool (ἔριον, erion) and flung it to the earth (χθών, chthôn). As she fled, Erichthonius was born from the semen that fell to the earth. Athena, wishing to raise the child in secret, placed him in a small box.Athena gave the box to the three daughters of Cecrops, the king of Athens (Herse, Pandrosus and Aglaurus), and warned them never to open it. Overcome with curiosity, Aglaurus and Herse opened the box, which contained the infant and future-king, Erichthonius ("troubles born from the earth" ). (Sources are unclear whether only one sister or all three participated.) The sisters were terrified by what they saw in the box: either a snake coiled around an infant, or an infant that was half-man and half-serpent. They went insane and threw themselves off the Acropolis. Other accounts state that they were killed by the snake". Outside of the violent act of the attempted rape of Athena. Focus on the,  giant snake was often depicted behind the sheild of Athena, I imagine this is the back-story. The Hellenistic Greco Gigantomachy on yonder not so holy hill. Apollo's son, who had a cult following around the black sea, was a snake. One of the second through seven Chakras speaks of a Cobra at the base of the spine. Another snake (jewish accent) ?!? These guys would have a field day if they actually knew their mythology.  Again, consult Dana . . But Nnooooo. Mashugana!!

 

  In the king james version only of the English Bible there is a verse about the Tribe of Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse's heel, so that the rider shall fall backward

Now armchair Theologians like to take any reference to a thing, rip it utterly out of context and place it precariously in a spot to prop up their own pet theory. But, Nice folks.

 

 p.s. -- I could be wrong but It seems to be a unnatural cross between Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God and your David Icke.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
A cross between Herbert W. Armstrong's & David Icke, I think:

  Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
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.

   I was hoping to just bounce this off of Caposkia than anything else. And, Discretion is the better part of valor.  I don't feel comfortable in commenting on a series I haven't actually sat down and took the time to watch for myself, (*cough* Caposkia).  I almost broke down and bought the series But, I almost broke down, just yesterday, in my truck; so I might have to deal with that first, before frivolous spending or I am walking. My knowledge about this series is fragmentary, by knowledge I mean what these two are espousing. It so bad I was going by cover art at points for some of one of the ministers' take on the site. It is blatant eisegesis, reading in any mention of "serpents", they view through this self-imposed len. Complex interaction between  many prehistoric cultures existed undoubtedly; which clouds the issues. Enough so to where anomalous findings allow for any pet crack-pot  theory to be given life with no regard as to  what the actual findings must actually signify. But, I am breaking a rule in characterizing them without knowing enough of their position to do so fairly. There are less than subtle signs my characterization may be right.

 

  As you already know .. F.Y.I. --  The 19th Century reporting standards in Newspapers were notnotorious for their melodramatic flare   without a shed of factual reporting Britain/United-States

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
. . Greek Myth is so much more entertaining . .

  **Attributions Wiki page; Attributions to that 'notorious' tertiary source of Wikipedia

   In Greek myth, Athena was to have sprang fully clad in armor, chastity in tact (phew), no thanks to attempted rapes (See Quote), from Zeus's head. Many ancient accounts didn't require Vaginal intercourse or conventional mating to conceive offspring for various gods, throughout the world, going way back.  "(Quote)According to the Bibliotheca, Athena visited the smith-god Hephaestus to request some weapons, but Hephaestus was so overcome by desire that he tried to seduce her in his workshop. Determined to maintain her virginity, Athena fled, pursued by Hephaestus. Despite Hephaestus' lameness, he caught Athena and tried to rape her, but she fought him off. During the struggle, his semen fell on her thigh, and Athena, in disgust, wiped it away with a scrap of wool (ἔριον, erion) and flung it to the earth (χθών, chthôn). As she fled, Erichthonius was born from the semen that fell to the earth. Athena, wishing to raise the child in secret, placed him in a small box.Athena gave the box to the three daughters of Cecrops, the king of Athens (Herse, Pandrosus and Aglaurus), and warned them never to open it. Overcome with curiosity, Aglaurus and Herse opened the box, which contained the infant and future-king, Erichthonius ("troubles born from the earth" ). (Sources are unclear whether only one sister or all three participated.) The sisters were terrified by what they saw in the box: either a snake coiled around an infant, or an infant that was half-man and half-serpent. They went insane and threw themselves off the Acropolis. Other accounts state that they were killed by the snake". Outside of the violent act of the attempted rape of Athena. Focus on the,  giant snake was often depicted behind the sheild of Athena, I imagine this is the back-story. The Hellenistic Greco Gigantomachy on yonder not so holy hill. Apollo's son, who had a cult following around the black sea, was a snake. One of the second through seven Chakras speaks of a Cobra at the base of the spine. Another snake (jewish accent) ?!? These guys would have a field day if they actually knew their mythology.  Again, consult Dana . . But Nnooooo. Mashugana!!

 

  In the king james version only of the English Bible there is a verse about the Tribe of Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse's heel, so that the rider shall fall backward

Now armchair Theologians like to take any reference to a thing, rip it utterly out of context and place it precariously in a spot to prop up their own pet theory. But, Nice folks.

 

 p.s. -- I could be wrong but It seems to be a unnatural cross between Herbert W. Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God and your David Icke.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:a few times

caposkia wrote:
a few times before I post them yes.

Not enough times.

caposkia wrote:
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?

If you want to keep insisting the sky is red after I've proved it is blue, that's your prerogative. It is typical of theism, and unsurprising. There's noone to blame but you, so that you are surprised I laugh at your unqualified and unsupported arguments against logic and actual critiques supported by evidence just makes me laugh harder.

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

If you'd seen it and taken the time to understand it the first time I wrote it you'd have stopped responding with garbage more than two months ago.

caposkia wrote:
I could claim the same

You'd be lying.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: maybe you

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
With the presented equation

With the presented equation it gets exponentially worse, because I proved at least 20 different variables were false in just a few sentences. So the presented equation is absolutely useless and says absolutely nothing about the probability of life.

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

And every one of them is equally flawed. If there is one that isn't, show it to me. I've never seen it before.

And so we don't forget, your entire equation was hypothetical. Also, approximately 99% of my refutations were factual, not hypothetical. The only hypothetical refute was against the hypothetical positing of dark matter.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:instead of

caposkia wrote:
instead of being redundant, I decided to skip to this post be it that pretty much all the other posts are going to have the same response.

When you repeat the same bullshit over and over, I'll repeat the same refutations over and over.

caposkia wrote:
You have not refuted the equation

Yes I have.

caposkia wrote:
your basing your conclusion on a hypothetical

A lie. As I previously stated, approximately 99% of my refutations were factual, not hypothetical.

caposkia wrote:
My assumptions are based on science, yours on... apparently highschool science... either way, it seems we're both making assumptions based on science

You can delude yourself, but you can't delude me.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:You claimed

caposkia wrote:
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.

You don't get a nobel prize for refuting obvious bullshit that ANY credible scientist would laugh at. Sorry.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

..***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.

 

That's not what special pleading is at all. What special pleading is, is making an exception to a generally understood rule or convention, in order to incorrectly assert that your position is sound, when it really isn't. I have stated that I believe all scriptures of every religion to be myth. While they may reference real historical places, people, and yes, on occasion even events, I believe it is unwise to assume any of it as authentic unless verified from outside the scriptures.

which is the process of determining that everything that does not fit with what one thinks is true is myth.  In other words, you justify your own understanding based on reasoning that has no basis rather than considering the alternative... this does go a bit beyond just special pleading, I'll give you that.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I hold the above view on 100% of scriptures. My position is consistent. Either, now, you believe all scriptures are true? This would of course include the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon...and even that nutty Christian Science Textbook. Or do you not believe they all are true? If it's the first answer (which I know it's not, as you have stated you don't accept the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon as fully true) then you are definitely believing in an inconsistent set of propositions. Since we have ruled that out, it is the second one.

You do NOT believe that all scriptures of every religion are true. You do, however, believe that the Christian bible is. This is the part that is, by definition, special pleading. Let's lay this out again:

1. Many scriptures exist. You do not say about all of these scriptures "these are all true"

2. You do say about the bible "this is all true"

It is now your job to explain why you have chosen to make this one exception. Until you actually highlight why the bible sets itself apart in the realm of authenticity from these other scriptures, then special pleading is what you are doing. Pretty simple. 

I'm curious... if I'm special pleading, what is the generally accepted rule here that I'm allegedly making an exception to?  

Anyway, The Bible preceeds the Quran and the Quran is based off Biblical scripture be it that the belief is consistent up through the children of Abraham.  I have explained in the past that the Quran is also written by one person in one time period whereas the Bible is written over thousands of years from hundreds of different scripts... probably thousands in total from different unrelated sources.  

It would be wrong of me to suggest that scriptures of all other religions are completely false and thus it would also falsify scripture.  They are mistaken in their following however, but that goes a bit deeper than a simple explanation of why the Bible is authority.  

Scripture also preceeds most other religions scripts with exception of a few.  The belief system is consistent with the oldest known belief systems of most cultures.  e.g.  if you look into Asian history, you'll find that there are many many different beliefs for the past 5000 + years... if you look further back you will find a core of Jewish influence.  

I'm not going to cover every aspect of what I've discussed already.  It seems what 1 page later and people forget what you've posted and start back at square 1.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Okay,

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.  

it is as much as it's good reason to cast doubt on most of history of that time.  see, the non-consequentials you speak of are common in texts of history... so either we take that view universally and we really have no history to understand or we have to accept that the non-consequentials really are just that and that what matters is the contextual story and not the details in between that don't change the storyline.  

Considering the topic of drowning people in the Noah flood, yes, we cannot back that up in history, however there are many aspects of scripture that has been supported in history, so much so that it's getting harder and harder to suggest other parts that have no support couldn't be accurate.   It's almost impossible to find sufficient evidence of a comment made by someone so long ago.  But what follows through is what you see.  IOW, if God is real, has he since destroyed humanity???

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

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. 

that still doesn't answer the question... also one has to consider the poetic liberties the author took in writing it.  Were they trying to be chronological or poetic???  Hebrew would suggest poetic if we really want to get down to the nitty gritty here.  I still adhere to the fact that there was a light at the beginning that was sufficient for photosynthesis regardless of the age of the sun and when it was said to have been created.  Thus the scriptures are still scientifically accurate.

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

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. 

no one claims the Bible as an unabridged historical record... rather it has stories that paint the picture of history back through creation and through the view of a particular family tree.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.

here's the problem with this perspective... sure the people of that time were ignorant of what we know now.  The problem is, if they are so ignorant, what are we saying of over 80% of humanity today?  IN fact, to believe something written by ignorant ancients who believed something blatently false because they didn't know better today is to suggest that humanity has gone backwards in ignorance because with all teh knowledge we have today, we should easily be able to debunk a story written by an ignorant ancient that personified an inanimate non-existent being.  Yet here we are, with over 80% of humanity believing in a god of some sort and basing it off ancient writings.  

the other problem angle is either that or the ancients were geniuses, capable of writing a text that can fool even the most intelligent of minds no matter how technologically advanced.  Both seem quite far fetched if you ask me.  

unfortunately for that case you post above, the more puzzle pieces I find, the clearer scripture is for me.  i don't stick to any "original guess" as you say.  My original guess would have left me a non-believer.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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?

sure, except that all of history has this problem.. so should i be cautious of accepting everything I've been taught in history??? and where do I draw the line?  Again, you're trying to make mountains out of mole hills.  an ancient person messed up a name or a quantity and you're trying to make a case out of it... that seems a bit illogical doesn't it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

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? 

becasue history shows where we can find it that the claimed events still happened whether on a smaller scale or in a location named something different.  The thing is usually names are changed due to change in authority and changed more frequently than now, so it was not uncommon to see different names.  Stories told have an intention of catching the listeners ear, so it sounds more appealing to inflate numbers and quantity.  Does that make what is being told untrue?  of course not.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

mythology makes no sense because this God doesn't follow mythical rules.  historical record is based on amateur perspective, not official time keepers.  I agree about the approach to stories as moralities, but in these cultures, history of a people was also considered sacred.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

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

for me, it's consistent with what I know of God.  For example.. I knew when growing up in a catholic church that this is not who God is.  I also knew when my dad became a JW that this is not who God is.  Everything I was taught and everything I knew taught me about a different God than I know now.  scripture taught me of the God I know now and I knew that God before I had read a single word.  It wasn't my upbringing that taught me that, so what was it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

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

Mythology is often based on a true story

Mythology often uses real people

mythology often uses real places

mythology often uses real events

...

When then is an assumed mythological story considered fact?  

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.  

again, you're trying to blame a judge for doing his job.  What you're suggesting when putting it in context with god is that someone molested a child and put them in danger, they were tried for their actions, but the judge is to blame for the ultimate suffering for the children... YOur reasoning doesn't connect.

In your example, the caretaker was teh person responsible for the children... when in scripture did it say God was babysitting the children?  Where can we justify that God was ever responsible for those children?

Beyond Saving wrote:

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?

I think it is ingrained in your heart... otherwise you wouldn't have such a problem with this story

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.

or was it us that did a pretty lousy job of holding on to that engravement...?  Consider that a child would look upon that act and see it as confusing and terrible... yet as an adult, that same person might commit such an act... so are you suggesting it wares off over time?  or does something else happen?  

Or the third option... children are born to rape... something tells me you wouldn't take that angle, or your case for God being evil in the flood falls through the floor.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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. 

of course... see, Job, many have questioned God's laws... all have failed to justify their perspective.

Beyond Saving wrote:

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.  

if you did, you would see Gods actions as just.  You do not view morality the same with God... The case I hold is that God created the very moral ground that we are born with in our hearts..  God is the judge and executioner.  God literally passed judgement on a culture for their actions.   


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:Beyond

danatemporary wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

  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. 

   I was hoping to just bounce this off of Caposkia than anything else. And, Discretion is the better part of valor.  I don't feel comfortable in commenting on a series I haven't actually sat down and took the time to watch for myself, (*cough* Caposkia).  I almost broke down and bought the series But, I almost broke down, just yesterday, in my truck; so I might have to deal with that first, before frivolous spending or I am walking. My knowledge about this series is fragmentary, by knowledge I mean what these two are espousing. It so bad I was going by cover art at points for some of one of the ministers' take on the site. It is blatant eisegesis, reading in any mention of "serpents", they view through this self-imposed len. Complex interaction between  many prehistoric cultures existed undoubtedly; which clouds the issues. Enough so to where anomalous findings allow for any pet crack-pot  theory to be given life with no regard as to  what the actual findings must actually signify. But, I am breaking a rule in characterizing them without knowing enough of their position to do so fairly. There are less than subtle signs my characterization may be right..

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
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.

As an adult who understands highschool science you already grasp the now simple concepts that take you a while to learn and compile through your schooling years... typically you can summarize particular points that have to do with the topic at hand no problem... I'm not asking you to summarize high school science in general, taht would be non-sensical to the post...  

Good try though, want another go at it?

Beyond Saving wrote:

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 see what you're seeing now... honestly.  but that's your mistake... you shouldn't be looking at these 250 sources and list of causations as one equation but many compiled together to come to one conclusion.  That does make more sense on why it wasn't making sense to me though.  With this new understanding I hope you see why one part that might not work doesn't negate the whole.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: When you

Vastet wrote:
 When you repeat the same bullshit over and over, I'll repeat the same refutations over and over.

let's completely hijack the thread with nonsense then, sounds like a plan.

Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:
You have not refuted the equation
Yes I have.

no, no you haven't.

Vastet will have written:

yes I have.

Caposkia will have written: 

no, no you haven't... 

This will go on for at least 10^60, then we'll see where to go from there.

Vastet wrote:

 A lie. As I previously stated, approximately 99% of my refutations were factual, not hypothetical.   You can delude yourself, but you can't delude me.

I don't have to delude you.... Eye-wink


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Allegedly some psalter and hymnal composer has a Valley you know

#736 & 737 

Patronisingly Abrupt wrote:
  I never saw it, . . I couldn't comment

   Patronizing blow-off aren't a good witness most days, bub!!
  Really. so your prescription reading glasses, you never did pick up THEN ? Anytime soon ? I could have sworn they brought up an issue, I mean seven whole hours. Maybe it's just me, I dunno. (?) What was the series even mentioning ? I know a word leaps out at me, at least. Re-check the giants reference in the subjectline, maybe. So, Appreciate a actual comment. It was about something, better splurge and make a lengthy one, at that.

 __________________

    Cute.  FYI  I am the only one allowed to be cute most days; (providentially) you're only allowed if one is that rare combination of humble, and then comes by it naturally 




Side issue for  the other thread

 Allegedly a german psalter and hymnal composer, (something I personally never study) has a famous Valley named after him. He began holding Bible studies and prayer meetings in the nearby valley of Düssel, supposedly it was allegedly named  after this man.

  Background  . . .  (quote) "A Joachim Neander. a roundly praying Neander, was born in Bremen, Germany in 1650. His father was a Latin teacher, and his grandfather (all Joachim Neanders) was a musician, who had changed the family name from Neumann (New man), to the Greek form of the surname, as was fashionable during this time. After the death of his father, he could not afford to study at a famous university, so he entered the Academic Gymnasium of Bremen at the age of sixteen. There he studied theology from 1666 to 1670. At first, his heart was not in it, as he was known to be a pretty wild and rebellious student. But then in 1670, when Neander was twenty years old, him and two of his friends attended a service at St. Martin’s Church in Bremen, where Theodore Under-Eyck had recently been appointed pastor. Their main purpose in going was to make fun of the people attending the service,

  He sat under, The Pietists who (according to this source) emphasized individual holiness, and instituted small groups for prayer, scripture study, personal accountability, and good works. They believed that trust in Christ, rather than correct theology, constituted the core of the faith. This de-emphasis on theology brought the Pietists into conflict with the more traditional Lutherans.

Neander spent about three years in Frankfurt, before moving to Düsseldorf to become a rector in the local Latin school. The school was under the supervision of a Reformed pastor, Sylvester Lürsen, who was known to be contentious and hard to get along with. At first the two men got along great, with Neander assisting in pastoral duties, and even preaching occasionally. However, he began to become increasingly uncomfortable with some of the church practices, which came to a head when he began refusing to receive Communion on the grounds that he could not partake of it with unbelievers. He slowly divorced himself from the regular services, and along with a group of other like-minded individuals, began holding Bible studies and prayer meetings in the nearby valley of Düssel.

Now the valley of Düssel was a place that Neander was quite familiar with, as almost immediately upon his arrival in Düsseldorf, he would frequently take walks through the lush woods and hills of the valley. The Düssel River flowed through the valley, and Neander would frequently compose poems and songs as he strolled through the valley, singing loudly as he did so. There was a cave in the hills that he especially enjoyed, and he would go on to conduct his prayer meetings and Bible studies there. He spent so much time in both the valley and cave, that the valley became known as the “Neander Valley,” and the cave itself as “Neander’s Cave.