A perfect world without religion

[papabryant]

Let me give some Bonhoeffer quotes to wet your appetite:

 

After all, we are told, our salvation has already been accomplished by the grace of God... It was unkind to speak to men like this, for such a cheap offer could only leave them bewildered and tempt them from the way to which they had been called by Christ. Having laid hold on cheap grace, they were barred forever from the knowledge of costly grace. Deceived and weakened, men felt that they were strong now that they were in possession of this cheap grace -- whereas they had in fact lost the power to live the life of discipleship and obedience. The word of cheap grace has been the ruin of more Christians than any commandment of works.

-----

 

But when once Christ had called him, Peter had no alternative he must leave the ship and come to Him. In the end, the first step of obedience proves to be an act of faith in the word of Christ. But we should completely misunderstand the nature of grace if we were to suppose that there was no need to take the first-step, because faith was already there. Against that, we must boldly assert that the step of obedience must be taken before faith can be possible. Unless he obeys, a man cannot believe.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. "All for sin could not atone." Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists and their kind….

 

Through the call of God, men become individuals… Every man is called separately, and must follow alone. But men are frightened of solitude, and try to protect themselves from it by merging themselves in the society of their fellow-men and in their material environment. They become suddenly aware of their responsibilities and duties, and are loath to part with them. But all this is only a cloak to protect them from having to make a decision. They are unwilling to stand alone before Jesus and to be compelled to decide with their eyes fixed on Him alone…. It is Christ’s will that he should be thus isolated, and that he should fix his eyes solely upon him.

[eisanbt]

Catholicism teaches abstinance (so you don't catch the disease in the firstplace) until marriage, and monogamy in marriage (limiting exposure to the disease by limiting partners). The number of AIDS victims among Catholics (and Protestants) is significantly less than the general population. Conversions increased as this fact became known.

 

Yes monogamy and abstinance does that, but I know few religious folk who are accually abstinant before marriage. Let us also not forget that this is simple "Good advice" if you want to avoid the risks or sex, advice which is also preached by sexuel professional (Not the kind who work for $50 a pop)

 

In addition, Christians took care of those infected, where as traditional regional religions did not (despite Muslim teachings on taking care of the sick), also driving up conversions.

 

By which you mean that rich westeners took care of them and tried to spread their teachings. I'd have no beef for Chritian aid organizations if they'd just leave the christien part out of it. It is because christianity has the resources to help that it is such a majour player. The christen west and its massive influence are not mere conincidence. And let us not also forget the cathloc opposition to condom use and interference in 'others' trying to teach Africans about contreception, helping end overpopulation/starvation, as well as helping stop the spread of AIDS even amoung those (the majority) who don't practice abstinence.

 

Abstinance before and monogamy after marriage works 100% of the time to prevent sexual transmission of AIDS. Condoms fail at least a third of the time. Changing values will stop the AIDS virus much more effectively than thin rubber. In fact, it is already working.

 

The reason AIDS has become such a problem is because these practice are not taught, and the 'equipment' is not availble. Again abstinence is more effective, obviuously, but that need not be tied to dogma and need not exclude condom use for those who choose otherwise.

 

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY. If people don't know how to use them then they're just as fucked (no pun intended). Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

[tiredofwhiners]

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY. If people don't know how to use them then they're just as fucked (no pun intended). Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

 

I learned how to use them in school. You take it out and roll it over a cucumber. So when ever i have sex there's always a wrapped cucumber on the bed. So I'm safe, at least i learned something in school.

[papabryant]

Yes monogamy and abstinance does that, but I know few religious folk who are accually abstinant before marriage. Let us also not forget that this is simple "Good advice" if you want to avoid the risks or sex, advice which is also preached by sexuel professional (Not the kind who work for $50 a pop)

Well, even some of the 25 dollar girls advocate using them according to reports. But by the same token, using a condom is just "good advice", just not as good as abstinence.

 

 

 

By which you mean that rich westeners took care of them and tried to spread their teachings. I'd have no beef for Chritian aid organizations if they'd just leave the christien part out of it.

 

This is just plain silly of you.

 

When the U.S. government sends food to disaster victims, they print U.S. in big letters on the side of the cans. Why? So people would know who cared enough to send the lima beans.

 

When Christians offer aid, they do so out of what Christ has done in their hearts. When asked why they are helping, they tell why. Maybe it gives them a chance to tell about Jesus, but most often it doesn't. They help either way.

 

It is because christianity has the resources to help that it is such a majour player. The christen west and its massive influence are not mere conincidence.

I quite agree, but probably not for the same reason you would give.

 

And let us not also forget the cathloc opposition to condom use and interference in 'others' trying to teach Africans about contreception, helping end overpopulation/starvation, as well as helping stop the spread of AIDS even amoung those (the majority) who don't practice abstinence.

 

To quote Bonhoeffer again: If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can't, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.

 

Condom education doesn't work. Statistics prove this. What does work is holding up a standard and expecting people to live up to them. Those standards stand in stark contrast to what they are already doing. With all respect to the compassion of the pro-condom crowd, what they do by teaching condom use first is to teach that risky behavior can be done with no consequences. If you want a person to succeed so they CAN feed themselves and stop having babies they cannot take care of - TEACH THEM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS. This isn't rocket science.

 

The reason AIDS has become such a problem is because these practice are not taught, and the 'equipment' is not availble. Again abstinence is more effective, obviuously, but that need not be tied to dogma and need not exclude condom use for those who choose otherwise.

 

IF that were the way it was being taught you and I would have no disagreement. Its not.

 

And according to statistics/ testing, condoms work 99% as long as you use them PROPERLY.

That is not correct. Male condoms have a 14% failure rate, and female condoms have a 21% failure rate.

 

In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.

 

If people don't know how to use them then they're just as fucked (no pun intended). -- (none taken ) Trying to make an entire contenant abstenant is simply imposible, a futile battle. We've effective emans of meeting human desire half-way and making it safe, theren lays the best option.

 

And here is where we disagree. I think we CAN set societal standards and people WILL make every effort to meet them. Prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960's WE were doing that. It wasn't perfect compliance, but the majority did. Empirical evidence stands in my favor here.

 

Of course you end up with lame "Leave It To Beaver" reruns, but, hey....

 

Peace, Tom

[papabryant]

I learned how to use them in school. You take it out and roll it over a cucumber. So when ever i have sex there's always a wrapped cucumber on the bed. So I'm safe, at least i learned something in school.

 

(Web site says I had to have 10 characters. I only wanted to put 1 smiley.)

[Jhony5]

So I guess the question that remains is, without belief in god, would mankind feel no obligation to be moral? Would the term morality even exist? I think so. I feel morality is a two-pronged entity. Both instinctive and learned. Despite the ominous teachings of the church, man is not born with this mis-guided concept of "original sin". The infant mind is a spawning circuit board of electrical conections being developed. Therefor a mind cannot be 'born' evil without developmental issues being present. In the presence of, and under the guidance of evil/sin, a budding mind would make connections and develop under the influence of immoral behavior. However I do not feel it is nessasary for a developing mind to be in the presense of morality in order to make the connection. I've met children whos parents are devoid entirely of morality. Yet they seem to instinctively resist the development of immoral behavior.

 

Our problem as a society in relation to morality is we allow it to be dictated to us via religious document, thus distorting the origin of moral behavior. The fear of divine retrebution is a perverted manner in which to teach mankind to behave moraly. Once a human grows older and encounters situations which cause him/her to doubt the existence of god, then the moral teachings that were instiled begin to break down. If one never had established a link between god and morality then their own moral code is less likely to break down.

[papabryant]

So I guess the question that remains is, without belief in god, would mankind feel no obligation to be moral? Would the term morality even exist? I think so. I feel morality is a two-pronged entity. Both instinctive and learned. Despite the ominous teachings of the church, man is not born with this mis-guided concept of "original sin". The infant mind is a spawning circuit board of electrical conections being developed. Therefor a mind cannot be 'born' evil without developmental issues being present. In the presence of, and under the guidance of evil/sin, a budding mind would make connections and develop under the influence of immoral behavior. However I do not feel it is nessasary for a developing mind to be in the presense of morality in order to make the connection. I've met children whos parents are devoid entirely of morality. Yet they seem to instinctively resist the development of immoral behavior.

 

Our problem as a society in relation to morality is we allow it to be dictated to us via religious document, thus distorting the origin of moral behavior. The fear of divine retrebution is a perverted manner in which to teach mankind to behave moraly. Once a human grows older and encounters situations which cause him/her to doubt the existence of god, then the moral teachings that were instiled begin to break down. If one never had established a link between god and morality then their own moral code is less likely to break down.

 

I cannot disagree more to both of your questions: the existance of God and source of morality/evil.

 

No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

 

Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time--with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe--can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

 

Have you has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.? The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in various academic fields. What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? Most people will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." If they are even partially close to knowing .5%, the question is "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"

 

To your second question: the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?

 

And no fair saying "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." That's an evasive answer.

 

The point is that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise we are like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

 

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

 

But if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world?

 

God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. It is a false assumption that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil. And this is the only possible way to deal with the problem, because if God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist, every human being on the planet--present company included--would simply vanish into oblivion. No chance of redemption. God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

 

Without a necessary point of reference sufficiently removed from human control, an objective morality is not possible, only a sujective one imposed by will alone - Nietzsche's wet dream perhaps, but dangerous for children, current or former.

[Jhony5]

..a person would have to be god in order to say that there is no god.

 

And I say to you, A person would have to be god to say that there IS a god. Because if god exist within the context described to us from the bible, then it would indeed require an omnipresent/omnipotent to find him in this world. This is the old "You can't prove there is'nt a Santa Claus" arguement and i'm not buying into it.

 

It requires faith that god does not exist.

 

For atheism ya, sure it does. But you've made a classic Xtian error here. "If you do not have faith in god then you have faith there is no god". I am not Atheist, more agnostic. Anyone whom subscribes themselves wholey to any man made belief system, be it atheism, Christianity, judism, budism, whatever, is a fool. I have faith in no man/entity that is unproven and invisible.

 

posted by: PAPABRYANT

Have you has ever visited the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.? The library presently contains over 70 million items (books, magazines, journals, etc.). Hundreds of thousands of these were written by scholars and specialists in various academic fields. What percentage of the collective knowledge recorded in the volumes in this library would you say are within your own pool of knowledge and experience? Most people will likely respond, "I don't know. I guess a fraction of one percent." If they are even partially close to knowing .5%, the question is "Do you think it is logically possible that God may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience?"

 

This whole paragraph speaks volumes towards the arrogance of Xtian beliefs. You blantantly paint the average man as to stupid to deny god. I understand god just fine and i'm a straight C student. God did not create man, man created god. there is no evidence that god created man, is there? The bible itself stands as the documentation of the creation of god, as god was created by ancient and humurously ignorant man. Of course i'm speaking towards the Xtian version of god. The bible IS the christian religion, in book form. So look at it. Read it. The laughable inaccuracies and weak hearted attempts at providing man with a desription of his life and universe based on what amounts to witchcraft. Wonderfuly painted descriptions of political intrigue, murder, sex, and yes even monsters. But wait theres more. An Action-hero, Jesus Christ. Well not so much action, but hey he was a hero right? I mean we should all believe this account of Christ as it was written by people that were so god fucking stupid they thought pork was evil. Of course they didn't know that you have to store and cook meat at proper temperatures. Jesus woulda told them if they had asked, meh maybe he was to busy. Lets not forget the long held tradition of Catholics eating "the body of christ". Well its just a wheat cracker but hey, symbolism man, there's only so much Jesus we can eat. So why eat the cracker? It shows faith in Christ. Why you ask? Because when they came up with this "tradition", wheat was a damn dangerous thing to eat. They stored it in large unsanitary holding areas that would fast become tainted with rat feces, thus spreading the plague about. "So if you have faith in god, the one that we created out of our vast knowledge of the universe, then eat wheat". "Ohhhhh it was the rat shit that killed all my family, ohhhh I thought that was satan".

PAPA, you know I could go on and on but I feel that is sufficaint to shoot down your theory that ignorance of facts causes a lack of faith in god. It seems quite the other way to me.

 

By what process do you distinguish evil from good?

 

Well I can tell you I don't refer to a 2,000 year old book written by the abhorantly ignorant ancestors of man. The terms "evil" and "good" are both very subjective terms when used in this context. The difference between me an Xtians in this matter is this. Xtians will tell you what good and evil are. They will go on to tell you that you are aligned with evil, and they are not. They will tell you why, as it is written. I do not need an "infinate reference point" to tell when a person is 'motivated' by evil or good. I do not need to meet the infalably good perfect being in order to recognize either. What I find puzzling about your statment in this regard is, Xtians are in the business of selling exactly what your telling me no man can do. Which is defining good and evil. How can they do this, I ask? Hmmm, well I guees its because they know god. Most Xtians will tell you this. "I have a personal relationship with Jesus". No you fucking don't!!! You think you do, you say you do, BUT YOU DON'T!!!

 

posted by:PAPABRYANT

God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. It is a false assumption that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil. And this is the only possible way to deal with the problem, because if God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist, every human being on the planet--present company included--would simply vanish into oblivion. No chance of redemption. God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

 

Can you prove this? That your god is dealing with .....anything? OK well maybe thats a loaded question. Hmmmm, the above paragraph is loaded with Xtian land mines, polished throught time as the story of the bible has fallen apart. I had better be careful here as i'm sure you have a snappy christian bumpersticker your prepared to qoute.

Really what you wrote here is romantic and sounds quite nice. But where is the method to all this madness? What reason is there for all this? A perfect mystery contribed by simple humans whom wished to sell a new form of control and government. If somebody asks me to do something I naturaly ask "why?". Ill dumb it down for all to comprehend. Why would god, in his infinate wisdom, create so many people in life as a means of 'judging' their souls only to then take posession of their souls provide a settlement for them in the afterlife? I know you don't know the answer, but this has always been the logic that denies me the ability to pledge faith in god. You have alot of terms that sound almost definitive of your god, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing. I have terms that I know to be fact for your god. Invisible, uncomunicable, and powerless.

 

Invisible: Because no one can see him. If I could see him I would change my ways and help to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot")

Uncomunicable: Because no one hears him. If I could I would know of his true power and would do my best to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot".)

Powerless: Because he has no power here. If he had power would he not use it to help the ones he loves?

 

God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether, but such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

 

I have an answer for this. God would not have to create "robots" in order to express his power and his will. He would not have to destroy evil in order to accomplish this. It would require a great act. An act that could not be disputed by man as the act of god. In essence he would merely need to provide man with an account of himself, his power, his glory, in order to fairly provide man with the knowledge of god. Which is my point exactly. Knowledge and faith should never be seperated by man when considering the merits of any subject. If you split the two, then you have nothing of real substance. I have knowledge in the sun. I get the light I need to see, I get the warmth that brings life, I witness the orbital dance of earth around it which provides us with the seasons. But ya know what I like best about knowledge and faith in the sun? If I ever doubt it exist, if I ever struggle with my faith in the sun, I can walk right outside and see it, I can feel it on my skin. Unless its night time, but alas, I will know to the minute what time I may see it again in the A.M. If I had only faith in the sun and lacked the knowledge of it, then the world would be a cold, dark, and horrible place.

[papabryant]

A few more notes in our conversation:

 

And I say to you, A person would have to be god to say that there IS a god. Because if god exist within the context described to us from the bible, then it would indeed require an omnipresent/omnipotent to find him in this world. This is the old "You can't prove there is'nt a Santa Claus" arguement and i'm not buying into it.

 

Let me qualify my statement to clarify it. In the process, I think you will see the error you have stepped into.

 

To say there is a god requires one of two things, omniscience (A person would have to be god in order to say that there is no god) or the actions of that god revealing his existance, presence, and identity to us.

 

That is what the Bible provides - the verifiable record of God's interaction with us through the medium of history.

 

 

 

For atheism ya, sure it does. But you've made a classic Xtian error here. "If you do not have faith in god then you have faith there is no god". I am not Atheist, more agnostic. Anyone whom subscribes themselves wholey to any man made belief system, be it atheism, Christianity, judism, budism, whatever, is a fool. I have faith in no man/entity that is unproven and invisible.

 

The problem is here is twofold - first, Judaism/Christianity are historically based religions, by definition they ARE verifiable; second, you define faith in a way the Bible does not.

 

Look up the word "pistis", which is the Greek word most often translated in the New Testament as "faith". (A form of pistis is used over 240 times in the NT.) As a noun, pistis is a word that was used by the Hellenic world as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof. As a friend of mine wrote in an article on the definition of faith, Aristotle and Quintiallian use the word pistis in this way, and in Acts 17:31 it is used this way:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given

assurance

unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

 

Note what is being said here - God has given PROOF of His reliablility, therefore He can be trusted when He says He will judge the world.

 

http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html - My friend's article gives a very detailed definition of the way the Bible defines faith.

 

This whole paragraph speaks volumes towards the arrogance of Xtian beliefs.

No, it speaks to how evidence is used and the statistical probablility of getting a correct answer in the absence of enough evidence.

 

You blantantly paint the average man as to stupid to deny god.

The average man, UNLESS HE IS BEING ACTED UPON BY SOME OTHER FORCE (stupidity, ignorance of the facts, arrogance, threats of violence from others, peer pressure, etc.) cannot help but accept God, given the weight of evidence. Its THAT overwhelming.

 

Atheist Richard Carrier once wrote that if God wanted everyone to believe in Him, he should have wrote on the Moon "Jesus is Lord" in big block letters. Someone replied back that some still wouldn't believe because they thought God should have wrote in cursive.

 

Given the amount of research I do into Christian history and thought (my Associates degree was in Documentary filmmaking, and I am a current double major in Philosophy and Ancient Near Eastern History - so I am a Philosopher/Historian by avocation and soon vocation), the Christian believer in me has to ask "How much more fucking evidence is needed!?! (Rhetorical question Jhony, its not aimed at you. )

 

God did not create man, man created god. there is no evidence that god created man, is there?

Yes, there is plenty. As part of a class on Medieval Philosophy, I wrote a paper taking two arguements for the existance of God, fusing them, plugging in the evidence given by science for the Big Bang, evolution, etc., and then taking the results and comparing them against Genesis and the Hindu cosmology (which more than a few scientists and philosophers compared favorably to the scientific results in the 60's). In the paper I quote Robert Jastrow, the former head of NASA as saying he took one look at the Big Bang theory and thought His "colleagues would all run out an join the First Church of Jesus Christ of the Big Bang." I posted the paper and the appendix (very important) on my blog

 

http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/kalam-and-teleological-arguements-as.html

 

and

 

http://beer-and-theology.blogspot.com/2004/04/appendix-1-to-kalam-and-teleological.html

 

Take a look.

[papabryant]

The bible itself stands as the documentation of the creation of god, as god was created by ancient and humurously ignorant man.

This is modernist bigotry, and is beneath you. Simply because a population in the ancient past lived in a pre-scientific society, it did not mean they did not know the difference between natural and unnatural/supernatural phenominon.

 

Of course i'm speaking towards the Xtian version of god. The bible IS the christian religion, in book form. So look at it. Read it. The laughable inaccuracies and weak hearted attempts at providing man with a desription of his life and universe based on what amounts to witchcraft.

This is also beneath you.

 

Whenever I run across any person who claims found of contradiction or error I assume they do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Here's why.

 

It doesn't take very long to realize that a thorough understanding of the Bible -- and this would actually apply to any complex work from any culture -- requires specialized knowledge, and a broad range of specialized knowledge in a variety of fields.

 

Obviously the vast majority of believers spend their entire lives doing little more than reading the Bible in English (or whatever native tongue) and importing into its words whatever ideas they derive from their own experiences. This process is very often one of "decontextualizing" - reading it like it was written yesterday and for you personally. Of course if the church as a whole is locked into this mentality, you may well suspect that critics (whether Skeptics or other) and those in alternate faiths are no better off.

 

Let's anticipate and toss off the obvious objection: "Why did God make the Bible so hard to understand, then?"

 

It isn't -- none of this keeps a person from grasping the message of the Bible to the extent required to be saved; where the line is to be drawn is upon those who gratuitously assume that such base knowledge allows them to be competent critics of the text, and make that assumption in absolute ignorance of their own lack of knowledge -- of being "unskilled and unaware of it."

 

And is my observation to this effect justified? Well, ask yourself this question after considering what various fields of knowledge a complete and thorough study of the Bible requires: Linguistics/language, Literature, Textual Criticism, Archaeology, Psychology, Social Sciences, History/Historiography, Theology/Philosophy, Logic, Biology, Physics, ...the list goes on and on. The best one can hope for is to become an expert on one or two (as I am trying to do) - and then, (this IS the kicker) CONSULT EXPERTS IN OTHER AREAS WHEN NEEDED!!

 

How serious is this?

 

A carefully crafted argument about a text being an interpolation can be undermined by a single point from Greco-Roman rhetoric. A claim having to do with psychology can be destroyed by a simple observation from the social sciences. As i have said, not even most scholars in the field can master every aspect -- what then of the non-specialist critic who puts together a website in his spare time titled 1001 Irrifutible Bible Contradictions? Do these persons deserves our attention? Should they be recognized as authorities? No, they deserve calculated contempt for their efforts. They haven't done their homework.

 

And to pick on you Jhony, your next point puts you in that catagory.

 

Wonderfuly painted descriptions of political intrigue, murder, sex, and yes even monsters. But wait theres more. An Action-hero, Jesus Christ. Well not so much action, but hey he was a hero right? I mean we should all believe this account of Christ as it was written by people that were so god fucking stupid they thought pork was evil.

How many people died from eating undercooked pork in the ancient world? Bet none of them were Jews.

Try Googling the name Joseph Lister. Read very carefully - as YOU are alive today because of him - and the science he developed after reading the kosher laws found in the Bible.

 

 

 

Lets not forget the long held tradition of Catholics eating "the body of christ". Well its just a wheat cracker but hey, symbolism man, there's only so much Jesus we can eat. So why eat the cracker? It shows faith in Christ. Why you ask? Because when they came up with this "tradition", wheat was a damn dangerous thing to eat. They stored it in large unsanitary holding areas that would fast become tainted with rat feces, thus spreading the plague about.

 

No, the plague came about because of rat FLEAS, and did not hit the Jews to any great extent, while the other civilizations who did not heed the Biblical wisdom died like flies. (That includes Christians in the Middle Ages.)

 

 

PAPA, you know I could go on and on but I feel that is sufficaint to shoot down your theory that ignorance of facts causes a lack of faith in god. It seems quite the other way to me.

I'm waiting for you to shoot it down. So far, all I've seen is someone else who doesn't know what they are talking about act like they do. Which is VERY disappointing I must say.

 

Well I can tell you I don't refer to a 2,000 year old book written by the abhorantly ignorant ancestors of man.

Then at least take this word of advice - Stay away from rats who are scratching themselves. While you are at it, stay away from hospitals, schools, libraries, convalesant homes, soup kitchens and the like, as they are ALL Christian inventions.

 

 

 

The terms "evil" and "good" are both very subjective terms when used in this context. The difference between me an Xtians in this matter is this. Xtians will tell you what good and evil are. They will go on to tell you that you are aligned with evil, and they are not. They will tell you why, as it is written.

 

And they will tell you how to STOP being allied with evil.

 

Imagine, for a moment, we were walking down a busy downtown street - you going east, me going west.

 

As we pass each other, you stop me and tell me not to step into the next intersection when the light changes because if I do, a bus will run through the light and hit me, mangling my body in a senseless and violent death.

 

One of two things is going to happen - either I am going to say "Get away from me you nutcake!", and walk on past, or I will ask "How do you know this is what will happen?" Which one I do is my choice

 

For our discussion lets assume the latter - you tell me God told you this would happen. Either I will heed the warning or dismiss it and proceed on down the street. Once again, my choice.

 

Let's say I proceed on to the intersection (whether I think you're crazy or mistaken is irrelevant), and when the light changes...

 

WHAM!!!!!!

 

A bus slams into me, dragging me underneath for 300 feet.

 

As difficult as that image may be, imagine what YOU will be feeling at that moment.

 

Your head becomes swimmy. You say to yourself, "I could have stopped this. Maybe if I had been more persistant. Maybe if I had tried to physically restrain him from getting to the intersection." Maybe you cry hysterically, or scream in frustration and rage, or vomit in the gutter. All that runs through your mind is "I knew this would happen, yet I could not stop this person from dying?" ------

 

This is very much what we Christians feel when we witness to other people of different religions and beliefs.

 

We Christians DO claim to have a different relationship with God than others do - because we claim that in our search for God, God reached out and took our hand, lifted us out of the blinding fog we were walking around in, looked us square in the eye and said "I've got a hold of you. Now you reach back into the fog and grab someone else's hand and lead their hand to Mine."

 

This is because those who do not "grab the hand of Jesus" are fated to continue to wander around in the fog, where there are things also wandering around just waiting to run into them. People stay trapped in the fog wondering if those "things" are what they are looking for. We know there will come a time when His hand will be pulled away - not because He wants to pull it away, but because no one else wants to come up out of the fog.

 

THAT is something that sends most Christians into panic attacks (explaining why some Christians witness to others sooo badly) - many of those lost in the fog are people we love desperately. And even if we don't know these people at all, why would we not warn them that those things in the fog are the buses that are about to hit them. But it is still their choice as to whether to come up out of the fog.

 

I'm sure you have heard the story of how, when Christians stand before Jesus, He will "dry all their tears." Most people, including many of my fellow Christians think this will be a happy time.

 

They are sadly mistaken.

 

Remember the scene in "Schindler's List" where Liam Neeson stands there in the train yard screaming into Ben Kingsley's chest, "That car... I could have saved 14 more people. This pin, it's solid gold. I could have bought four more people! Those people are dead because I kept this pin!"

 

That is what I will go through when I stand before Jesus to give an accounting for my life.

 

Yes, all my tears will be wiped away. But for one moment in eternity I will ask myself what else I could have done to prevent someone else from deciding they would rather be hit by a bus.....

[papabryant]

I do not need an "infinate reference point" to tell when a person is 'motivated' by evil or good. I do not need to meet the infalably good perfect being in order to recognize either. What I find puzzling about your statment in this regard is, Xtians are in the business of selling exactly what your telling me no man can do. Which is defining good and evil. How can they do this, I ask? Hmmm, well I guees its because they know god. Most Xtians will tell you this. "I have a personal relationship with Jesus". No you fucking don't!!! You think you do, you say you do, BUT YOU DON'T!!!

What I find amazing here is you demand a subjective experience before you would believe, yet when someone says that is what they have had and tells you how you can have it too you deny them their own experience! THAT'S some nerve, buddy...

 

 

Can you prove this? That your god is dealing with .....anything? OK well maybe thats a loaded question. Hmmmm, the above paragraph is loaded with Xtian land mines, polished throught time as the story of the bible has fallen apart. I had better be careful here as i'm sure you have a snappy christian bumpersticker your prepared to qoute.

 

Yes, I can. And as I have said, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to say the Bible has "fallen apart". You can only ignore for some outside reason (Stupidity, ignorance of the facts, etc, etc.). The question is whether or not you will give the explanation a fair hearing. Given the nature of your replies this posting (as opposed to the more rational if still erroneous ones prior), you HAVEN'T. My suggestion, made in all seriousness and friendship, LOOK AGAIN. And don't stop when you come to some conclusion. Confirm it. Look for refutations and confirm them.

 

Well, Papa, isn't that what you are doing, appealing to authority, you jerk? How much do you know? Answer: Enough to know how little these other people with the clown noses know. Enough to know that we spend too much time on our asses watching television when we should be bettering ourselves. Enough to know that even the best scholars sometimes miss things.

 

 

 

Really what you wrote here is romantic and sounds quite nice. But where is the method to all this madness? What reason is there for all this? A perfect mystery contribed by simple humans whom wished to sell a new form of control and government. If somebody asks me to do something I naturaly ask "why?". Ill dumb it down for all to comprehend. Why would god, in his infinate wisdom, create so many people in life as a means of 'judging' their souls only to then take posession of their souls provide a settlement for them in the afterlife? I know you don't know the answer, (TOM- Actually, see my point about the crack babies on http://Off Topic Forum.com/showthread.php?p=385866#post385866) but this has always been the logic that denies me the ability to pledge faith in god. You have alot of terms that sound almost definitive of your god, omnipotent, omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing. I have terms that I know to be fact for your god. Invisible, uncomunicable, and powerless.

 

Invisible: Because no one can see him. If I could see him I would change my ways and help to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot")

Uncomunicable: Because no one hears him. If I could I would know of his true power and would do my best to make the world a better place. (without becoming a "robot".)

Powerless: Because he has no power here. If he had power would he not use it to help the ones he loves?

 

Let me also dumb this down, not to call you dumb but to make sure there is no ambiguity to my answer.

 

YOU ARE WRONG!

You are asking for cursive writing when the block letters are right in front of you. I have NO doubt about what you would do upon "seeing" God. My contention is "Put on your glasses 'cause He's right in front of you - how can you NOT see Him!"

 

 

I have an answer for this. God would not have to create "robots" in order to express his power and his will. He would not have to destroy evil in order to accomplish this. It would require a great act. An act that could not be disputed by man as the act of god. In essence he would merely need to provide man with an account of himself, his power, his glory, in order to fairly provide man with the knowledge of god.

This is what I mean by Putting on your glasses. The great act you ask for has been provided. It was called the Resurrection, and while many have ignored it and dismissed it without careful examination NO ONE FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS HAS BEEN ABLE TO REFUTE IT.

 

Relook Jhony. Its worth it.

 

 

Which is my point exactly. Knowledge and faith should never be seperated by man when considering the merits of any subject. If you split the two, then you have nothing of real substance.

I agree; see the earlier definition of pistis.

 

Peace,

Tom

[Jhony5]

The universe is uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

 

Everything that is part of the universe must be part of the totality of the universe and there can be no limit to it because any boundary or change

in the universe would also be part of the universe.

 

So how did the totality of the universe come about?

1)The universe created itself by a process yet unknown.

2)A supernatural deity created the universe.

3)The universe is eternal and has always existed and was never created.

 

For something to come into being from nothing is impossible. How could any entity cause itself to exist? To argue that is to claim that before an entity existed, it already had the ability to execute an action of creation.

 

To argue that god, which would be part of the universe, created the universe, is absurd.

So the totality of the universe could not have been created by something external to it, since it contains all that exists, nor could it be created by itself.

 

Thus the universe is uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

 

Yes, I can. And as I have said, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED to say the Bible has "fallen apart". You can only ignore for some outside reason (Stupidity, ignorance of the facts, etc, etc.). The question is whether or not you will give the explanation a fair hearing. Given the nature of your replies this posting (as opposed to the more rational if still erroneous ones prior), you HAVEN'T. My suggestion, made in all seriousness and friendship, LOOK AGAIN. And don't stop when you come to some conclusion. Confirm it. Look for refutations and confirm them.

 

YES I AM my freind. I may not have majored in multiple-theological studies in an Ivy league school, however I know enough not to trust an ideal born from a book filled with historical and scientific inaccuracies. Remember, the words in the bible are reported to be the work of god, an omnipotent/omnipresent being. Then when tested by the knowledge of simple mortal humans, it fails. Which leaves any resonable person with no other conclusion then to dimiss the bibles claims wholeheartedly.

Truth, science, and faith are at the heart of this discussion.

Truth is inaccessible to the bibles faithful. However truth is accessible to those who put their faith in science. To put science and faith head to head one will understand that science is a successively better approximation to a picture of how the world works.

 

Scientific knowledge is public, shared and tested by many. Religion is private knowledge accessible to each individual and their personal interpetation. Science does not depend on an external fantasy figure for its explanations.

 

Our "souls" are what is in refute. There is no publicly testable evidence for "souls", and hence they are outside the purview of science. This does not say that we do not have a soul, only that science can not test this entity. If science cannot test it, then it is either non-existent or it is beyond our grasp and the existence of souls is outside our capable knowledge.

 

If you fit the world into the authority of the bible, it doesn't work. It is impossible to arrive at the truth without starting at the truth. If you start with a biblical perspective, you will start with biased untruth. To argue this is futile as common scientific fact has refuted much of the bibles "claims". The bible doesn't fit in the real world. It is fiction. Fiction that frequently contradicts reality, and reality is not subject to change, as those whom investigate reality have discovered. Investigating reality was cause for hieracy in the old world of christianity. It was a practice condemmed by those who knew that the reality taught in the bible could be overthrown by proven fact.

 

Even if you begin with the notion that the bible is true, investigation will eventualy reveal that it is false. Reality does not conform itself to what you prefer it to be. If the ideals of man do not commensurate with reality, they cannot be true.

 

Natural real observations contradict the bible more than the bible contradicts itself. Ardent supporters of the bible seem to have an immunity to reason. It is illogical to pick and choose which part of the bible is true. If one part is false, then no part is to be trusted. And reality shows that, without any possible denial, that much of the bible is wrong and contradicts with reality.

[papabryant]

The universe is uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

 

Everything that is part of the universe must be part of the totality of the universe and there can be no limit to it because any boundary or change

in the universe would also be part of the universe.

 

Which flies in the face of current scientific research into multiverses - which, by definition, MUST have boundaries separating them from one another. Pick up nearly any copy of Scientific American for proof.

 

So how did the totality of the universe come about?

1)The universe created itself by a process yet unknown.

2)A supernatural deity created the universe.

3)The universe is eternal and has always existed and was never created.

 

Lets go with the easier of the two ways to shoot this down first:

 

One way for this answer to be known is to see if there is any evidence that this deity left behind revealing His existance. The first chapter of Genesis gives this evidence.

 

Science says the order of origin of the universe (from Big Bang to the appearence of man on Earth) follows like this:

 

A massive explosion tears the fabric of space/time, expelling enormous amounts of matter across space. Massive amounts of super hot atoms, called plasma, heat up the surrounding space, giving off huge amounts of radiation. The origin of the explosion is unknown, although theories range from a super dense point of matter to the creation of virtual particles.

The plasma clouds begin to cool, forming first clouds of gasses, then stars, and planets. On the Earth, the gasses cool and form an completely opaque atmosphere, allowing only no visible light to reach the surface of the Earth. Volcanic and tectonic activity is present, pushing up land masses from beneath water/ammonia seas.

 

The atmosphere of the Earth begins to grow less opaque, allowing more light to reach the Earth

[papabryant]

So the totality of the universe could not have been created by something external to it, since it contains all that exists, nor could it be created by itself.

 

Thus the universe is uncaused, eternal, and infinite.

 

Sorry, science hasn't agreed with you for almost 50 years. The Bible hasn't agreed with you for 3500 years.

 

 

 

I may not have majored in multiple-theological studies in an Ivy league school, however I know enough not to trust an ideal born from a book filled with historical and scientific inaccuracies.

 

Do you practice internal medicine? If you do, I'm going to avoid getting sick because chances are you aren't credentialled to do that either.

 

Jhony, you were wrong about the Inquisition, wrong about Galileo, wrong about the Middle Ages, wrong about the nature of the political battle over evolution... But your unskilled eyes spot "historical and scientific inaccuracies" that experts, both believer and skeptic alike, failed to see?

 

There is 3500 years of debate over this Book! And EVERY time someone claimed to have refuted it, the facts show otherwise.

 

Let me make this a catagorical statement: In the places where the Bible has been subjected to historical, archeological, or scientific testing, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE OF THE BIBLE BEING PROVED INACCURATE.

 

PERIOD.

 

END OF DISCUSSION.

 

 

Then when tested by the knowledge of simple mortal humans, it fails.

 

Just one example. Just ONE. You against 3500 years of examination, scholarship, philosophy, archeology, textual criticism. Find the BEST example of an inaccuracy, post it, and watch it get swatted out of the park. I mean really, Jhony, do you really think Biblical studies stopped in the reign of Charlemaign?

 

This aught to be funny...

 

 

Truth, science, and faith are at the heart of this discussion.

Truth is inaccessible to the bibles faithful.

How do you, an obviously intelligent person, say this with a straight face? ESPECIALLY after it has been demonstrated that without the Bible the Science you hold so dear WOULD NOT EXIST!

 

Scientific knowledge is public, shared and tested by many. Religion is private knowledge accessible to each individual and their personal interpetation.

((shakes head)) Did you read NOTHING I wrote about pistis? YOU ARE DEFINING FAITH WRONG!

 

If it seems I'm getting frustrated - I am, for which I apologize. Right now you are committing an 88, a 190, a 196, and a 202. And while everything at the link was written as humor, the basis of humor is truth. So far every arguement you have posed has blown away like a house of cards in a hurricane.

 

Our "souls" are what is in refute. There is no publicly testable evidence for "souls", and hence they are outside the purview of science. This does not say that we do not have a soul, only that science can not test this entity. If science cannot test it, then it is either non-existent or it is beyond our grasp and the existence of souls is outside our capable knowledge.

 

You are half-right; the soul is not capable of being placed into a test tube. But to say that something not testable is outside of knowledge is to say that you do not love your spouse, children, parents, friends, dog... Because love cannot be tested in a test tube either. Neither can friendship or compassion.

 

Throw out history too, because although you CAN make a real mess, you cannot recreate the Battle of Iwo Jima in a laboratory, the Ming dynasty can't fit under a microscope, and the florescent lights scare the bejesus out of Genghis Khan.

 

It is impossible to arrive at the truth without starting at the truth.

Boy could I run with this quote.

 

Jhony, how much more of a demonstration do you need that it is YOU who start from this position? You have discounted before you have really examined what it really says!

 

 

If you start with a biblical perspective, you will start with biased untruth. To argue this is futile as common scientific fact has refuted much of the bibles "claims". The bible doesn't fit in the real world. It is fiction. Fiction that frequently contradicts reality, and reality is not subject to change, as those whom investigate reality have discovered. Investigating reality was cause for hieracy in the old world of christianity. It was a practice condemmed by those who knew that the reality taught in the bible could be overthrown by proven fact.

 

Jhony, EVERY POINT YOU HAVE THROWN OUT AGAINST THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG!

 

88, Jhony. Remember? You are stereotyping yourself.

 

Even if you begin with the notion that the bible is true, investigation will eventualy reveal that it is false.

 

I will say it again: In the places where the Bible has been subjected to historical, archeological, or scientific testing, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE OF THE BIBLE BEING PROVED INACCURATE.

 

PERIOD.

 

Burden of proof is on you, buddy. I have 3500 years of examination that says you're smoking crack.

 

Natural real observations contradict the bible more than the bible contradicts itself. Ardent supporters of the bible seem to have an immunity to reason. It is illogical to pick and choose which part of the bible is true. If one part is false, then no part is to be trusted. And reality shows that, without any possible denial, that much of the bible is wrong and contradicts with reality.

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[papabryant]

(This is not aimed at you per say Jhony, just a general rant inspired by our conversation and other simular ones.)

 

JUST ONCE I want to meet someone who actually rejects the Gospel, rather than some piss-ant, half-assed mischaracterization based on misreadings, bigotry or personal issues.

[Jhony5]

One way for this answer to be known is to see if there is any evidence that this deity left behind revealing His existance. The first chapter of Genesis gives this evidence.

For the sake of the integrity of this debate, please discontinue refering to the book of Genisis as "evidence". The depictions of creation contained within genisis are out of sync with what we know is required for creation to take place. Simply put, it puts the cart before the horse.

I find Genisis to be humorous in its depiction of creation. If god did create in such a way it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Genisis 1:16 God made the sun before the stars? This is funny shit. Ya see, back then man (who fictionalized creation) had no idea that the sun is in fact a star. Thus he made mistake of diferentiating the two.

 

Genisis 1:14 God created plants before the sun. Why? That doesn't seem right, does it.

 

Joshua 10:12-13 The sun & moon can stand still on gods command. Given what we know about the sun & moons relationship to the earths gravity and rotation that must have been a bumpy ride.

 

2 Kings 20:9-11 The sun can move backwards. Again, this would seem to have far reaching consequences beyond just "moving a shadow" to impress one man.

 

Jhony, you were wrong about the Inquisition, wrong about Galileo, wrong about the Middle Ages, wrong about the nature of the political battle over evolution... But your unskilled eyes spot "historical and scientific inaccuracies" that experts, both believer and skeptic alike, failed to see?

 

Now your just being silly here. Many scientists know it as fact that the bible makes quotes that fly in the face of real fact. Xtian scientists (a contradiction in terms if you ask me) have struggled to explain reasonings for the blatant inaccuracies qouted within the bible. However they have failed to sufficiently explain the inaccuracies, merely they filled in the gross blanks with religious assertions. What we have here is you claiming that i'm "wrong" based on your personal opinion derived from theists whom place their fingers firmly in their ears and say aloud "LALALALALALAL" so as not to hear the truth.

 

Let me make this a catagorical statement: In the places where the Bible has been subjected to historical, archeological, or scientific testing, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE OF THE BIBLE BEING PROVED INACCURATE.

 

This is just stuborn of you. I provided a few quick examples of obvious errors in reason qouted directly from the book of lies. Even many Xtians have acknowledged the errors of the bible, but quickly weave it in a manner that attempts to validate their beliefs.

 

Just one example. Just ONE. You against 3500 years of examination, scholarship, philosophy, archeology, textual criticism. Find the BEST example of an inaccuracy, post it, and watch it get swatted out of the park. I mean really, Jhony, do you really think Biblical studies stopped in the reign of Charlemaign?

 

This aught to be funny

 

The age of the earth as stated in the bible, approxamently 10,000 years.

Whats more I find it puzzling that a man of obvious intelligence as yourself would subscibe to the belief that god created the female human from the rib of man.

Shall we discuss the great flood for instance? Yes lets. The mythical flood was reported to have encompassed the entirety of the earth. We know this to be 100% entirely FALSE. Sedimentary layering has long since disproved the possibility of this event. The flood was most likely a regional event that occured in the red sea. To the simpletons of the time, it was as if the entire world had been submerged. Again. this goes to prove that the bible was written not by the divne word of an omnipresent being, but rather mere men whom had no way of knowing that their writtings would so easily be shot down by common grammer school science teachers.

As well I find it suspicious that the bible makes no mention of Pangia, the one continent world of old. Again, this should have been contained within the scripture, as they attempted to explain creation but it seems they have skimmed over extremely powerful world events. The reason for this is obvious. The men whom were responsible for writting the bible, did not know this. God would if he existed in the context described within the bible. As god devulged so much detailed information to the masses, he would surley not forget to mention such things. Unless god is not whom the bible claims him to be.

and watch it get swatted out of the park

Me thinks your about to hit a foul.....

 

How do you, an obviously intelligent person, say this with a straight face? ESPECIALLY after it has been demonstrated that without the Bible the Science you hold so dear WOULD NOT EXIST!

 

Whether I like it or not, your correct here. The bible IS part of human history. Therefor it will inevitably be tied in with factual occurances. This does not mean the bibles end results are entirely valid.

 

If it seems I'm getting frustrated - I am, for which I apologize. Right now you are committing an 88, a 190, a 196, and a 202. And while everything at the link was written as humor, the basis of humor is truth. So far every arguement you have posed has blown away like a house of cards in a hurricane.

 

I fail to qualify as an "88". I cannot stress this enough. It is stereotypical to assume that to argue against the Xtian idea of god that you are inherently an "atheist". I hold open my mind for any possible explanation for God/Gods, aside from the Xtian translation of this diety, as it was contribed from the heart and minds of simple mortal man.

Again I agree with you that much truth in spoken in jest. As well I agree that fundamentalist atheism is flawed beyond reason. It is my opinion that no man has the ability to explain, translate, or make assertions about that which is unknowable to mankind. Whether we are speaking of Xtian or fundy atheism.

 

Jhony, how much more of a demonstration do you need that it is YOU who start from this position? You have discounted before you have really examined what it really says

 

As I said, you cannot arrive at the truth without starting with truth. As there is no way for man to know the truth about the cause of the universe, time, and creation of the first object, then the truth is unknown and will likely remain that way for all time. The universe is known to man as all that exist. If god exist then he is part of the universe. Therefor it is a scientificly sound assumption to say that god cannot transcend all that exist. Now we are in the realm of square cirlcles.

 

Which flies in the face of current scientific research into multiverses - which, by definition, MUST have boundaries separating them from one another. Pick up nearly any copy of Scientific American for proof.

Please stop qouting theories as proof. They are not one in the same. For those of you who do not know, the "multi-verse" is a quantum-physics theory that is utterly untestable and equates to the idea of parrallel universes. An idea that I find adsurd.

 

 

 

To me personaly, once you begin to grasp the totality of the universe, the vast and unmeasurable distance of it all, it is obvious that the oringinal mover of the first object created, was god. Whether this god is a conscious diety or otherwise, we will never know.

 

So what we agree on is that there is a paranormal entity/entities at the root of creation. Creation of matter, but not nescessarily human life directly, rather possibly indirectly. Life was created in the smallest forms. Then the natural progression of evolution allowed for the devolpement of brains thus spawning intelligence. I admit that life itself seems somehow 'engineered', as if plotted by intelligence purposefully. Unfortunatly religion has long spat at the principles of evolution for the sake of sparing the stories of the bible. If infinite knowledge had been used in forming the bible, it would have and should have included evolution in its base priciples. Instead religious scholars have tried in great vain to support the myth of Adam & Eve which does not allow for evolution to be included in the formulae. Had the bibles 'authors' realized the factual substance of evolution they would have injected it into christian teachings, but they did not. Why? How could this be? A tome of infinite knowledge and human history that is without completion? This defies logic and leaves one to understand the merits and motivations that spawned the bibles contents. By this I mean to say the bible has been proven both a tome of human history that is restricted to a relatively localized region, and an account of early human ignorance.

 

 

 

 

 

I did my best to answer your questions and I welcome your retort. However I wish you to answer a question of mine. How can you in sound mind validate such biblical stories as Adam & Eve and the great flood? These two keypin events are the foundation and starting point of the Xtian faith. Remember what I said earlier, "how can you arrive at the truth without starting at the truth"? If these events are proven untruthful then the bible is itself untrustworty as a reference to truth. This is my standing point on the subject. The bible started with untruth and then weaved a tangled web of historical and factual events into a fable.

[Jhony5]

If you think i'm gonna let this thread drop to the next page Papa, your mistaken. You like to run your chops about how "uneducated" people are to dumb to understand the existence of a christian god, but I see you've been unable to take up your own challange. You fucking dared me to find one false statement qouted in the bible. I gave you several unrefutable points to which you had no response. I've enjoyed this debate but I do not appreciate you firing question after question at me without being able to answer the one fuckin' question I asked. Your inability to refute my points is answer enough I suppose.

 

 

....and yes I noticed you've logged on and slinked around this thread. Just tell me i'm right and i'll stop. Go on dammit, say uncle motherfucker and i'll stop.

[papabryant]

If you think i'm gonna let this thread drop to the next page Papa, your mistaken. You like to run your chops about how "uneducated" people are to dumb to understand the existence of a christian god, but I see you've been unable to take up your own challange. You fucking dared me to find one false statement qouted in the bible. I gave you several unrefutable points to which you had no response. I've enjoyed this debate but I do not appreciate you firing question after question at me without being able to answer the one fuckin' question I asked. Your inability to refute my points is answer enough I suppose.

 

 

....and yes I noticed you've logged on and slinked around this thread. Just tell me i'm right and i'll stop. Go on dammit, say uncle motherfucker and i'll stop.

 

Well, now the truth comes out.

 

You see Jhony, I logged on once, reallized I did not have time to post a long reply - so I didn't say anything.

 

You have assumed this means I want out of the debate. Why? When you are losing?

 

Your PM, which I thought was nice, turns out to be a lie.

 

Gloves are off, the academic stuff comes out. Prepare for your pimpslap.

[Jhony5]

Ohhhh snap. Is this gonna be like when my brother would sit on me and stuff grass in my mouth? By the way, don't take all that personaly. I was just funnin' with ya. I often pop in to check posts when I dont have much time for an extended reply.

 

But yes...in the debate forum the gloves are indeed off.

 

Your PM, which I thought was nice, turns out to be a lie.

 

No lie. I enjoy being able to get in a heated debate without having to resort to 'fuck-yous'. Sa far we have managed to avoid this, so far.

 

You have assumed this means I want out of the debate. Why? When you are losing?

 

Well know thats a matter of opinion. I invite our fellow GF members to read throught his thread and weigh in on that. What do ya'll think?? Why is it that me and Papa are the only ones able to intelligently debate the EOG? I know many of you have strong opinions on both sides of this discussion so by all means, make your thoughts public. I'll go ahead and say it openly, Papa. Your hands down the toughest debater i've encountered on GF.

[papabryant]

For the sake of the integrity of this debate, please discontinue refering to the book of Genisis as "evidence".

 

I will continue to use what data I please - YOU do not get to set the criteria of what is presented.

 

The depictions of creation contained within genisis are out of sync with what we know is required for creation to take place. Simply put, it puts the cart before the horse.

I find Genisis to be humorous in its depiction of creation. If god did create in such a way it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Genisis 1:16 God made the sun before the stars? This is funny shit. Ya see, back then man (who fictionalized creation) had no idea that the sun is in fact a star. Thus he made mistake of diferentiating the two.

 

Genisis 1:14 God created plants before the sun. Why? That doesn't seem right, does it.

 

 

You have not read the link. If you had you would see that Genesis fits EXACTLY what one would see IF STANDING ON PLANET EARTH WHILE OBSERVING. This is well recognized among scholars of the Biblical texts, and is the reason such an effort was made to explain away the Big Bang singularity with such models as the Steady State (the view you hold), Oscillating, Vacuum Fluctuation, or Quantum Gravity. See http://www.tektonics.org/guest/kalamber.html for a good primer on the efforts of VERY well respected scientists trying to get around the Genesis/Singularity "problem" - Einstein fudged his equasions and got caught; Hawking made up numbers and ADMITTED it in his book!

 

 

Now your just being silly here. Many scientists know it as fact that the bible makes quotes that fly in the face of real fact.

No, you are being a bigot. THERE ARE NO "QUOTES THAT FLY IN THE FACE OF REAL FACT". What you have are blithering idiots like yourself who think they can read the Bible like it was yesterday's USA Today.

 

Xtian scientists (a contradiction in terms if you ask me) have struggled to explain reasonings for the blatant inaccuracies qouted within the bible. However they have failed to sufficiently explain the inaccuracies, merely they filled in the gross blanks with religious assertions. What we have here is you claiming that i'm "wrong" based on your personal opinion derived from theists whom place their fingers firmly in their ears and say aloud "LALALALALALAL" so as not to hear the truth.

 

Incoherant ramblings instead of examples or refutation of earlier claims.

 

 

This is just stuborn of you. I provided a few quick examples of obvious errors in reason qouted directly from the book of lies. Even many Xtians have acknowledged the errors of the bible, but quickly weave it in a manner that attempts to validate their beliefs.

 

You have provided nothing of the kind. Each time you have opened you mouth you have put your foot in it BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, I might add. ("You be makin me lookin dumb. I be not want argue anymore cuz you are cheater with large brain make mine hurt.")

 

You were wrong about the inquisition, the AIDS issue in Africa, Galileo, Church suppression of science, and whether the Church said the Earth was round; in addition you mischaracterized the ID debate and spoke without understanding the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. And you can't spell. Given how wrong you have been and how FOOLISH I have made you look BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION ("You be makin me lookin dumb. I be not want argue anymore cuz you are cheater with large brain make mine hurt."), what in sam hill makes you think anything you say should be listened to?

 

I mean, come on... Your track record is abysmal so far.

 

The age of the earth as stated in the bible, approxamently 10,000 years.

See, its this kinda stereotyping crap that gets me. THE BIBLE DOES NOT STATE AN AGE OF THE EARTH!

 

The figure you use there was developed by a Catholic Monk using the genealogical data found in the Book of Genesis. SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH (I know this will be quite a shock to you, but Biblical research didn't stop with Thomas Aquinas ) shows this was the LAST thing you should use because the Hebrews, indeed all Semitic peoples, abridged their genealogy to exclude embarassing relatives.

 

IF you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, you would know the vast majority of Christians DON'T use this 10,000 year old age anymore, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE! YEC's are quite controversial these days, but you wouldn't know this because you are too busy stereotyping people without reason, which is widely recognized as a sign OF A LACK OF INTELLIGENCE!!

 

Which you, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, have ("You be makin me lookin dumb. I be not want argue anymore cuz you are cheater with large brain make mine hurt.")

 

Whats more I find it puzzling that a man of obvious intelligence as yourself would subscibe to the belief that god created the female human from the rib of man.

In the age of Dolly? Remind me not to let you near the sheep. (NOTE TO THE AUDIENCE: He'll miss the reference completely. Somebody tell him, 'eh?)

 

Shall we discuss the great flood for instance? Yes lets.

OH, BOY!! I get to slap you around here!! (I love it when people play into my hands.)

 

 

The mythical flood was reported to have encompassed the entirety of the earth. We know this to be 100% entirely FALSE. Sedimentary layering has long since disproved the possibility of this event.

Wrong, sedimentary layering IS the evidence. I suggest you use google scholar to look at the effect of wave action on the iridium layer found worldwide. It's circumstancial evidence, but it IS possible for a short lived worldwide flood event to have caused this, and more and more scientists are suggesting the possibility.

 

Add to this the universal nature and simularity of worldwide flood myths (thus suggesting a COMMON origin story), and, well....

 

[papabryant]

The flood was most likely a regional event that occured in the red sea. To the simpletons of the time, it was as if the entire world had been submerged. Again. this goes to prove that the bible was written not by the divne word of an omnipresent being, but rather mere men whom had no way of knowing that their writtings would so easily be shot down by common grammer school science teachers.

Then answer the iridium layer.

As well I find it suspicious that the bible makes no mention of Pangia, the one continent world of old.

Its "Pangea" - spelling's a bitch, I know - and WHY would it mention it? It also doesn't mention the land bridge between Asia and North America, or the habitat of the platypus, or the type of forest needed by the Spotted Owl. Why?

BECAUSE ITS IRRELEVANT TO THE STORY OF THE JEWS, DUMB ASS!!

THIS is a fucking stupid complaint! (shakes head)

Me thinks your about to hit a foul.....

Babe Ruth's been passed just on you alone, Hammerin' Hank is the next to go down, given the softballs you've been pitching.

As I said, you cannot arrive at the truth without starting with truth. As there is no way for man to know the truth about the cause of the universe, time, and creation of the first object, then the truth is unknown and will likely remain that way for all time. The universe is known to man as all that exist. If god exist then he is part of the universe. Therefor it is a scientificly sound assumption to say that god cannot transcend all that exist. Now we are in the realm of square cirlcles.

Here you go again, trying to force the arguement on YOUR terms. DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE BEYOND THE UNIVERSE.

Science doesn't even agree with you here. Have you not read anything about "multiverses"? Which by definition must have a boundary separating it from the next dimention, thus disproving your point about nothing transcending the universe? Do you really know how easy it is to beat you in an arguement? THIS IS A CHILD'S ERROR IN LOGIC!

Please stop qouting theories as proof. They are not one in the same. For those of you who do not know, the "multi-verse" is a quantum-physics theory that is utterly untestable and equates to the idea of parrallel universes. An idea that I find adsurd.

Sorry, but the very "scientists" YOU appeal to are the ones who make the multiverse theory. AND WE CHRISTIANS "PICK AND CHOOSE" SCRIPTURE?

What's more, using your logic (snicker), if scientists are knowingly making up untestable theories and passing them on as cutting edge science, how do we trust ANYTHING they say? INCLUDING WHETHER SCIENCE DISPROVES THE BIBLE? (You painted yourself into this corner all by your lonesome, so don't bitch to me!)

To me personaly, once you begin to grasp the totality of the universe, the vast and unmeasurable distance of it all, it is obvious that the oringinal mover of the first object created, was god. Whether this god is a conscious diety or otherwise, we will never know.

Wait, didn't you say the Universe was uncaused, and eternal? Sorry but an eternal universe would have ceased to create anything a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago. Try looking up "The Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite" on Google Scholar, because quite frankly its going to take a while to explain this concept to you, and I have to tuck my kids into bed sometime.

And why wouldn't we know if this deity was conscious or not? If He were conscious, couldn't He attempt to contact us? Oh, wait...

So what we agree on is that there is a paranormal entity/entities at the root of creation. Creation of matter, but not nescessarily human life directly, rather possibly indirectly. Life was created in the smallest forms. Then the natural progression of evolution allowed for the devolpement of brains thus spawning intelligence. I admit that life itself seems somehow 'engineered', as if plotted by intelligence purposefully. Unfortunatly religion has long spat at the principles of evolution for the sake of sparing the stories of the bible.

What have I been trying to tell you, all this time? IT WAS SCIENCE THAT SPAT AT THE BIBLE! IF they actually read the Bible they would see their theories FIT GENESIS LIKE A FUCKING GLOVE! READ THE LINK!!

If infinite knowledge had been used in forming the bible, it would have and should have included evolution in its base priciples.

((Shakes head ))

I did my best to answer your questions and I welcome your retort. However I wish you to answer a question of mine. How can you in sound mind validate such biblical stories as Adam & Eve and the great flood? These two keypin events are the foundation and starting point of the Xtian faith. Remember what I said earlier, "how can you arrive at the truth without starting at the truth"? If these events are proven untruthful then the bible is itself untrustworty as a reference to truth. This is my standing point on the subject. The bible started with untruth and then weaved a tangled web of historical and factual events into a fable.

Your best has proved quite wanting.

I have answered your question on the Flood. As to Adam & Eve, please google "Mitochondrial Eve" - all women, regardless of race or ethnicity, can trace their ancestry back to one individual. And scientists are racing like hell to deny any connection to Genesis.

This conversation turned out to be very disappointing. I thought I had found a RATIONAL skeptic; instead I found just another bastard who thinks he's God's gift to the ignorant masses. You had me fooled for the longest time, boyyyeeee!

I can hear you now --- "See, this is what Christians are REALLY like!"

Hugo will tell you, I am a Christian by belief, but tempermentally, I'm not of the breed, to paraphrase William F. Buckley. I DON'T suffer fools gladly, I don't like being decieved, and I believe very much in the addage about "doing unto others".

Given the bullshit "If you think i'm gonna let this thread drop to the next page Papa, your mistaken. " , when I answered every one of your half-assed "contradictions", only to have the answer dismissed with a waive of your imperial hand - I'm doing unto you apparently what you wanted, so don't bitch to me. You jumped to the fucking conclusion, now take the asswhuppin like a man.

This is playland to me, an electronic sandbox if you will, where I can speak to people in far away lands and occasionally get into decent, if unstructured debates or discussions. If you want to go formal on me, fine little boy.

But you ask Hugo first; you are out of your league.

I expect you to just spout some insults, get more facts WRONG (I bet you even have an encyclopedia near by too), and declare yourself the victor.

And we Christians live in a fantasy world...

Class Dismissed.

[Jhony5]

Then answer the iridium layer.

 

 

LOL! That has no prudence to the story of Noah and you know it. If it anything it shows a historical record of the earth being bombarded by meteors millions of years ago. Are you suggesting that noah existed millions of years ago?

 

Its "Pangea" - spelling's a bitch, I know - and WHY would it mention it? It also doesn't mention the land bridge between Asia and North America, or the habitat of the platypus, or the type of forest needed by the Spotted Owl. Why?

 

Oh my, your gonna stoop to picking on a typo. Real big of ya. The bibles account of mans coming to being is without completion to an extent of pure humor. There have been over 20 documented variations of human beings that evolved and died out over millions of years. Yet we are to swallow this tale of Adam & Eve? We are neanderthals whom consumed meat thus providing human evolution with the gift of a growing brain.

 

Here you go again, trying to force the arguement on YOUR terms. DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE BEYOND THE UNIVERSE.

 

Science doesn't even agree with you here. Have you not read anything about "multiverses"? Which by definition must have a boundary separating it from the next dimention, thus disproving your point about nothing transcending the universe? Do you really know how easy it is to beat you in an arguement? THIS IS A CHILD'S ERROR IN LOGIC!

 

 

I think I made you angry. Your an opponent of fact. Here you go again qouting a wildly contraversial and absolutely untestable theory as sceintific fact. The problem here is you think your dealing with a child. Niggas talkin bout multiple dimensions, LOL. Only a christian would try and use multiple universes as a scientific menas of proof. Your getting desperate.

 

Sorry, but the very "scientists" YOU appeal to are the ones who make the multiverse theory. AND WE CHRISTIANS "PICK AND CHOOSE" SCRIPTURE?

 

What's more, using your logic (snicker), if scientists are knowingly making up untestable theories and passing them on as cutting edge science, how do we trust ANYTHING they say? INCLUDING WHETHER SCIENCE DISPROVES THE BIBLE? (You painted yourself into this corner all by your lonesome, so don't bitch to me!)

 

Science has always hypothasized in order to research wild theories. One knows not to accept these theories as fact until they are proven. You can keep on trying to convince me (and others) that I have "painted myself into a corner", but thats just a manipulation tactic and it ain't gonna work buddy. Try argueing your points without proclaiming my supposed disposition.

 

What have I been trying to tell you, all this time? IT WAS SCIENCE THAT SPAT AT THE BIBLE! IF they actually read the Bible they would see their theories FIT GENESIS LIKE A FUCKING GLOVE!

 

How can you say this? The earth was not created in 6 days fella. No way no how. Whats important to remember is that if the bible had made mention of realistic scientificly plausable creation theories then it (the bible) would be a soild record of creation. Instead it defies any possible logic due to its ignorant creators.

 

I have answered your question on the Flood. As to Adam & Eve, please google "Mitochondrial Eve" - all women, regardless of race or ethnicity, can trace their ancestry back to one individual. And scientists are racing like hell to deny any connection to Genesis.

 

No you didn't. You evaded my question. You just rattled off this weak ass "iridium layer" bullshit that is so fucking irrelavent to proof of the flood. Sedamentary layering shows it immpossible that any world flooding event ever transpired within the time frame provided by your book of lies. OK this is pissing me off here buddy. STOP FUCKING ASKING ME TO "GOOGLE" YOUR SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE!!! Speek for yourself ya dull bastard. Whats the deal with you not having anything to say that isn't copied and pasted from some other source? I'm not even sure anymore that you have a clue what your saying.

 

Hugo will tell you, I am a Christian by belief, but tempermentally, I'm not of the breed, to paraphrase William F. Buckley. I DON'T suffer fools gladly, I don't like being decieved, and I believe very much in the addage about "doing unto others".

 

What the fuck are you talking about? Your getting upset because I made the mistake of shitting on you bible. This always happens when debating biblcal errors with Xtians. They start out all articulate and cool headed, then once they watch their biblical logic get blown to pieces by real factual logic, BAM, crybaby zealots.

[Jhony5]

I will continue to use what data I please - YOU do not get to set the criteria of what is presented.

 

DATA? Whaaaaaat? How in the hell can you even try that shit? The book of genisis is no source of data. The bible is whats in refute here, thus it isn't a viable source for extracting data. Your out of bounds here.

 

No, you are being a bigot. THERE ARE NO "QUOTES THAT FLY IN THE FACE OF REAL FACT". What you have are blithering idiots like yourself who think they can read the Bible like it was yesterday's USA Today.

 

At least yesterdays USA today has some usable knowledge to it. I doubt they would print "data" that states all life was created in 1 week. USA today has editors to answer to. The bible answers to nobody.

 

IF you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, you would know the vast majority of Christians DON'T use this 10,000 year old age anymore, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE BIBLE! YEC's are quite controversial these days, but you wouldn't know this because you are too busy stereotyping people without reason, which is widely recognized as a sign OF A LACK OF INTELLIGENCE!!

 

No, they reject it now because its just stupid to think this. However that does not deny the fact that the same "great men" whom had such a close relationship with god and infinite knowledge that allowed them to write the books of the bible, pushed this belief until modern times. Your religion does not start at the truth, therefore it is not to be trusted.

 

This is playland to me, an electronic sandbox if you will, where I can speak to people in far away lands and occasionally get into decent, if unstructured debates or discussions. If you want to go formal on me, fine little boy.

 

But you ask Hugo first; you are out of your league.

 

You have shown yourself to be a condesending wanna be know-it-all. When shown to be grossly incorrect, you snapped. You told me all I need to know. You refuted my toughest claims by simply qouting the bible as data.

 

And we Christians live in a fantasy world...

 

Not my assertion at all, pal. You christians live in the real world, but live FOR a fantasy world. You have spiritualy purchased eternal life insurance. Your to vain, as are most people, to accept your mortality.

 

Wrong, sedimentary layering IS the evidence. I suggest you use google scholar to look at the effect of wave action on the iridium layer found worldwide. It's circumstancial evidence, but it IS possible for a short lived worldwide flood event to have caused this, and more and more scientists are suggesting the possibility.

 

Add to this the universal nature and simularity of worldwide flood myths (thus suggesting a COMMON origin story), and, well....

 

Your so wrong here and any 7th grader who paid attention in science class will tell ya this. The iridium layering is buried under millions of years worth of sedimentary layering. Which disqualifies it from consideration for supporting the story of noah. Homosapiens had not come into existence at this time. And what humanoids that might have been around sure the fuck weren't making boats.

 

Look Papa, your comin' at me all wrong. You got all pissed off because I called ya out on your bogus book of lies. As an intellectual you couldn't take being shown in error. You assumed the unenviable task of proving ridiculas biblical fairytales, and as expected you failed to do anything but pump up the same old Xtians response tatics, which by the way fail outside the purview of religious folks.

 

 

God is a heartless evil entity whom is both disgusted by mankind, and powerless to change mankind.

 

 

GOD HATES US ALL

 

Your death will soon show you how you've wasted your life asking the sky for favors.

[TheJenn88]

Couple sidenotes: Papabryant, what you said about 'all women being able to trace themselves back to one person' - there's a documentary on humans being able to trace themselves back to one african tribe. It's called The Journey of Man - and it's actually not boring. It's quite interesting, and it covers global evolution and dispersing of population

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

Pantheism, anyone? In my opinion, I find it absolutely ludicrous to suggest that a human-like God descended upon earth, blahblahinsertarrogantchristiantale. Check out pantheism. In my opinion it's a lot more believable.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

And then with a pinch of stoicism, you've got yourself a lot of the same principles as a monotheistic religion - strong moral foundation, a god that is truly everywhere, but more of a force than a "person." Has a lot less bullshit than the tales of Christianity and other religious books, and it's a lot harder to prove false because it's just simply a faith in a god being "a universal force that is everywhere"

 

So, if everyone were to believe my proposed plan, the world would be a lot happier. Hm. That sounded slightly arrogant

yay

[hugo]

I must admit the wife is a bit pissed since I converted to goombanism with its 186 holy days that we are required to celebrate by imbibing the fermented crops of the field (we are working on adding more holy days). Praise Goombah!! Once you have seen Goombah turn tap water into Shiner beer you too will believe.