Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on July 01, 2015, 02:41:39 PM
-
deleted
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Floo try Mr Hilter You tube. (I have spelled Hilter correctly).
ippy
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Floo, may I remind you that Jesus taught that there may be those who claim to be his followers who will not be recognised at the Day of Judgement - and that there may be those who don't claim this, who are.
As such, it isn't for you or I to judge; that is for God to do.
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Floo, may I remind you that Jesus taught that there may be those who claim to be his followers who will not be recognised at the Day of Judgement - and that there may be those who don't claim this, who are.
As such, it isn't for you or I to judge; that is for God to do.
If it exists, I have every right to judge the deity if it is as evil as the deeds attributed to it in the Bible indicate. Further more as humans we should be endeavouring to exterminate it!
-
Our 'version' of God seems all too often to be just a 'larger' human !!!!
So not really a god at all. ;)
-
Our 'version' of God seems all too often to be just a 'larger' human !!!!
So not really a god at all. ;)
The Biblical deity has all the worst of human characteristics and then some! It is quite possible the authors did this to make their deity very scary on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god!
-
Well Of Course.
It's been the same old shit for millenia. Why should it be any different for them?????
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Jonah struggled with this too.
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Jonah struggled with this too.
I sure he did trying to get out of that fish, which must have been equipped with oxygen bottles to keep him alive in its stomach! ;D
-
There is no symbolisism or mythology in the Bible ?!!?!? ;)
-
There is no symbolisism or mythology in the Bible ?!!?!? ;)
Most of it is fantasy/myth/legend/exaggeration/lies! IMO!
-
WELL OK but from a Christian POV anyway. ;)
It's all supposed to be true, no? Pretty sure there'll be some who'll recognise imagery etc, though.
Whatcha mean, NOT MANY ?!!?!?!?
-
WELL OK but from a Christian POV anyway. ;)
It's all supposed to be true, no? Pretty sure there'll be some who'll recognise imagery etc, though.
Whatcha mean, NOT MANY ?!!?!?!?
Nick, yes there may be a few people who understand the Bible in a literalistic way - Floo, for instance, seems to revel in doing so. However, I would suggest that they are a miniscule percentage of humanity. All the people I know acknowledge that even the sections that purpost to be historical are also trying to engage their readers in more than a historical way. I think the thing that amuses me most is that there are probably more non-Christians who want to believe that the Bible has to be understood literalistically, than there are Christians who believe that.
(Note my use of the term 'literalistically'. I am of the school who believe that, to understand the Bible literally, one has to understand it in terms of the context(s) in which it was written, appreciate the literary genre of each document (or section of document) - and hence the nature of the message, understand that translating it from its original Hebrew (OT) and Koine Greek (NT) into some other language will have its complications, and have some understanding of the audience the documents were written for.
On the other hand, those who believe that it has to be understood word for word, in modern English as the words used stand in the 21st Century and through the context of 21st century society are 'literalistic' in their approach.)
-
WELL OK but from a Christian POV anyway. ;)
It's all supposed to be true, no? Pretty sure there'll be some who'll recognise imagery etc, though.
Whatcha mean, NOT MANY ?!!?!?!?
Not all Christians are Biblical literalists by any means, I suspect those that are will be in the minority.
-
WELL OK but from a Christian POV anyway. ;)
It's all supposed to be true, no? Pretty sure there'll be some who'll recognise imagery etc, though.
Whatcha mean, NOT MANY ?!!?!?!?
Not all Christians are Biblical literalists by any means, I suspect those that are will be in the minority.
Quite correct. Biblical literalism, or fundamentalism, is a relatively new movement within Christianity. Fundamentalists are a minority of Christians. They are the atheists' favourite type of course, because they are so easy to refute,
-
They are the atheists' favourite type of course, because they are so easy to refute,
Could that explain why the atheists here find it so hard to sudccessfully refute what is said by the majority of Christians here? ;)
-
It's difficult to refute statements with all the definition and intellectual rigour of Bird's custard.
The vast majority of Christians the vast majority of the time don't even scruple to put forward anything substantial enough to refute.
-
It's difficult to refute statements with all the definition and intellectual rigour of Bird's custard.
Ah, that's the problem you have is it. It might possibly help if you actually made the custard, rather than working with the powder alone. :D
The vast majority of Christians the vast majority of the time don't even scruple to put forward anything substantial enough to refute.
The vast majority of Christians don't come across arguments that need any particularly substantial arguments ;)
-
It's difficult to refute statements with all the definition and intellectual rigour of Bird's custard.
Ah, that's the problem you have is it. It might possibly help if you actually made the custard, rather than working with the powder alone. :D
Hardly, since custard when made up (and it does come ready-made these days) is a rather bland amorphous slop.
Oh wait, you're right; the comparison with Christian 'arguments' is even more exact than I previously thought.
-
WELL OK but from a Christian POV anyway. ;)
It's all supposed to be true, no? Pretty sure there'll be some who'll recognise imagery etc, though.
Whatcha mean, NOT MANY ?!!?!?!?
Not all Christians are Biblical literalists by any means, I suspect those that are will be in the minority.
Quite correct. Biblical literalism, or fundamentalism, is a relatively new movement within Christianity. Fundamentalists are a minority of Christians. They are the atheists' favourite type of course, because they are so easy to refute,
Blimey we agree on something!
As has been pointed out many times their literalism is as credible as fairies at the bottom of the garden! Of course I can't say for sure there aren't fairies hiding in our flowerbeds just as I can't say for sure the deity does exist, but the probability is they don't, imo!
-
Of course I can't say for sure there aren't fairies hiding in our flowerbeds just as I can't say for sure the deity does exist, but the probability is they don't, imo!
If it's only your opinion, what gives you the right to broadcast iot like you do? Surely you should be required to believe this only in private. ;)
-
Of course I can't say for sure there aren't fairies hiding in our flowerbeds just as I can't say for sure the deity does exist, but the probability is they don't, imo!
If it's only your opinion, what gives you the right to broadcast iot like you do? Surely you should be required to believe this only in private. ;)
Opinion based on probability, I think!
-
Only in PRIVATE ?!?!!?!?!?
SO why are you lot on forums like this?????
-
It's difficult to refute statements with all the definition and intellectual rigour of Bird's custard.
Ah, that's the problem you have is it. It might possibly help if you actually made the custard, rather than working with the powder alone. :D
Hardly, since custard when made up (and it does come ready-made these days) is a rather bland amorphous slop.
Oh wait, you're right; the comparison with Christian 'arguments' is even more exact than I previously thought.
I like custard; always have.
-
Opinion based on probability, I think!
If opinion based on probability ruled, life would be vastly different to what it is, Floo. How often have you experienced situations for which the probability has been very low?
-
Only in PRIVATE ?!?!!?!?!?
SO why are you lot on forums like this?????
Probably because we all disagree with the oft-made suggestion that belief systems should only be practised in private.
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
Can anyone be sincere and truly repentant on a death bed?
How does saving people land you in hell?
Do you really think about what you are saying?
When you have murdered so many as Hitler did.. would you really be able to repent if you believed what you did was the right thing?
You are not thinking this through....
To see the error of your way and truly repent because you see how wrong you were is not a bad thing...
But to think you can repent just in case there is a God is not true repentance you have to be sorry for what you have done.
-
When the evil deity, if it exists, repents of its wickedness it will be a good day for humankind!
-
When the evil deity, if it exists, repents of its wickedness it will be a good day for humankind!
There would still be human wickedness. Any evidence of how that is ''less wicked''?
-
When the evil deity, if it exists, repents of its wickedness it will be a good day for humankind!
Floo, is it at all possible, do you think, that the deity exists and is not guilty of the things which you are so angry about?
-
AAH So we DO have a God Of Evil too ?!?!!?!?!?
I JUST KNEW IT !!!!!
-
AAH So we DO have a God Of Evil too ?!?!!?!?!?
I JUST KNEW IT !!!!!
Does she go by a name beginning with F, by any chance? ;)
-
F ??????????? :o
-
AAH So we DO have a God Of Evil too ?!?!!?!?!?
I JUST KNEW IT !!!!!
What led you to that conclusion? Sounds like Freemasonry to me!
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Nick, several religions teach that a rebellion, either in heaven or amongst humans, led to the arrival of evil. So, in a sense, yes there is a 'God' of Evil - though whether the use of the term 'God' is appropriate in the context is open to debate. In Judeo-Christianity, that rebel is called Satan. I believe that Hinduism doesn't have a single equivalent but rather a number of beings that add up to a sort of equivalent. http://www.humanreligions.info/satan.html provides an interesting review.
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Nick, several religions teach that a rebellion, either in heaven or amongst humans, led to the arrival of evil. So, in a sense, yes there is a 'God' of Evil - though whether the use of the term 'God' is appropriate in the context is open to debate. In Judeo-Christianity, that rebel is called Satan. I believe that Hinduism doesn't have a single equivalent but rather a number of beings that add up to a sort of equivalent. http://www.humanreligions.info/satan.html provides an interesting review.
The only evil deity, where Christianity is concerned, is the one in the Bible!
-
Hope
Thanks for that but Floo has a good point too.....
-
Hope
Thanks for that but Floo has a good point too.....
Where does Floo get her idea of Good and evil from. Does she like other moral non realists pull it ex rectum?
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
God is powerless to prevent them, then?
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
God is powerless to prevent them, then?
God doesn't prevent anybody doing what they choose, evil, or otherwise.
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
God is powerless to prevent them, then?
God doesn't prevent anybody doing what they choose, evil, or otherwise.
Sounds like a monumental ad hoc cop-out, as usual.
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
If I (a) knew evil was going on and (b) knew how to stop it and (c) was actually able to stop it, I would.
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
God is powerless to prevent them, then?
God doesn't prevent anybody doing what they choose, evil, or otherwise.
Sounds like a monumental ad hoc cop-out, as usual.
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
Sentimental old cobblers.
-
There's nothing like a well-thought-out, tightly-argued, logically sound reply ... and there's always Vlad to show you how not to make one :)
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Mostly from PEOPLE!!
God is powerless to prevent them, then?
God doesn't prevent anybody doing what they choose, evil, or otherwise.
Sounds like a monumental ad hoc cop-out, as usual.
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
I guess Barker didn't notice the holocaust, or genocide in Rwanda, Idi Amin, or Da'ish, or Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Srebrenica, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, thousands of murderers, rapists, crooks and cheats, etc, etc, etc. Apparently, there have only been 12 years in recorded history when there has not been at least one war somewhere on the planet!!
-
I guess you didn't notice how many people - to put it mildly - didn't or don't like those things and endeavour(ed) to stop them, which is very considerably more than you can say for God isn't it?
-
There's nothing like a well-thought-out, tightly-argued, logically sound reply ...
You're welcome Sooty.
-
You should have carried on reading after the word 'reply.'
-
I guess you didn't notice how many people - to put it mildly - didn't or don't like those things and endeavour(ed) to stop them, which is very considerably more than you can say for God isn't it?
And I've answered that old chestnut comment already.
-
Where?
-
Where?
M41 - do keep up.
-
# 41 doesn't answer it at all, unless you meant in the entirely obvious sense that a non-existent entity clearly can't prevent anyone from doing anything.
Do you suppose that if a god that exists, knows about evil (leaving aside the issue of whether it created it in the first place), knows how to stop it and could do but doesn't, has any claim to morality whatever?
-
# 41 doesn't answer it at all, unless you meant in the entirely obvious sense that a non-existent entity clearly can't prevent anyone from doing anything.
Do you suppose that if a god that exists, knows about evil (leaving aside the issue of whether it created it in the first place), knows how to stop it and could do but doesn't has any claim to morality whatever?
It is called the freedom to choose your own actions, free of coercion.
-
There's no definitive evidence that we have such freedom as you describe, but let's say you're right for the sake of the argument. My system of morality wouldn't allow me to create or maintain the freedom of an adult to rape a child, for example; if I could un-create such a thing I would, and if I knew such a thing was going on I'd do everything I could to stop it. So would most people, actually; a very very small proportion would wring their hands and say, "Well, I know it's terrible, and I'd love to help, but it's really none of my business." Fewer still would say, "Good." Both would be utterly monstrous.
If I had good reason to believe that in my street (hell, anywhere) a child was being abused in some way - in fact let's not be speciesist about it; if I thought an animal was being abused - I would (a) have the desire to stop it, (b) know how to go about stopping it (by alerting relevant authorities - police; social services; RSPCA and so forth) and (c) would go about stopping it by putting (b) into action. That would be the moral thing to do. Folding my arms and either supportively or even reluctantly placing the supposed freedom of the abuser to abuse above the right of the child or animal not to suffer would not be the moral thing to do. In fact such an act of omission would be downright immoral. In a case such as this I have (1) knowledge of an evil act; (2) knowledge of how to stop it; (3) the desire to stop it and (4) the ability to stop it. Sadly there are a vast number of cases where human beings possess (1), (2) and (3) but, crucially, not (4). For example, I would stop the suffering of children and animals everywhere if I had it in my power, but alas I don't. And that's just for an ordinary human being. Turning to any tolerably traditional conception of a god, however, it's not at all clear which out of (1), (2), (3) and (4) apply, but one thing is for sure - it can be any combination of at most any three, but it can't be all four simultaneously.
That, as I've said before, is the difference between most people and the god you think exists.
Well; that and the fact that people actually do exist, of course.
-
Your God's not a very good parent, is He????
Would YOU as a parent just step back from, say, your 5 year old about to run across a road & just say 'well, he WANTED to do it so.... I let him'
Social services would be round before the kid had hit the ground !!!!
-
WELLL
We have all these 'Christians' here trying to convince us THEIR God has naff all to do with all the bad things that occur on earth so SOMEONE - SOMETHING'S responsible, no???? ;)
Who said he has naff all to do with it? How many are "all these Christians"?
-
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
I guess Barker didn't notice the holocaust, or genocide in Rwanda, Idi Amin, or Da'ish, or Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Srebrenica, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, thousands of murderers, rapists, crooks and cheats, etc, etc, etc. Apparently, there have only been 12 years in recorded history when there has not been at least one war somewhere on the planet!!
God is depicted to have wiped out almost everybody at one point.
-
... which makes even the most ambitious genocidal tyrant or dictator look very much the idle under-achiever, doesn't it?
-
It's amazing how fundamentalist atheists can be when it suits them. They cannot conceive of the Bible not being true about God - in their 'minds', if God exists then everything in the Bible must be true.
-
It's amazing how fundamentalist atheists can be when it suits them. They cannot conceive of the Bible not being true about God - in their 'minds', if God exists then everything in the Bible must be true.
Is there some specific reason as to why you placed scare quotes around the word minds with regard to atheists?
-
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
But that wouldn't and couldn't happen, could it?
The bible shows that to be an impossibility.
Do you want to figure it out?
-
Your God's not a very good parent, is He????
Would YOU as a parent just step back from, say, your 5 year old about to run across a road & just say 'well, he WANTED to do it so.... I let him'
Social services would be round before the kid had hit the ground !!!!
The standard traditional theistic answer, dress it up how you may, seems to be that it's more important to respect the kid's freedom to run into the road than to stop him. Hence the god in whom certain theists purport to believe apparently values the freedom of a comparative handful of human beings to build Auschwitz-Birkenau far over the lives of the 1.1 million who entered the place in cattle trucks and left through a chimney.
Not something that I pretend to understand, but then of course if you look for logic, reason, common sense or consistency - or, frequently, any basic humanity - in any of this religion malarkey you'll seek in vain.
I think all atheists are aware, and I don't know but suspect that perhaps most theists are perfectly well aware but loth to admit, that the invocation of free will in the face of evil is really no more than an absolutely desperate ploy to maintain at all costs an utterly untenable belief.
-
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
I guess Barker didn't notice the holocaust, or genocide in Rwanda, Idi Amin, or Da'ish, or Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Srebrenica, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, thousands of murderers, rapists, crooks and cheats, etc, etc, etc. Apparently, there have only been 12 years in recorded history when there has not been at least one war somewhere on the planet!!
God is depicted to have wiped out almost everybody at one point.
Yes, that's the God of the OT, which I reject as the true depiction of God, as I have explained many times now.
-
There's no definitive evidence that we have such freedom as you describe, but let's say you're right for the sake of the argument. My system of morality wouldn't allow me to create or maintain the freedom of an adult to rape a child, for example; if I could un-create such a thing I would, and if I knew such a thing was going on I'd do everything I could to stop it. So would most people, actually; a very very small proportion would wring their hands and say, "Well, I know it's terrible, and I'd love to help, but it's really none of my business." Fewer still would say, "Good." Both would be utterly monstrous.
If I had good reason to believe that in my street (hell, anywhere) a child was being abused in some way - in fact let's not be speciesist about it; if I thought an animal was being abused - I would (a) have the desire to stop it, (b) know how to go about stopping it (by alerting relevant authorities - police; social services; RSPCA and so forth) and (c) would go about stopping it by putting (b) into action. That would be the moral thing to do. Folding my arms and either supportively or even reluctantly placing the supposed freedom of the abuser to abuse above the right of the child or animal not to suffer would not be the moral thing to do. In fact such an act of omission would be downright immoral. In a case such as this I have (1) knowledge of an evil act; (2) knowledge of how to stop it; (3) the desire to stop it and (4) the ability to stop it. Sadly there are a vast number of cases where human beings possess (1), (2) and (3) but, crucially, not (4). For example, I would stop the suffering of children and animals everywhere if I had it in my power, but alas I don't. And that's just for an ordinary human being. Turning to any tolerably traditional conception of a god, however, it's not at all clear which out of (1), (2), (3) and (4) apply, but one thing is for sure - it can be any combination of at most any three, but it can't be all four simultaneously.
That, as I've said before, is the difference between most people and the god you think exists.
Well; that and the fact that people actually do exist, of course.
Well, you say most people; but as I pointed out, if you take all those who have been killed in war and genocide, and then add all those who murder, and cheat and back-bite, are unkind and uncaring; the everyday rivalries and bitterness; the lack of empathy with fellow men; the fact that the minority are well-fed and healthy, and throw away millions of tons of food every year, whilst millions die of starvation; the callous disregard for the planet we live on; not to mention the appalling way we treat the animal kingdom: how can you make much of a case for human-kind as being good and moral? It all makes the OT God look like a rank amateur!
Look up this, for starters: "List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll." All I've listed, and more, put the human race on the dock as foul and murderous in the exreme. Even the fictitious God of the OT cannot come close to matching it.
-
Well, you say most people; but as I pointed out, if you take all those who have been killed in war and genocide
You can't invoke these as examples of human depravity though as in the case of war most and in the case of genocide all these are victims, not perpetrators. Seventy-plus years ago millions of people died, more or less willingly when you come right down to it, to serve a cause which aimed to stop the people who built Treblinka and the ideology that made them build it.
and then add all those who murder, and cheat and back-bite, are unkind and uncaring; the everyday rivalries and bitterness; the lack of empathy with fellow men; the fact that the minority are well-fed and healthy, and throw away millions of tons of food every year, whilst millions die of starvation; the callous disregard for the planet we live on; not to mention the appalling way we treat the animal kingdom: how can you make much of a case for human-kind as being good and moral?
Humans are a varied bunch - there's enough of them for them to be so. The things you describe are perfectly consistent with the naturalist view - that we are, as Christopher Hitchens put it, largely hairless apes not ever so long from the savannah, with over-active adrenal glands and a fear of the dark - but difficult, some would say impossible to reconcile with the theistic view, which requires a mind-boggling amount of Procrustean logic-chopping and really barrel-bottom-scraping rationalisation and explaining away.
-
Well, you say most people; but as I pointed out, if you take all those who have been killed in war and genocide
You can't invoke these as examples of human depravity though as in the case of war most and in the case of genocide all these are victims, not perpetrators. Seventy-plus years ago millions of people died, more or less willingly when you come right down to it, to serve a cause which aimed to stop the people who built Treblinka and the ideology that made them build it.
and then add all those who murder, and cheat and back-bite, are unkind and uncaring; the everyday rivalries and bitterness; the lack of empathy with fellow men; the fact that the minority are well-fed and healthy, and throw away millions of tons of food every year, whilst millions die of starvation; the callous disregard for the planet we live on; not to mention the appalling way we treat the animal kingdom: how can you make much of a case for human-kind as being good and moral?
Humans are a varied bunch - there's enough of them for them to be so. The things you describe are perfectly consistent with the naturalist view - that we are, as Christopher Hitchens put it, largely hairless apes not ever so long from the savannah, with over-active adrenal glands and a fear of the dark - but difficult, some would say impossible to reconcile with the theistic view, which requires a mind-boggling amount of Procrustean logic-chopping and really barrel-bottom-scraping rationalisation and explaining away.
Have you looked at the site I suggested? That is what is truly mind-boggling. When I consider the everyday lack of care and casual unkindness, not to say downright unpleasantness of the average human at some time or other, then I find it indefensible. Compare all that murk with Jesus' teaching of love and forgiveness and try and equate it with His own example of love, above all things. The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
-
It's amazing how fundamentalist atheists can be when it suits them. They cannot conceive of the Bible not being true about God - in their 'minds', if God exists then everything in the Bible must be true.
Is there some specific reason as to why you placed scare quotes around the word minds with regard to atheists?
I have never heard them called scare quotes before! Sorry they scared you!
And, yes, there is
-
I think some might guess why my reaction to post 66 is hollow laughter! ::)
-
I have never heard them called scare quotes before! Sorry they scared you!
They didn't scare me. That's the standard term.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
And, yes, there is
And what is that reason?
-
The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
That would be the same human race that God created in his own image?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 2
-
The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
That would be the same human race that God created in his own image?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 2
Just supposing the deity had created us in its own evil image, fortunately many humans have overcome that terrible calamity and are decent people!
-
The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
That would be the same human race that God created in his own image?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 2
Before the fall... everything was good... but like mankind today they do as they wish and not as is best for them...
So maybe you should read the bible and see God is good and everything he made was good... Then man sinned and fell away and hence we have what was mans own doing and the reason... Like you writing the above, Adam thought he knew best too. Seems it is ongoing.... ::)
-
The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
That would be the same human race that God created in his own image?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 2
Before the fall... everything was good... but like mankind today they do as they wish and not as is best for them...
So maybe you should read the bible and see God is good and everything he made was good... Then man sinned and fell away and hence we have what was mans own doing and the reason... Like you writing the above, Adam thought he knew best too. Seems it is ongoing.... ::)
WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE BIBLICAL DEITY? No one seems to be able to answer that question!
-
The human race is unbeatable in its record of violence and inhumane disregard for its fellows.
That would be the same human race that God created in his own image?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 2
Before the fall... everything was good... but like mankind today they do as they wish and not as is best for them...
So maybe you should read the bible and see God is good and everything he made was good... Then man sinned and fell away and hence we have what was mans own doing and the reason... Like you writing the above, Adam thought he knew best too. Seems it is ongoing.... ::)
WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE BIBLICAL DEITY? No one seems to be able to answer that question!
You are really show ignorance if you cannot fathom that out for yourself even without reading the bible....
-
EVASION ALERT !!!!! EVASION ALERT !!!!!
-
You are really show ignorance if you cannot fathom that out for yourself even without reading the bible....
Are you in denial about what is written about your God in the Bible.
As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
Maybe Floo has read more of the book than you give her credit for.
-
You are really show ignorance if you cannot fathom that out for yourself even without reading the bible....
Are you in denial about what is written about your God in the Bible.
As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
Maybe Floo has read more of the book than you give her credit for.
It is my frequent reading of that book which makes me ask the question, 'WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE DEITY', to which there is never an answer!
-
It is my frequent reading of that book which makes me ask the question, 'WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE DEITY', to which there is never an answer!
Perhaps you never read those answers. But hang on, you responded to them with such inconsequential responses as to show that you have no idea of what you wrote.
-
It is my frequent reading of that book which makes me ask the question, 'WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE DEITY', to which there is never an answer!
Perhaps you never read those answers. But hang on, you responded to them with such inconsequential responses as to show that you have no idea of what you wrote.
Well go on enlighten me as to what is good about a deity who supposedly floods the planet, gets a young girl pregnant so her son can die a terrible death? Just to name two of its crimes.
-
It is my frequent reading of that book which makes me ask the question, 'WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE DEITY', to which there is never an answer!
Perhaps you never read those answers. But hang on, you responded to them with such inconsequential responses as to show that you have no idea of what you wrote.
Well go on enlighten me as to what is good about a deity who supposedly floods the planet, gets a young girl pregnant so her son can die a terrible death? Just to name two of its crimes.
Before people like Pinker believed that wars will inevitably get less worse and the sum of world happiness will eventually progressively get greater(i.e. sentimental old bollocks) people were raising and having children in the surefire knowledge that life would almost inevitably be bad to them . In fact I think you'll find that Christianity eventually proved a popular alternative to bread, circuses, violent entertainment and a lack of charity.
Pinker is wrong to say decent values came in with the antitheist enlightenment.
-
Before people like Pinker believed that wars will inevitably get less worse and the sum of world happiness will eventually progressively get greater(i.e. sentimental old bollocks) people were raising and having children in the surefire knowledge that life would almost inevitably be bad to them .
That was big of them, wasn't it?
In fact I think you'll find that Christianity eventually proved a popular alternative to bread, circuses, violent entertainment and a lack of charity.
Bloody Nora. Think how shit things must be when Christianity is supposed to be the alternative to it :(
Pinker is wrong to say decent values came in with the antitheist enlightenment.
Quite but accidentally wrong for a change. Decent values long predate religion.
-
Before people like Pinker believed that wars will inevitably get less worse and the sum of world happiness will eventually progressively get greater(i.e. sentimental old bollocks) people were raising and having children in the surefire knowledge that life would almost inevitably be bad to them .
That was big of them, wasn't it?
In fact I think you'll find that Christianity eventually proved a popular alternative to bread, circuses, violent entertainment and a lack of charity.
yes but think about it Shaker...Bread and circuses, violent entertainment and a lack of charity......all coming back into fashion
(well not literally bread and circus but the metaphorical describes a decadent culture sense)
-
It's amazing how fundamentalist atheists can be when it suits them. They cannot conceive of the Bible not being true about God - in their 'minds', if God exists then everything in the Bible must be true.
If you are talking about my post, I'm afraid you are misrepresenting it in a pretty bad but utterly predictable (for a Christian on this board) way. I said "God is depicted", I never claimed that the given depiction is the truth. Even Floo usually qualifies her pronouncements by talking about the "God of the Bible".
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
-
It does point up Dan Barker's famous point, however, that so many - in fact most - humans are vastly, vastly, vastly morally better than God is depicted.
I guess Barker didn't notice the holocaust, or genocide in Rwanda, Idi Amin, or Da'ish, or Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Srebrenica, Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, thousands of murderers, rapists, crooks and cheats, etc, etc, etc. Apparently, there have only been 12 years in recorded history when there has not been at least one war somewhere on the planet!!
God is depicted to have wiped out almost everybody at one point.
Yes, that's the God of the OT, which I reject as the true depiction of God, as I have explained many times now.
I know you reject it but that doesn't mean the depiction doesn't exist and the original point was about a depiction.
-
yes but think about it Shaker...Bread and circuses, violent entertainment and a lack of charity......all coming back into fashion
(well not literally bread and circus but the metaphorical describes a decadent culture sense)
Yes it's so much worse than the good old Christian days where you could go and watch the bad Christians being hung drawn and quartered by the good Christians. Those were the days.
-
What country?
ETA: Oh, I see Vlad (or 'Chuck' as he is this week) has deleted a post in which he asserted that to go to see a proper disembowelling these days you have to go to an atheist country (whatever that is?).
That'll remind me to directly quote every single last post you ever make again, Vlad, you slimy, sleazy, dishonest, backtracking little weirdo, you ;)
-
What country?
ETA: Oh, I see Vlad (or 'Chuck' as he is this week) has deleted a post in which he asserted that to go to see a proper disembowelling these days you have to go to an atheist country (whatever that is?).
That'll remind me to directly quote every single last post you ever make again, Vlad, you slimy, sleazy, dishonest, backtracking little weirdo, you ;)
'ere, less of the ''weirdo'', thank you.
-
Yes, I couldn't agree more.
-
Decent values long predate religion.
When did religion start?
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
There's a vastly simpler (and rational) explanation for that.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Because a deity had nothing to do with the writing of it! EASY PEASY!
-
There's a vastly simpler (and rational) explanation for that.
Such as?
-
Because a deity had nothing to do with the writing of it! EASY PEASY!
Evidence for that claim, Floo?
-
There's a vastly simpler (and rational) explanation for that.
Such as?
Such as the fact that the document(s) concerned were simply written by humans (and by our standards highly ignorant and superstitious ones at that).
-
Because a deity had nothing to do with the writing of it! EASY PEASY!
Evidence for that claim, Floo?
Where is your evidence a deity had anything to do with its production. In fact as much of it is such a disaster, any deity would obviously be suffering from a serious mental illness if written at its instigation!
-
There's a vastly simpler (and rational) explanation for that.
Such as?
Such as the fact that the document(s) concerned were simply written by humans and by our standards highly ignorant
You clearly don't read all the posts on here, to begin with!
-
True. You know what you're going to get from a great many of the religionist ones so I do skim over those, I admit ;)
-
True. You know what you're going to get from a great many of the religionist ones so I do skim over those, I admit ;)
Great, first Goddodging now Godskimming.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
-
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not.
This is a whine, not a reasoned argument - as is usually the case. You're not providing a reasoned counter to the old saw of "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
It's an example of the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum, in other words. For some reason some religionists on this forum don't take kindly to having logical fallacies, formal or informal, pointed out every time they occur, which is exceedingly often. They seem to think that merely pointing out that their pointing out that someone has said that such-and-such is a logical fallacy is an argument against the original fallacy. It isn't.
Nevertheless, their whines don't matter; a fallacy it remains.
-
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not.
This is a whine, not a reasoned argument - as is usually the case. You're not providing a reasoned counter to the old saw of "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
It's an example of the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum, in other words. For some reason some religionists on this forum don't take kindly to having logical fallacies, formal or informal, pointed out every time they occur, which is exceedingly often. They seem to think that merely pointing out that their pointing out that someone has said that such-and-such is a logical fallacy is an argument against the original fallacy. It isn't.
Nevertheless, their whines don't matter; a fallacy it remains.
What a load of pretentious twaddle, designed only to divert from your nasty, and constant, condemnation.
-
Would you care for some cheese, grapes and Bath Olivers with that whine?
-
Would you care for some cheese, grapes and Bath Olivers with that whine?
Some cheese would be nice, as a birthday present, maybe!
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
But this is a non literal story that libels God specifically.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; only to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; oron;y to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
I know you don't like it B A but if you went into a betting shop where they deal with the world as it is no frills, what difference do you think they would make with the odds on, one seeing your god thingy in Tescos and two seeing Elvis in Tescos?
You might be a bit more likely to see Elvis, no?
ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; oron;y to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
I know you don't like it B A but if you went into a betting shop where they deal with the world as it is no frills, what difference do you think they would make with the odds on, one seeing your god thingy in Tescos and two seeing Elvis in Tescos?
You might be a bit more likely to see Elvis, no?
ippy
No, I certainly don't: quite the contrary.
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; oron;y to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
I know you don't like it B A but if you went into a betting shop where they deal with the world as it is no frills, what difference do you think they would make with the odds on, one seeing your god thingy in Tescos and two seeing Elvis in Tescos?
You might be a bit more likely to see Elvis, no?
ippy
No, I certainly don't: quite the contrary.
OK, which one is more likely then, seeing your god thingy in Tescos or seeing Elvis in Tescos?
ippy
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; oron;y to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
I know you don't like it B A but if you went into a betting shop where they deal with the world as it is no frills, what difference do you think they would make with the odds on, one seeing your god thingy in Tescos and two seeing Elvis in Tescos?
You might be a bit more likely to see Elvis, no?
ippy
No, I certainly don't: quite the contrary.
OK, which one is more likely then, seeing your god thingy in Tescos or seeing Elvis in Tescos?
ippy
This discussion is silly, and anyway, I do not intend to discuss anything with someone who describes a cherished belief of mine, and billions of others, as a "god thingy." If you cannot use a little mature respect, then clear off!!
-
It is undeniable that there is a depiction of God in the Bible in which he kills all human and animal life on the planet except the ones in the Ark. If you claim that this is not a true depiction of God, then fair enough but one has to wonder how he allowed such a libel to appear in his Holy Book.
Well, one has to ask why God allowed a lot of non-literal ideas into his word; stuff like parables and poetry.
Didn't allow anything Hope there is no evidence that would support the idea that the he she or it thingy you refer to as god is there in the first place.
like Savill Rowe says has anyone seen Elvis lately, it's just as likely as your nonsense.
Ippy
It may be nonsense to you, but to millions it is not. And your constant, immature, sniping merely shows you to be an insensitive imbecile - meaning: "imbecile; a stupid person."
Hi BA, I couldn't help noticing your post couldn't be classified as being strictly in the spirit of the OP, however do you think it's likely that someone will actually expose this Elvis myth, along with the myth that you seem to have a penchant for? Probably not.
ippy
What myth? Elvis was on the check-out at Tesco, near me, last Friday
Well well B A, was the thing whatever it is, that you refer to as god visible too?
ippy
Depends what you mean by "visible." Does your cousin in America (just being hypothetical) not exist merely because you cannot see him?
Well you did say about Elvis and it's entirely reasonable to expect seeing Elvis is equally as likely to happen as it would be to see this god thingy of yours at the Tesco check out.
ippy
No it isn't; oron;y to silly athrists, with lots of time on their hands.
I know you don't like it B A but if you went into a betting shop where they deal with the world as it is no frills, what difference do you think they would make with the odds on, one seeing your god thingy in Tescos and two seeing Elvis in Tescos?
You might be a bit more likely to see Elvis, no?
ippy
No, I certainly don't: quite the contrary.
OK, which one is more likely then, seeing your god thingy in Tescos or seeing Elvis in Tescos?
ippy
This discussion is silly, and anyway, I do not intend to discuss anything with someone who describes a cherished belief of mine, and billions of others, as a "god thingy." If you cannot use a little mature respect, then clear off!!
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
-
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works
What about these so-called "personal experiences" of "God" that so many of you theists are always banging on about?
What is "God," what are its "mechanics" and how did you come to be aware of these?
and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead.
Elvis Costello has died? When? :'(
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
No that is not how the deity works, if it exists at all it enjoys playing silly games with humans. Why can't it make its existence clear to all so no one could possibly disbelieve in it, anymore than one could disbelieve the sun exists, for instance?
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
-
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
No, I'd read the context of your response - just felt that it was inappropriate to carry on your multiple repetition of old posts.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
Purgatory is no longer a Catholic dogma, though some may still believe it. Nor is it a Biblical concept, so I'm not sure what brownie points you're talking about.
-
No that is not how the deity works, if it exists at all it enjoys playing silly games with humans. Why can't it make its existence clear to all so no one could possibly disbelieve in it, anymore than one could disbelieve the sun exists, for instance?
Because that would make robots of us, Floo, and God made us with freewill. Which would you prefer?
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
-
MMM Ironic question !?!?!? ;) ;D
-
No that is not how the deity works, if it exists at all it enjoys playing silly games with humans. Why can't it make its existence clear to all so no one could possibly disbelieve in it, anymore than one could disbelieve the sun exists, for instance?
Because that would make robots of us, Floo, and God made us with freewill. Which would you prefer?
A robot is preferable to anything 'created' by that nasty deity!
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
Why not? Run out of crayons again? ;D
-
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
Perhaps more importantly, ippy, you seem to be happy to take popular understandings of the Bible as read, rather than actually studying the Bible to see if those understandings actually stand up to scrutiny.
-
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
Perhaps more importantly, ippy, you seem to be happy to take popular understandings of the Bible as read, rather than actually studying the Bible to see if those understandings actually stand up to scrutiny.
Having read that book so many times I have lost count, the less than credible bits, like the resurrection, don't stand up to scrutiny.
-
Purgatory is no longer a Catholic dogma
it is, actually
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
No, but you could just say "hell", instead of "setting number 8", couldn't you?
-
Purgatory is no longer a Catholic dogma
it is, actually
How remarkably stupid.
-
Purgatory is no longer a Catholic dogma
it is, actually
How remarkably stupid.
Without getting bogged down in the broader issues of why you think theism in general is stupid, why d you that in particular is stupid?
-
I can only ascribe it to belonging to that great class of things of which if you have to ask in the first place, you're unlikely to know.
-
I can only ascribe it to belonging to that great class of things of which if you have to ask in the first place, you're unlikely to know.
Can't think of an answer then - got it.
Try thinking these things through before blurting out, next time!
-
I can only ascribe it to belonging to that great class of things of which if you have to ask in the first place, you're unlikely to know.
Can't think of an answer then - got it.
Try thinking these things through before blurting out, next time!
Oh yes, plenty of answers, no trouble there; but as I'm a staunch anti-theist as well as agnostic atheist I assumed that you'd have been more than familiar with all of them quite well enough from NGLReturns.
-
I can only ascribe it to belonging to that great class of things of which if you have to ask in the first place, you're unlikely to know.
Can't think of an answer then - got it.
Try thinking these things through before blurting out, next time!
Oh yes, plenty of answers, no trouble there; but as I'm a staunch anti-theist as well as agnostic atheist I assumed that you'd have been more than familiar with all of them quite well enough from NGLReturns.
As I said, I didn't want to go over all your reasons for being an atheist and for thinking theism in general is stupid. I just wondered why you thought that particular doctrine was particularly stupid, that's all. If you can't think of a reason then don't worry about it.
-
As a long-term ex Catholic I may have missed it but I thought the bizarre idea that is purgatory was still dogma.
-
As a long-term ex Catholic I may have missed it but I thought the bizarre idea that is purgatory was still dogma.
It is
-
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
Perhaps more importantly, ippy, you seem to be happy to take popular understandings of the Bible as read, rather than actually studying the Bible to see if those understandings actually stand up to scrutiny.
I don't study any of the Harry Potter books either, I take the popular understandings them and just like your book there's magic in them that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, where all it has to offer is its place in history other than that your bible isn't really that important to me to be worth spending any of my time making a study of it.
Why not go for philosophy it has all of the moral and ethical questioning content needed, and more, without the need to spend time talking to yourself or generally being away with the fairies.
ippy
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
No, but you could just say "hell", instead of "setting number 8", couldn't you?
Well yes I could have but setting number 8 is equally as silly as the idea of a hell.
ippy
-
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
Perhaps more importantly, ippy, you seem to be happy to take popular understandings of the Bible as read, rather than actually studying the Bible to see if those understandings actually stand up to scrutiny.
Having read that book so many times I have lost count, the less than credible bits, like the resurrection, don't stand up to scrutiny.
Can you think of anything new to say?
-
So I take it B A you don't know which one you're most likely to bump into the next time you go to Tescos then?
Well, no-one's going to 'bump into God' because that's not how the mechanics of God works, and no-one's going to 'bump into Elvis' because he's dead. What's you next stupid question, ippy?
Yes back to your old tricks Hope, quoting out of context, you must be loosing some brownie points for doing that again and yet again.
Does that mean doing extra time in purgatory or is it only Catholics that go there ludicrous whatever belief; ooh no we don't do brownie points, we're methodists or baptists, ludicrous whatever the title.
ippy
How many do you lose for repeating the same stuff, ad nauseam?
You're the expert you tell me, as far as I know I'm not operating under the religio carrot and stick rules.
ippy
I haven't a clue what that means!
Oh dear, brownie points for being good and setting number 8 if you're not, (Oven setting).
ippy
I don't understand that, either!
Sorry B A can't be drawing pictures.
ippy
No, but you could just say "hell", instead of "setting number 8", couldn't you?
Well yes I could have but setting number 8 is equally as silly as the idea of a hell.
ippy
I don't believe in Hell, either. I;m disappointed you haven't noticed that after I;ve made my position clear for a long time now.. You must pay more attention!
-
BA
What kind of Hell don't you believe in?
Surely Jesus did ??
-
BA
What kind of Hell don't you believe in?
What a silly question!
I can't speak for BA of course, but I don't suppose he believes in any kind!
What kind of God don't you believe in?
-
YOURS!!
So not such a silly question after all. Unless yours is too HAHAHAHAHA
-
YOURS!!
So not such a silly question after all. Unless yours is too HAHAHAHAHA
Oh, so you believe in some of the others, then...?
-
If we're being 'serious' for a mo, then I DO feel all other views of God are valid but ONLY for people of THAT faith. Obviously not for anyone else or they'd most probably BE of that faith.
Not at all keen on the OT god which is probably what happened to make Jesus help people see a better view. Shame it didn't work but you're only as good as your material ?!!?!?
Islam's god is even more appalling than the Christian one. Horrendous creature & more worthy of a demonic, controlling by fear mentality then something wanting the 'best' for us !!!
-
If we're being 'serious' for a mo, then I DO feel all other views of God are valid but ONLY for people of THAT faith. Obviously not for anyone else or they'd most probably BE of that faith.
Not at all keen on the OT god which is probably what happened to make Jesus help people see a better view. Shame it didn't work but you're only as good as your material ?!!?!?
Islam's god is even more appalling than the Christian one. Horrendous creature & more worthy of a demonic, controlling by fear mentality then something wanting the 'best' for us !!!
A slight sidestepping there, I think - conceding that something is a valid belief for the people who hold that belief is not addressing the question of whether you actually believe in God.
Again, as I have pointed out before, you are basing your view of what Christians believe about God on a fundamentalist view of the Bible. Why is that?
-
I don't feel it's a fundie attitude!?!?!?
NO sidestepping here - Ididn't say they were RIGHT in what they believe as I obviously DON'T.
-
I don't feel it's a fundie attitude!?!?!?
NO sidestepping here - Ididn't say they were RIGHT in what they believe as I obviously DON'T.
No, I realise that!
But you are basing your idea of what Christians believe on a fundamentalist view of the bible. For example, you seem to think that Christians worship a god who flooded the world and killed (almost) everyone - but most Christians do not believe that such an event ever occurred.
-
AAH You belong to the Pick-N-Choose group of Christians. ;) ::)
We ARE Christians we just don't believe the Bible or parts thereof.
I get it now.
Byee
-
AAH You belong to the Pick-N-Choose group of Christians. ;) ::)
We ARE Christians we just don't believe the Bible or parts thereof.
I get it now.
Byee
Why does it make sense to you to suggest that if lots of works are compiled into one compendium, then you either have to believe all of it or none of it?
-
OK So what exactly IS a Christian???
Technically I could be a part-time Christian too. ;)
Glory Be !?!!?!?
-
OK So what exactly IS a Christian???
Technically I could be a part-time Christian too. ;)
Glory Be !?!!?!?
A Christian is someone who believes in the life and Resurrection, and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Simple. I have posted that so many times...
-
And 'THAT'S ALL'?!?!?!?!!?
What about actions as well as faith or belief?
-
And 'THAT'S ALL'?!?!?!?!!?
What about actions as well as faith or belief?
What about them? A Christian will try to follow Jesus' teachings, and those teachings should define his actions.
-
AAH You belong to the Pick-N-Choose group of Christians. ;) ::)
We ARE Christians we just don't believe the Bible or parts thereof.
I get it now.
Byee
Not sure that its a matter of not 'believing the Bible or parts thereof'; rather it's a matter of understanding which parts should be believed as historical, which poetic, which which revelationary and which analogously. Parables are examples of the latter genre; the Psalms and the Song of Solomon are examples of the poetic genre; etc. It is then a case of teasing out what the authors of such genres were saying and/or teaching.
-
YES THAT'S Ok !! It's when some here think there's bits of The Bible they can just dispense with as it doesn't suit their criteria ??!!?! ;)
-
YES THAT'S Ok !! It's when some here think there's bits of The Bible they can just dispense with as it doesn't suit their criteria ??!!?! ;)
A knowledge of the Old Testament is not a prerequisite to Christian faith, Nick. It can be a useful commentary on the New Testament material - but many people around the world have never had access to the OT, yet are Christians.
-
YES THAT'S Ok !! It's when some here think there's bits of The Bible they can just dispense with as it doesn't suit their criteria ??!!?! ;)
And what evidence is there that anyone thinks that?
-
HOPE
So you're saying one, as a Christian, need know NOTHING about the OT at all!?!?!?
Cyberchump
Love the irony & rhetoric there !!! Well Done ?!?!!?
-
HOPE
So you're saying one, as a Christian, need know NOTHING about the OT at all!?!?!?
Cyberchump
Love the irony & rhetoric there !!! Well Done ?!?!!?
Oh look, Bobo, you accidentally forgot to answer the question. What evidence is there that Christians think that they can disregard bits of the Bible if they don't meet their criteria? (Rather than disregarding them for other reasons)
-
YES THAT'S Ok !! It's when some here think there's bits of The Bible they can just dispense with as it doesn't suit their criteria ??!!?! ;)
A knowledge of the Old Testament is not a prerequisite to Christian faith, Nick. It can be a useful commentary on the New Testament material - but many people around the world have never had access to the OT, yet are Christians.
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the deity featured in the OT?
-
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the OT?
Whilst closely related, Christianity is not merely an extension of Judaism. As I said before, one doesn't need to have access to the Old Testament to be able to be a Christian, in much the same way that one doesn't have to have read the Hobbit before one can appreciate the Lord of The Rings, or have read Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico before reading a history of the 2nd World War.
-
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the deity featured in the OT?
As you have modified your post whilst I was reponding to it, I will respond to the amendment in a separate post here. Jesus was and is the deity that is featured in the Old Testament, so your question is nonsensical.
-
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the deity featured in the OT?
As you have modified your post whilst I was reponding to it, I will respond to the amendment in a separate post here. Jesus was and is the deity that is featured in the Old Testament, so your question is nonsensical.
Yes of course, that's why he referred to his father in heaven.
-
BA
What kind of Hell don't you believe in?
What a silly question!
I can't speak for BA of course, but I don't suppose he believes in any kind!
What kind of God don't you believe in?
Correct, cyberman.
-
Yes of course, that's why he referred to his father in heaven.
That's right, Len. He was and is of the same substance as the Father as the Nicene Creed puts it.
-
Yes of course, that's why he referred to his father in heaven.
That's right, Len. He was and is of the same substance as the Father as the Nicene Creed puts it.
Not really ... half his genes were from his mother.
-
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the deity featured in the OT?
As you have modified your post whilst I was reponding to it, I will respond to the amendment in a separate post here. Jesus was and is the deity that is featured in the Old Testament, so your question is nonsensical.
Jesus was a Jewish male born to a young girl without a wedding ring, no doubt conceived in the usual way, by Joseph or another male. He was no sort of deity and certainly not the unpleasant one featured in the OT. I reckon the guy was charismatic and managed to convince his rather gullible followers he was more than human. Jesus got up the noses of the religious mafia of the day and they convinced the Romans to crucify him. The gospel stories, written years after his tragic death, were either highly exaggerated or untrue, imo!
-
YES THAT'S Ok !! It's when some here think there's bits of The Bible they can just dispense with as it doesn't suit their criteria ??!!?! ;)
A knowledge of the Old Testament is not a prerequisite to Christian faith, Nick. It can be a useful commentary on the New Testament material - but many people around the world have never had access to the OT, yet are Christians.
I thought Jesus, as a Jew, based his faith on the deity featured in the OT?
Of course he did. He was a Jew. And...?
-
In my opinion, Jesus was a Jewish male born to a young girl without a wedding ring, no doubt conceived in the usual way, by Joseph or another male. In my opinion, he was no sort of deity and certainly not the unpleasant one featured in the OT. I reckon the guy was charismatic and managed to convince his rather gullible followers he was more than human. Jesus got up the noses of the religious mafia of the day and they convinced the Romans to crucify him. The gospel stories, written years after his tragic death, were either highly exaggerated or untrue, imo!
FIFY, Floo. By the way, I haven't found an unpleasant deity on a single page of the OT. You clearly have a very odd understanding of said deity.
-
Not really ... in my opinion, half his genes were from his mother.
FIFY, Len.
-
In my opinion, Jesus was a Jewish male born to a young girl without a wedding ring, no doubt conceived in the usual way, by Joseph or another male. In my opinion, he was no sort of deity and certainly not the unpleasant one featured in the OT. I reckon the guy was charismatic and managed to convince his rather gullible followers he was more than human. Jesus got up the noses of the religious mafia of the day and they convinced the Romans to crucify him. The gospel stories, written years after his tragic death, were either highly exaggerated or untrue, imo!
FIFY, Floo. By the way, I haven't found an unpleasant deity on a single page of the OT. You clearly have a very odd understanding of said deity.
Or perhaps you of unpleasant.
The flood myth?
-
Not really ... in my opinion, half his genes were from his mother.
FIFY, Len.
Oh mY! So Mary produced a gene-less baby Jesus! The story gets more intriguing by the minute! ;D
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
-
Not really ... in my opinion, half his genes were from his mother.
FIFY, Len.
Oh mY! So Mary produced a gene-less baby Jesus! The story gets more intriguing by the minute! ;D
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
There's no such thing as an XY gene.
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
Yeh right!!!!! ::)
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
Yeh right!!!!! ::)
What do you mean?
-
It means pull the other one; or, what other ridiculous fish stories are you going to try to palm us off with?
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
Yeh right!!!!! ::)
What do you mean?
I mean there is no evidence a deity does exist, so stating as a fact something that can only be wishful thinking on the part of the poster is not being truthful.
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Hope............. Len is a dyed in the wool materialist and merely holds the position of ''angry that other people aren't''.
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
Just who was Jesus praying to when he said he was communing with his father ?!!?!?!??
-
Hope............. Len is a dyed in the wool materialist and merely holds the position of ''angry that other people aren't''.
Wrong again, Vaca! Amused maybe, and even a tad sad, but no way angry. I seldom find anything worth getting angry about. People are just people, and once you accept that life becomes a lot smoother. :)
-
How on earth did he grow into a man in her womb with no xy gene? In fact how did he turn out a human at all, with no genes?
He's God, so normal human conditions don't apply. I appreciate you find that the concept of God, let alone God becoming human difficult to understand, but don't assume that your pov has to be the correct one.
Just who was Jesus praying to when he said he was communing with his father ?!!?!?!??
His father, perhaps?
-
Isn't it alleged that at some point he's supposed to have said "I and the Father are one"?
-
Isn't it alleged that at some point he's supposed to have said "I and the Father are one"?
Yes it is
-
NOT We are the same though.
-
You are really show ignorance if you cannot fathom that out for yourself even without reading the bible....
Are you in denial about what is written about your God in the Bible.
Mans history reads far worse than anything in the bible... Does that make all mankind evil and unworthy of saving? I know God created man and gave him all he needed to a live a wonderful life on earth. I know man decided to ignore the warnings and died.... Do you feel you can argue mankind are wonderful human beings given their history?
As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
Maybe Floo has read more of the book than you give her credit for.
Floo takes the themes from other sites where she has seen the topic and the arguments raised...
Throughout history man has eaten human flesh...
Not sure what the argument is with that verse. He doesn't force them. They could have just repented or starved to death...
Would you eat your sons and daughters if you were starving?
But that has NOTHING to do with what was being asked and discussed .... did it?
The crazy 'you must be 'saved', or go to hell', dogma was true. How would you, as a 'born again'Christian, feel if someone as wicked as Hitler made a deathbed conversion, having never done anything decent in his life, yet an atheist who died trying to save others from his evil regime went to hell?
I just can't get my head around how anyone could find anything loving about a deity who created such an unfair scenario. >:(
So why do you think you can change the subject for something not relevant to it ?....
-
It is my frequent reading of that book which makes me ask the question, 'WHAT IS GOOD ABOUT THE DEITY', to which there is never an answer!
Perhaps you never read those answers. But hang on, you responded to them with such inconsequential responses as to show that you have no idea of what you wrote.
Well go on enlighten me as to what is good about a deity who supposedly floods the planet, gets a young girl pregnant so her son can die a terrible death? Just to name two of its crimes.
How many men get their wives pregnant so their sons and daughters can go and fight in the armed forces and die?
Did the son of daughter get forced or do they volunteer now?
No one forced Mary she accepted Gods will for her.... No one forced Christ.....
God warned man through Noah but did they listen or repent?
Your problem is your own attitude towards what you read or what you have heard... It is one where you want everyone else to be in the wrong but you.
-
NOT We are the same though.
... and your point?
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
He wasn't in human form if, as you said, normal human conditions don't apply. Why did he eat and drink and die on the cross if normal human conditions don't apply?
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
He wasn't in human form if, as you said, normal human conditions don't apply. Why did he eat and drink and die on the cross if normal human conditions don't apply?
Good question!
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.
Sort of! Anything that refers to their "God" ... but totally closed to all other beliefs. ;D
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Fully human with a divine nature - without sin.
Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.
Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.
-
But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?
Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.
The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible. I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Fully human with a divine nature - without sin.
Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.
Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.
Compare the mainstream understanding which is:
Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
-
Well I'm glad we cleared that one up ::)
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
... which is interesting and instructive for a religion peddled by its adherents as the final and absolute truth.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
-
Good old Vlad - often incoherent but usually good for the laughs if nothing else.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
Eh?
-
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.
-
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.
;D
-
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.
No I think you are just demonstrating the second piece of evidence vis:
The attempt by the morally romantic to eliminate the existence of wrong doing ( with yer moral relativism and moral non realism ) from your minds.
-
Anyone?
-
Anyone?
I would be pissed too if I was an the BBC had started listening to people like John Gray and started treating antitheists like Dawkins as eccentrics.
-
Anyone?
I would be pissed too if I was an the BBC had started listening to people like John Gray and started treating antitheists like Dawkins as eccentrics.
I'll wait for that one to come out in English.
-
The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.
It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.
Playing the man again, Gordon, rather than the ball? Pity. Some others here seem incapable of doing much else apart from that. Not so you.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong? Hope not. Why? Because if someone claimed something for (strong) atheism, but misrepresented it (for whatever reason, perhaps by accident), then that would not thereby mean (strong) atheism is wrong. Same applies for Christianity or any other belief.
* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.
-
Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?
No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?
The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.
-
* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.
Very wise of you!
Being a Christian (i.e. following his teachings) seems to include so many different interpretations of what he taught that it has become an unintelligible hotch-potch of ideas. It seems from reading this forum that very few Christians agree entirely about everything.
-
Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?
No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?
The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.
I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.
How philosophy works Shaker is that ideas or notions are put forward into the arena and weighed up.
In theology and religion ideas and notions which aim to be Affective and effective in soliciting whole life commitment are put to people for the weighing up.
This is why some talk bluntly but rightly of Antitheists being evangelical and fundamentalist because they seek antitheist commitment in thinking and practice and in spreading that thinking and practice in wider society.
-
I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.
Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.
-
I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.
Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.
Yes but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.
There is no clouting necessary and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.
In terms of clouting from a dominant position in terms of numbers
That would be British Secular Humanists.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.
The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.
God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
The truth is that the bible supports the beliefs I have expressed.
But the inner truth comes from God through the Spirit.
Holding on to belief not built in Christ is merely sand castles...
-
Yes
Just that one word is quite sufficient, Vlad ;)
but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.
F'tang f'tang ole biscuit barrel.
There is no clouting necessary
Lambeth Palace and the Vatican seem to think otherwise.
and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.
Irrelevant.
-
Yes
Just that one word is quite sufficient, Vlad ;)
but theology or religion are not making appeals to establish facts about matter/energy but is making appeals to what science has troubles with namely the self as understood by itself in terms of it's needs and it's behaviours. Within a community of similar selves.
F'tang f'tang ole biscuit barrel.
There is no clouting necessary
Lambeth Palace and the Vatican seem to think otherwise.
and indeed clouting is not restricted merely to religions and theologies.....vis Stalin and Pol Pot.
Irrelevant.
Oh yes let's turn our heads, waggle fingers in front of face, whistle and move swiftly on from those little embarrasments eh, Shaker.
-
It's quite clear to us all that you don't know an embarrassment when you see one, Vladdypops :D
-
Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.
Sass, note that I said John's Gospel. That is different from the 3 letters of John.
-
King James Bible
Sass, why the insistence on the King James Bible? As we know now, it is a flawed translation, despite its towering language. James gave especial instructions that it should reflect the episcopal structure and the ecclesiology of the Church of England of the time - and hence the nature of monarchy that he enjoyed. As a result, there are elements that don't properly match the original languages of the Bible, there are elements that rely for understanding on the early-17th century meanings of words - many of which meanings have changed over the centuries - and also reflect an outdated understanding of what Greek and Hebrew that the authors of the AV had access to.
As you know, it was written in order to provide the Bible in the (English) vernacular; 20th and 21st century British English vernacular (let alone that of American English) has moved on and the current crop of translations are simply providing for you and I what James wanted to provide for the people of his time 400 years ago.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.
And yours are? ;D ;D ;D
-
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith. The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human. Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not. I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.
Sects and cults
are by no means unique to Christianity. Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take. Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
-
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith. The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human. Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not. I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.
Sects and cults
are by no means unique to Christianity. Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take. Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
OK, you have the followers of Dawkins, of Hitchens, of Sam Harris, and of various other celebratory atheists. As has been seen on this board alone, there are those amongst these followers who will damn with faint praise those celebatheists that they don't follow.
Those are what could be termed 'cults' as they idolise a certain person; sect-wise, you have what some call 'high church' atheists and 'low church' atheists. Dawkins, Hitchen and other 'academic' atheists seem to fit into the former category, whilst more ordinary, everyday atheists seem to fit into the latter.
-
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith. The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human. Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not. I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.
Sects and cults
are by no means unique to Christianity. Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take. Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
Incorrect.
It is those who make either an explicit or implicit positive assertion
who have the burden of proof.
Credibility is about belief and unless you correct yourself on this matter you are effectively raising what you personally believe to an undeserved status.
-
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence. As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores. You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist. Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters. All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.
-
Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!
Floo, I would agree that the Church has a host of dogmas and doctrines - but even a cursory glance will show that these are generally on the peripheries of faith. The mainstream groupings which make up the vast majority of Christianity are agreed on all the key doctrines, such as Christ's being both wholly divine and wholly human. Re. your comment about there being 'no evidence to support any of them', it depends on whether one is a believer in the all-embracingness of the scientific methodology of evidence or not. I have yet to see any evidence, even of that sort, to show that it is, so I would have to disgree with you there.
Sects and cults
are by no means unique to Christianity. Atheism has them, as do pretty well all philosophies. The fact of their existence doesn't invalidate the mainstream understanding of whatever philosophy you choose to take. Other things may invalidate them, but certainly not the existence of sects and cults.
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
Incorrect.
It is those who make either an explicit or implicit positive assertion
who have the burden of proof.
Credibility is about belief and unless you correct yourself on this matter you are effectively raising what you personally believe to an undeserved status.
You don't half talk some garbage Vlad! ::) Credibility isn't about belief. Stating something like the resurrection, for instance, is true without the slightest bit of evidence to support that notion, lacks any credibility whatsoever, however much someone wishes it to be true.
-
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence. As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores. You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist. Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters. All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.
Unless you can prove what you call additional parameters exist, you have NO evidence!
-
Credibility isn't about belief.
LOL
-
I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence. As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores. You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist. Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters. All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.
I don't think you actually do though. What you actually present as evidence here is exclusively what people have thought, claimed and recorded - and all this may be no more than a consequence of their biology without the means to demonstrate that what they thought, claimed and recorded is true beyond the people element.
So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.
-
So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.
Yes Hope....... you need to use science to prove the supernatural.
Nothing else mind, just the supernatural.
Gordon confuses common sense with science.
Gordon calling religion fiction is a positive assertion.....get proving old son.
-
OK, you have the followers of Dawkins, of Hitchens, of Sam Harris, and of various other celebratory atheists. As has been seen on this board alone, there are those amongst these followers who will damn with faint praise those celebatheists that they don't follow.
Those are what could be termed 'cults' as they idolise a certain person
No, they could only be termed 'cults' if you've taken over from Vlad in thinking that anybody who expresses respect and admiration for somebody's work is equal to 'idolising' them. That's an opinion and a remarkably silly one at that, but an opinion is all that it is. Who 'idolises' Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? Nobody that I know of. Plenty of people (atheists and theists alike) like these men and enjoy their work - I should know, I'm one of them - and some other atheists and theists can't stand them; but nobody treats their pronouncements as infallible and anything they say or do as exempt from criticism, which is how actual sects and cults tend to operate. You know, actual sects and cults - the religious ones, with immutable dogmas and leaders who can't be questioned or challenged in any way. The leaders of actual sects and cults - Jim Jones; David Koresh et hoc genus omne -, rather than throwing their ideas out there and inviting, in fact welcoming robust criticism and debate, tend to react rather badly when challenged and when they think there's any threat to the power they wield over the credulous.
As I fully expected, you're making this shit up as you go along - and that's Vlad's job. Atheism doesn't have sects or cults at all, which is pretty much as you'd expect for a stance defined by lack of belief in one thing and one thing alone. "What could be termed" is just another way of saying "I think" with an added attempt to give it a patina of rigour, instead of it simply being an unfounded opinion.
-
So you need a method that can confirm divine intervention while also excluding the risks of mistakes and/or propaganda in what people thought, claimed and reported - in the continued absence of this method what you consider to be evidence of the divine (for example, the 'empty tomb' etc) is indistinguishable from fiction.
Yes Hope....... you need to use science to prove the supernatural.
Nothing else mind, just the supernatural.
Gordon confuses common sense with science.
Gordon calling religion fiction is a positive assertion.....get proving old son.
I actually said 'indistinguishable from fiction', Vlad, so since you guys and not me are claiming the divine exists how about you do something to eliminate the risks I've mentioned.
For example, with regard to say the 'walking on water' claim, and since I'm sure you will agree that it isn't unknown for people to tell lies, on what basis can I eliminate the risk of lies in respect of this claim?
-
Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence. As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores. You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist. Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters.
There goes the fallacy alarm!
-
Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?
No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?
Would you please give me an example of me "bottling" it when someone has asked me about a "misunderstanding of something in Christianity." Bearing in mind you say I have done this "every time" you should have plenty of examples to choose from."
The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.[/quote]Would you please provide an example where I have done this.
-
* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.
Very wise of you!
Being a Christian (i.e. following his teachings) seems to include so many different interpretations of what he taught that it has become an unintelligible hotch-potch of ideas. It seems from reading this forum that very few Christians agree entirely about everything.
Do you know of two humans who "agree entirely about everything"? However, expecting Christians to "agree entirely about everything" is a cop out if that is a significant reason why you don't think Christianity is true.
-
I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.
Still all opinion - no means of determining whose is the right one, it all comes down to no more than who has the greatest numbers and enough clout to enforce their opinion as the dominant one.
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.
The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.
God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.
Why do you always quote from a version which was written 400 years ago when certain words and phrases mean things they don't mean today and which is generally difficult to understand, Sassy?
-
Would you please give me an example of me "bottling" it when someone has asked me about a "misunderstanding of something in Christianity." Bearing in mind you say I have done this "every time" you should have plenty of examples to choose from.
Indeed. This thread passim:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.0
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
Strong atheist? Weak atheists?
-
Credibility isn't about belief.
LOL
:)
-
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
Strong atheist? Weak atheists?
Nope. Try again.
-
Hope you have NEVER provided any verifiable evidence to support your belief system! It is those claiming the less than credible to be true who have to support it, which you certainly can't.
Floo, I have never claimed to have provided evidence that fits the scientific materialistic parameters that some here believe explain the totality of existence. As I have regularly pointed out, I believe that there are additonal parameters that this rather narrow system ignores. You, on the other hand claim that such additional parameters don't exist. Now I and others have provided examples of such additional parameters and neither you nor any of those of like-mindedness to you have provided any reasonable explanation of why those examples aren't of additional parameters. All you've managed is responses such as dogmatic but unreasoned rebuttal, or suggestions that you don't believe that such parameters exist and that therefore they don't.
I agree with you that there may well be additional parameters that are as yet unknown to us. I'm sure there are a myriad of things we may never know. The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.
It was intelligent guesswork on their part but that's all it was. They had no evidence for it, just their common sense telling them there had to be some reasonable explanation.
We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.
By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
Strong atheist? Weak atheists?
Nope. Try again.
Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
Strong atheist? Weak atheists?
Nope. Try again.
Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.
But the only real 'qualification' for atheism is the lack of belief in gods - so 'strong' and 'weak' are tautologies?
-
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.
And yet you haven't come up with a methodology which establishes your philosophical naturalism yet press on in delusion.
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
Strong atheist? Weak atheists?
Nope. Try again.
Why? I'd argue that strong atheists are a different "sect" from weak atheists. Some strong atheists seem to think that weak atheists are wimps (metaphorically speaking) and some weak atheists think that strong atheists are over-zealous in their claims.
But the only real 'qualification' for atheism is the lack of belief in gods - so 'strong' and 'weak' are tautologies?
No, they are not. Weak atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods; strong atheism is a belief that there are no gods.
-
The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.
To the contrary, jj; 'they made brave attempts to explain things' by seeking out patterns and processes that allowed them to develop some of the earliest scientific theories and discoveries.
We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.
By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.
By the time of Christ, very few of the things that you suggest were attributed to God, as opposed to being understood as natural events were actually attributed to God. I will accept that when we go back 5 or 10,000 years what you say would have been largely true - but then of course, we aren't talking in this instance about that distance back in time.
-
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.
Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.
-
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.
Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.
If you check the thread again you'll discover that I've addressed this point already, to the effect that these things are merely opinion since nobody seems able to provide any method by which their truth can be determined.
-
Nope, that is a bit of a silly statement. If a group claim that their understanding of something is based on what the bible says, then to the bible we need to go to see if they are correct, for example.
Oh dear, playing dim again are you, Alan? There's no methodology to be able to determine whether the claims made in the Bible are correct. There's no question that if Joe Bloggs claims that the Bible says X then you go to the Bible to see if X appears there - what of it? The Bible contains a great many very, very, very silly and stupid things indeed, and it's those things that require your perpetually elusive methodology to determine their truth.
Nope, we were discussing which views might be the mainstream Christian views. We were not discussing whether those mainstream Christian views are actually correct in what they claim. Please check the thread if in doubt.
If you check the thread again you'll discover that I've addressed this point already, to the effect that these things are merely opinion since nobody seems able to provide any method by which their truth can be determined.
Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly. Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?
-
Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly.
Well ...
Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?
No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.
-
Sorry, maybe my brain is not working properly.
Well ...
Are you saying that it is not possible to determine what mainstream Christian views are?
No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.
OK with that.
The question remains though whether we have such a methodology. That's for discussing tomorrow.
-
Well you haven't come up with it so far - why tomorrow?
Will there be jam too?
-
No. I'm saying that without a methodology on offer to determine whether these views have any basis in fact they remain beliefs or opinions and nothing more, and those who hold them have no warrant to regard the opinions of others as mistaken because there's no means of demonstrating them to be such. A "mainstream Christian view" is only an opinion which has 51 people holding it as opposed to the remaining 49 who don't.
That may hold for atheism, and its various cults, Shaker, but there is a methodology which perfectly suits the scientific method by which one can determine whether or not they have any basis in fact. Using lit. crit. techniques, one can determine what Christ taught and what, if anything, was added by someone else.
That is very different to the question of what, if any, truth there is in what was taught.
-
That may hold for atheism, and its various cults
You have asserted that atheism has "cults" but haven't demonstrated, with evidence, that this is anything more than just another ridiculous opinion. I addressed this earlier today; no doubt it'll be yet another one of your posts left untouched in the hope that others will quietly forget that you've yet again asserted something without substantiation. Numerous other examples available upon request.
Shaker, but there is a methodology which perfectly suits the scientific method by which one can determine whether or not they have any basis in fact. Using lit. crit. techniques, one can determine what Christ taught and what, if anything, was added by someone else.
As I said to Alien earlier this determines no more than that something appears in a book. Well, big deal.
That is very different to the question of what, if any, truth there is in what was taught.
What's the methodology for ascertaining that? Alien reckons it's something he's going to address tomorrow (for the first time ever despite having been asked multiple times by umpteen different posters over a period of months at least to my knowledge)..
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
It was NEVER taught by God, Christ or the disciples and Prophets that the Messiah would be God. Rather, that Christ would make know God.
Jesus said that eternal life was knowing the ONE true God and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Note- Christ sent by the only true God and eternal life is about knowing both.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Note-This shows that Thomas was NOT saying Christ was God but that he knew Christ was the Messiah and therefore God was with him.
King James Bible
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
If Christ was God then the verses would be lies and John would be lying. How clear can it be that NO MAN has seen God and Christ being a man was NOT God. Otherwise they would have seen God, wouldn't they.
The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church knew that the Jews would not embrace Christ as Messiah whilst such a lie existed and so kept the builder from acknowledging Christ as the true corner stone.
God and Christ has made it clear that Jesus came in the flesh not God.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
Like Moses Christ brings the Words from God himself.
The NT actually teaches that Christ came in the flesh.
No answer to this on the Trinity thread:
By whom did the prophet's speak?
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1-11
-
The ancients knew even less than we do and they made brave attempts to explain things - mainly be envisaging some super-hero up in the clouds who caused all the strange things they saw all around them.
To the contrary, jj; 'they made brave attempts to explain things' by seeking out patterns and processes that allowed them to develop some of the earliest scientific theories and discoveries.
We now know that a great deal of the things they attributed to God were natural occurrences ... earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, eclipses ... and yet now we know these things, theists - instead of seeing that those old myths are just that - now make God responsible for the things we still don't know ... the beginning of the universe, the start of life on Earth, other possible universes.
By the beginning of the next millennium we will probably have learnt a few of the things that are still a mystery to us but it would be ridiculous to carry on thinking the then still unknowns were the work of that ancient super-hero.
By the time of Christ, very few of the things that you suggest were attributed to God, as opposed to being understood as natural events were actually attributed to God. I will accept that when we go back 5 or 10,000 years what you say would have been largely true - but then of course, we aren't talking in this instance about that distance back in time.
The scientific among them may have had ideas that some of these things had natural causes but the vast majority of the people - and especially the simple fishermen and carpenters around the Middle East - knew nothing of any theories or discoveries, Hope, they and the church elders still put everything down to that super hero in the sky, just as you do today - only now you make him responsible for causing the Big Bang etc.
-
The scientific among them may have had ideas that some of these things had natural causes but the vast majority of the people - and especially the simple fishermen and carpenters around the Middle East - knew nothing of any theories or discoveries, Hope, ...
Do you have any evidence for that claim, jj?
... they and the church elders still put everything down to that super hero in the sky, ...
Did they - your evidence please. Remember that they were quite happy to blame other humans for various events, and that - as far as the New Testament is concerned - there is no reference to events like volcanic eruptions or earthquakes actually being caused by an deity. Yes, a darkening of the sky occurred at the same time as the crucifixion, but there is no suggestion that it was specifically timed to occur then by God. Rather, it's occurrence is taken as a sign from God, which is different to assuming that it was caused by God beyond the understanding that - as God created the universe - he was ultimately responsible for all natural events that occurred.
... just as you do today - only now you make him responsible for causing the Big Bang etc.
Only now? Remember that the 'Big Bang' is effectively trailed in Genesis chapter 1. This material dates to at least 5 centuries before Jesus was born, so to suggest 'only now' is to miss the point. In fact, this event actually highlights the difference between science, which seeks to answer questions such as 'how' and 'when' - and religion, which looks at the 'why'.
-
The followers of Jesus come over as pretty gullible, just like many today who are swayed by the likes of the scam merchant Benny Hinn. I suspect Jesus was quite charismatic, hence the reason he was able to draw a crowd. However, it would appear that his family and people in his home environment who knew him well didn't seem to rate him in the same way!
-
The followers of Jesus come over as pretty gullible, ...
In what way(s)? As pointed out elsewhere, you really love these massive 'brush-stroke' comments, without ever producing any evidence beyond your own experience - which, of course, has to be discounted according to many of those who share your views.
just like many today who are swayed by the likes of the scam merchant Benny Hinn.
And just how 'many' would that 'many' be, Floo?
However, it would appear that his family and people in his home environment who knew him well didn't seem to rate him in the same way!
And how many successful people do you know whose 'family and people in (his) home environment' rated them as able to succeed in the way that they have? Very few, I suspect. It is a common trait that parents and others, one grows up amongst, underestimate one's abilities.
-
The scientific among them may have had ideas that some of these things had natural causes but the vast majority of the people - and especially the simple fishermen and carpenters around the Middle East - knew nothing of any theories or discoveries, Hope, ...
Do you have any evidence for that claim, jj?
... they and the church elders still put everything down to that super hero in the sky, ...
Did they - your evidence please. Remember that they were quite happy to blame other humans for various events, and that - as far as the New Testament is concerned - there is no reference to events like volcanic eruptions or earthquakes actually being caused by an deity. Yes, a darkening of the sky occurred at the same time as the crucifixion, but there is no suggestion that it was specifically timed to occur then by God. Rather, it's occurrence is taken as a sign from God, which is different to assuming that it was caused by God beyond the understanding that - as God created the universe - he was ultimately responsible for all natural events that occurred.
... just as you do today - only now you make him responsible for causing the Big Bang etc.
Only now? Remember that the 'Big Bang' is effectively trailed in Genesis chapter 1. This material dates to at least 5 centuries before Jesus was born, so to suggest 'only now' is to miss the point. In fact, this event actually highlights the difference between science, which seeks to answer questions such as 'how' and 'when' - and religion, which looks at the 'why'.
Hope, please tell me you are not saying the peasants 2000 years ago knew anything of the cause of tsunamis or earthquakes! They were well read on tectonic plate theory then!
As for evidence - how well read do you think the Palestinian peasants were in 1715, which is only 300 years ago, so imagine how much they knew 2000 years ago! Please don't ask me for evidence for such an obvious thing when you cannot give me a shred of evidence for the resurrection or even the existence of Jesus! Waffling like that does you no credit whatsoever!
You tell me they thought God was responsible for everything and at the same time tell me they didn't hold him responsible for eclipses and comets! You really should make up your mind before posting a reply, Hope!
Lastly, you now reckon that the poetic nonsense in Genesis in some way tells of the Big Bang! Really? You really think it was God clapping his hands!
Talk about infantile stuff, Hope!
-
The followers of Jesus come over as pretty gullible, ...
In what way(s)? As pointed out elsewhere, you really love these massive 'brush-stroke' comments, without ever producing any evidence beyond your own experience - which, of course, has to be discounted according to many of those who share your views.
just like many today who are swayed by the likes of the scam merchant Benny Hinn.
And just how 'many' would that 'many' be, Floo?
However, it would appear that his family and people in his home environment who knew him well didn't seem to rate him in the same way!
And how many successful people do you know whose 'family and people in (his) home environment' rated them as able to succeed in the way that they have? Very few, I suspect. It is a common trait that parents and others, one grows up amongst, underestimate one's abilities.
Actually all the people I know personally are proud of their children and their achievements, just as my husband and I are proud of ours.
It could be people who knew Jesus well realised that seeing wasn't always believing where the stunts he pulled were concerned. Some of the magic tricks done by magicians today are quite amazing until you know how it is done. Maybe Jesus was skilled at sleight of hand! Of course we will never know for sure as he is long dead.
-
jj, it's interesting that during the early- to mid-2nd millennium AD many people here in the West 'discovered' things that, later, it was realised that the Ancient Chinese and other ancient civilisations had 'discovered' centuries earlier. We in the West, aren't as advanced as we like to think - or at least we weren't until the middle of the last century.
In your post you mention tsunamis and whether 'the peasants 2000 years ago knew anything of the cause of tsunamis or earthquakes': in his 'History of the Peloponnesian War', Greek historian Thucydides wrote this about the Malian Gulf event that affected the course of that war. The cause, in my opinion, of this phenomenon must be sought in the earthquake. At the point where its shock has been the most violent the sea is driven back, and suddenly recoiling with redoubled force, causes the inundation. Without an earthquake I do not see how such an accident could happen.
This was written in the early 5th century BC. In view of the proximity to the Middle East it is quite possible that people would have had at least an inkling of this information. OK, perhaps not the least educated, but then not many of the Jews were as uneducated as you like to make out. The boys, at least, would have attended school where they learnt maths and other vocationally-appropriate stuff. It was only the real high-flyers who would then go on to study theology and other more 'academic' subjects.
-
Actually all the people I know personally are proud of their children and their achievements, just as my husband and I are proud of ours.
That's all very easy to say in hindsight, Floo. How many times did you say to one or more of your childen - whilst they were growing up - that perhaps they weren't cut out or have the abilities to be what ever they wanted to be at the time?
It could be people who knew Jesus well realised that seeing wasn't always believing where the stunts he pulled were concerned.
And those stunts would have been what? Remember that he taught by word of mouth more than he ever did by actions like miracles.
Some of the magic tricks done by magicians today are quite amazing until you know how it is done.
There aren't many 'modern' magic tricks that don't date back to Jesus' day and before. All that really changes over time is the technical gadgets that magicians have to assist them. As such, there would have been magicians around at the time of Jesus' ministry, and there are even a couple of passages that compare him to magicians. Generally, the indication is that what he did was way beyond anything any magician did.
-
Floo, you do know that the brother (James) of our Lord Jesus was converted and became a leader in the Jerusalem church after the resurrection, don't you. Most likely also his brother Jude, to whom some attribute the epistle bearing his name. James went on to be martyred.
You have to ask yourself why this would be if they just thought their brother was a fake.
-
Actually all the people I know personally are proud of their children and their achievements, just as my husband and I are proud of ours.
That's all very easy to say in hindsight, Floo. How many times did you say to one or more of your childen - whilst they were growing up - that perhaps they weren't cut out or have the abilities to be what ever they wanted to be at the time?
It could be people who knew Jesus well realised that seeing wasn't always believing where the stunts he pulled were concerned.
And those stunts would have been what? Remember that he taught by word of mouth than he ever did by actions like miracles.
Some of the magic tricks done by magicians today are quite amazing until you know how it is done.
There aren't many 'modern' magic tricks that don't date back to Jesus' day and before. All that really changes over time is the technical gadgets that magicians have to assist them. As such, there would have been magicians around at the time of Jesus' ministry, and there are even a couple of passages that compare him to magicians. Generally, the indication is that what he did was way beyond anything any magician did.
We would NEVER have put our children down in such a way, that would be very WRONG! >:( Besides which, our three girls have their father's brains and it was quite clear throughout their childhood years they would do well, which they have. Assuming you have children, I hope you have never put them down, in the way you suggested!
As for Jesus, if what he had to say was reported correctly, he did indeed say some sensible things, as well as things with which I would disagree. However, he could have got a kick out of illustrating his words with a bit of exhibitionism!
-
We would NEVER have put our children down in such a way, that would be very WRONG! >:(
If you didn't suggest that, in your view, child X wasn't up to being a vet or a university lecturer, .... because their school grades wern't up to the requirements, you would (1) have been very unusual parents, (2) your husband would have been in contravention of educational principles - that a teacher is there, in part, to guide a student and (3) you would have been wrong - as parents - not to guide your children to some extent (I was going to use 'degree' but thought that that might be misconstrued! ;))
The very fact that you assume that I'm referring to putting a child 'down' show just how far you are from understanding what I was saying.
As for Jesus, if what he had to say was reported correctly, he did indeed say some sensible things, as well as things with which I would disagree*. However, he could have got a kick out of illustrating his words with a bit of exhibitionism!
Obviously, you are talking from your own experience ;) How many times did Jesus tell people who wanted him to do a miracle that that wasn't what he was here to do. An exhibitionist wouldn't take that approach.
Just as a matter of interest what would you say were examples of "as well as things with which I would disagree" (see purple asterisk)?
-
jj, it's interesting that during the early- to mid-2nd millennium AD many people here in the West 'discovered' things that, later, it was realised that the Ancient Chinese and other ancient civilisations had 'discovered' centuries earlier. We in the West, aren't as advanced as we like to think - or at least we weren't until the middle of the last century.
In your post you mention tsunamis and whether 'the peasants 2000 years ago knew anything of the cause of tsunamis or earthquakes': in his 'History of the Peloponnesian War', Greek historian Thucydides wrote this about the Malian Gulf event that affected the course of that war. The cause, in my opinion, of this phenomenon must be sought in the earthquake. At the point where its shock has been the most violent the sea is driven back, and suddenly recoiling with redoubled force, causes the inundation. Without an earthquake I do not see how such an accident could happen.
This was written in the early 5th century BC. In view of the proximity to the Middle East it is quite possible that people would have had at least an inkling of this information. OK, perhaps not the least educated, but then not many of the Jews were as uneducated as you like to make out. The boys, at least, would have attended school where they learnt maths and other vocationally-appropriate stuff. It was only the real high-flyers who would then go on to study theology and other more 'academic' subjects.
Come on, Hope, you know as well as anyone that the religious leaders for at least 1500 years after Christ dealt very harshly with anyone daring to suggest there was any natural cause for anything! Many were burnt at the stake for questioning Godidit. To say that the top Greek thinkers had suspicions of natural causes for different phenomenon means just that, nothing more. The ordinary people were ignorant of anything scientific and the church made sure they kept that way for millennia after.
It just astonishes me that even today, the super hero has so many fans of people who obviously are well read and well educated. I realise your faith must be a gret comfort to you but you really shouldn't argue that any of it makes real sense.
-
Come on, Hope, you know as well as anyone that the religious leaders for at least 1500 years after Christ dealt very harshly with anyone daring to suggest there was any natural cause for anything! Many were burnt at the stake for questioning Godidit. To say that the top Greek thinkers had suspicions of natural causes for different phenomenon means just that, nothing more. The ordinary people were ignorant of anything scientific and the church made sure they kept that way for millennia after.
jj, you seem to be very keen on changing the context. First, you talk about the ancients; then you talk about the peasants 2000 years ago; and then you talk about the church leadership in the first 1500 years of Christianity. Let me jut clarify something for you regarding the latter; there is no evidence that the leadership of the Christian Church were against 'science' in whatever form it existed at the time until perhaps mid- to late-1st millennium, suggesting that the undoubted antagonism shown after that was not something intrinsic within Christianity.
It just astonishes me that even today, the super hero has so many fans of people who obviously are well read and well educated.
Could it be that they are 'fans' as you call them, because of their being well-read and educated?
I realise your faith must be a gret comfort to you ...
What makes you think that my 'faith must be a gret comfort to me'? If anything it challenges me on a daily basis, so is possibly as far from being a 'comfort' as one can get. The very fact that you have come out with this comment indicates to me that you don't actually have any idea about what faith is about.
... but you really shouldn't argue that any of it makes real sense.
So says the poster who has no real understanding of what faith is all about (see above). I argue that it makes real sense because, as Vlad (?) put it elsewhere, the scientific sytem so beloved by some here doesn't fully satisfy the questions that I have about 'life, the universe and everything'. There is no conflict between my faith and science; rather they deal with different, but contiguous issues.
-
We would NEVER have put our children down in such a way, that would be very WRONG! >:(
If you didn't suggest that, in your view, child X wasn't up to being a vet or a university lecturer, .... because their school grades wern't up to the requirements, you would (1) have been very unusual parents, (2) your husband would have been in contravention of educational principles - that a teacher is there, in part, to guide a student and (3) you would have been wrong - as parents - not to guide your children to some extent (I was going to use 'degree' but thought that that might be misconstrued! ;))
The very fact that you assume that I'm referring to putting a child 'down' show just how far you are from understanding what I was saying.
As for Jesus, if what he had to say was reported correctly, he did indeed say some sensible things, as well as things with which I would disagree*. However, he could have got a kick out of illustrating his words with a bit of exhibitionism!
Obviously, you are talking from your own experience ;) How many times did Jesus tell people who wanted him to do a miracle that that wasn't what he was here to do. An exhibitionist wouldn't take that approach.
Just as a matter of interest what would you say were examples of "as well as things with which I would disagree" (see purple asterisk)?
In which case we were unusual parents. ::) We encouraged them rather than put them down. Academia was very important in our home, but you aren't going to have children doing well if you discourage them with negativity.
-
We encouraged them rather than put them down.
Yet you're the one introducing the idea of putting them down, Floo. You can encourage a child by steering them towards what they're good at, and away from what they're not so good at. That has absolutely nothing to do with 'putting them down'
Academia was very important in our home, but you aren't going to have children doing well if you discourage them with negativity.
Yet you're the one talking about negativity.
-
Remember that the 'Big Bang' is effectively trailed in Genesis chapter 1.
I've seen some truly desperate attempts to crowbar science into religion in my time, but that one deserves some sort of prize.
In fact, this event actually highlights the difference between science, which seeks to answer questions such as 'how' and 'when' - and religion, which looks at the 'why'.
Any nonsense will answer a 'why' question if you set the bar low enough, as religionists do.
-
We encouraged them rather than put them down.
Yet you're the one introducing the idea of putting them down, Floo. You can encourage a child by steering them towards what they're good at, and away from what they're not so good at. That has absolutely nothing to do with 'putting them down'
Academia was very important in our home, but you aren't going to have children doing well if you discourage them with negativity.
Yet you're the one talking about negativity.
Hope it was you who introduced the idea of putting kids down NOT me! Do you ever read your posts?
-
Remember that the 'Big Bang' is effectively trailed in Genesis chapter 1.
I've seen some truly desperate attempts to crowbar science into religion in my time, but that one deserves some sort of prize.
Shaker......like the style what about the substance?
-
Hope it was you who introduced the idea of putting kids down NOT me! Do you ever read your posts?
Sorry Floo, but I've just reread not only my relevant posts, but also your relevant posts. You introduced it in post #284. In none of my preceding posts on the topic at hand had I even made a passing reference to putting children down. What I said was (and I paraphrase) that, as parents, one of our roles is to guide our child(ren) to make realistic life-choices. For instance, both our daughters had a hankering after becoming vets during the time we lived out in Nepal. For the one, this could have been possible, just. She would have had to have worked extremely hard on her Maths, something she is fairly weak in, and her Chemistry - something she quite willingly acknowledged she struggled with. We were happy to run with the idea, but when her GCSE results came out it was clear that she was never going to make the required 3 A Grades in the Sciences at A-levels, so both the Careers Officer at school and her mother and I suggested that she looked in a different direction. To be honest (one of her favourite phrases!!), she is far more cut out to be a creative person - and earlier this year she established her own card-making business. It is still in its developmental stage, but seems to be beginning to catch on in the local area. At no point did my wife or I, or her Careers Office at school, 'put her down': rather we dealt with the reality of what she is better at in the long term.
The other was absolutely brilliant at Drama and languages. She eventually got a 2:1 degree in Drama at Hull University and had hoped to train as a special needs teacher. In her first 2 teaching practices she was on A's; unfortunately, the headteacher of her final practice school took against here - she is somewhat unconventional when it comes to her dress sense and, combined with the fact that she arrived every morning on a bicycle, the head simply refused to allow her through the doors before she was a third of the way through that practice. Unfortunately, because of the special needs nature of the school, she couldn't redo the practice in or near Hull. She has since retrained as a foot health practitioner, and is slowly taking on more and more of the work of my wife's chiropody business.
-
Remember that the 'Big Bang' is effectively trailed in Genesis chapter 1.
I've seen some truly desperate attempts to crowbar science into religion in my time, but that one deserves some sort of prize.
Shaker, 'twas jj who introduced the Big Bang into the debate - post #275 - so I thought I'd add a bit of humour into the proceedings yet also point out to him that the whole issue of the origin of the universe was addressed - by the Bible - at least in Genesis 1. Nothing to do with crowbarring anything. If anything its you who have somehow had to find something to pick up on in my post - and done it fairly inadequately.
Any nonsense will answer a 'why' question if you set the bar low enough, as religionists do.
At least its not set as low as some of your colleagues set it - by dismissing the 'why'.
-
Shaker, 'twas jj who introduced the Big Bang into the debate - post #275
I wasn't commenting on that but on your asinine claim that the Big Bang was "effectively trailed" in Genesis 1.
so I thought I'd add a bit of humour into the proceedings
Your attempts at humour are no laughing matter.
yet also point out to him that the whole issue of the origin of the universe was addressed - by the Bible - at least in Genesis 1.
Ignorant ancient mythology.
At least its not set as low as some of your colleagues set it - by dismissing the 'why'.
As you should know by now the mere ability to ask a 'why' question in no way entails that there's an answer, i.e. that it's even a meaningful question in the first place.
This is just one of a whole raft of things that you ought to know by now but appear not to.
-
. In her first 2 teaching practices she was on A's; unfortunately, the headteacher of her final practice school took against here - she is somewhat unconventional when it comes to her dress sense and, combined with the fact that she arrived every morning on a bicycle, the head simply refused to allow her through the doors before she was a third of the way through that practice. Unfortunately, because of the special needs nature of the school, she couldn't redo the practice in or near Hull. She has since retrained as a foot health practitioner, and is slowly taking on more and more of the work of my wife's chiropody business.
Yes Macho headship through the nineties and noughties has contributed more than a fair share to the recruitment and retention crisis in schools. This wonderful secular libertarian society has and continues to see education off.
Dawkins contribution while charged with raising the public profile of science was to join the nasty humanist throng led by Chris Woodhead and weigh into teachers for not being antireligious..............sorry, Shaker......had to just slip that one in.
-
Secular - check.
Humanist - check.
Anti-religious - check.
Dawkins - check.
Apart from anti-theism and philosophical naturalism/materialism it's the usual checklist of your usual obsessions crowbarred into a thread for absolutely no other reason than the fact that you can't get them out of what passes for your brain. So it goes.
-
Secular - check.
Humanist - check.
Anti-religious - check.
Dawkins - check.
Apart from anti-theism and philosophical naturalism/materialism it's the usual checklist of your usual obsessions crowbarred into a thread for absolutely no other reason than the fact that you can't get them out of what passes for your brain. So it goes.
This is the religionethics board Shakes so the mention of any topic like education should be given a religion ethics stance.
Mention of Dawkins unethical demand of teachers........Check.
-
This is the religionethics board Shakes so the mention of any topic like education should be given a religion ethics stance.
We have a sports, hobbies and interests sub-forum - it's not compulsory to jemmy your creepy manias into every subject.
Mention of Dawkins unethical demand of teachers........Check.
What "demand"?
-
This is the religionethics board Shakes so the mention of any topic like education should be given a religion ethics stance.
We have a sports, hobbies and interests sub-forum - it's not compulsory to jemmy your creepy manias into every subject.
Mention of Dawkins unethical demand of teachers........Check.
What "demand"?
Hast thou not watchest the Holy canon of Dawkins TV specials?
-
No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.
What "demand"?
-
No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.
What "demand"?
In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
Vlad waits for wheedling 'well what the Doctor really meant'' from Shaker.
-
No. I've seen the TV programmes that Dawkins has made.
What "demand"?
In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
Even if that were true, which is yet to be demonstrated, that sounds like a question (albeit an illegitimate one, if true) rather than a demand. Hence your use of the word "quizzes."
Vlad waits for wheedling 'well what the Doctor really meant'' from Shaker.
Vlad ought to be waiting for "Evidence?" from Shaker.
-
No, I didn't think so.
-
Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.
Sass, note that I said John's Gospel. That is different from the 3 letters of John.
Are you saying that the three letters of John are not on equal standing with the gospel of John?
Some of my posts actually contained quotes from johns gospel. Such as Jesus saying:-
King James Bible
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
It still amounts to the same thing... Jesus spoke about God and himself being two persons.
-
King James Bible
Sass, why the insistence on the King James Bible? As we know now, it is a flawed translation, despite its towering language.
The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.
The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.
Jeremiah 31:31-34King James Version (KJV)
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.
James gave especial instructions that it should reflect the episcopal structure and the ecclesiology of the Church of England of the time - and hence the nature of monarchy that he enjoyed. As a result, there are elements that don't properly match the original languages of the Bible, there are elements that rely for understanding on the early-17th century meanings of words - many of which meanings have changed over the centuries - and also reflect an outdated understanding of what Greek and Hebrew that the authors of the AV had access to.
It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.
As you know, it was written in order to provide the Bible in the (English) vernacular; 20th and 21st century British English vernacular (let alone that of American English) has moved on and the current crop of translations are simply providing for you and I what James wanted to provide for the people of his time 400 years ago.
The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.
John 16:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
The NT did not exist with the disciples and the first believers. In fact it was the OT that was given as scriptures and which the Bereans checked the Scriptures to see if what they were told by Paul, was true.
If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT.
The Lord just brought to my mind psalm 12.
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The Lords words are preserved...
-
Was Jesus God in human form or not?
Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?
Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian. John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.
Read the last post before this from myself. The NT letter from John show your beliefs are not mainstream Godly teachings but mans.
And yours are? ;D ;D ;D
Read the bible and stop wasting time asking silly questions... :)
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
They don't believe in anything to have one.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
-
What sects and cults does atheism have?
They don't believe in anything to have one.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)
Says the leader of the smallest Christian cult in the world. ;D ;D ;D
-
The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.
Sass, the KJV was NOT translated by Jews. It was translated by, no doubt perfectly worthy, Church of England clergy and scholars in the early 17th century under strict instructions from the monarch to reflect the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England of the time. OK, in this, it was probably trying to counter some of the Roman Catholic ideas that can be found in Catholic translations, but James also wanted it to reflect the role of the monarchy as he saw it.
As for the "Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT", its the first time I've heard that suggestion. Do you have any evidence for it? By the way, what do you mean by 'definition' in this comment?
The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.
Sorry Sass, but when one comes to discussing the relative merits of English or any other language's translations of the Bible, the passage you quote from Jeremiah is absolutely irrelevant. The reality of what is said in the passage may well be great news, but it has no relevance to the issue we're discussing.
The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.
What do you mean by 'for definition purposes'?
It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.
And how do Jesus and others like Paul suggest is a good way to discover what that truth is? Is reading the Scriptures included in that advice? If so, then the translation has to be the most accurate that we can get. To believe that a translation reflecting the linguistic norms of 400 years ago is 'the best available' is to dismiss 400 years'-worth of theological scholarship and its related linguistic studies.
The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.
Yet I notice that all your posts make use of Biblical imagery and phraseology. Clearly it has a very important place in your belief system.
If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...
Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass? If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV. ;) Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?
-
Sass is Sass and makes it up as she goes along! ;D
-
In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.
-
In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In a way Dawkins found impossible.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way? One of their "religious beliefs" is that God is faithful and consistent and therefore the way the universe works is likely to be consistent. I don't see that having a "tendency to ruin the science". How would not putting their religious beliefs aside have had the "tendency to ruin the science"? How would belief in, say, Jesus being the second person of the Trinity have ruined Collins' genome project work?
Do you mean Young Earth Creationists rather than Christians in general?
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In a way Dawkins found impossible.
Yes, because he doesn't have religious beliefs what with being an atheist.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way?
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In a way Dawkins found impossible.
Yes, because he doesn't have religious beliefs what with being an atheist.
That then is his stance on religion.
Dawkins was unable to put away God when doing science. Waterstone's is replete with the evidence.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way?
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
To paraphrase the priests on the 'Speed' episode of Father Ted.......Are you sure a Mass wasn't of help in anyway?
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way?
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
And yet Dawkins couldn't seem to do anything without saying there couldn't be a God.
-
Dawkins was unable to put away God when doing science. Waterstone's is replete with the evidence.
You can't get Dawkins' scientific papers in Waterstones.
I guarantee you that, if you do get hold of one of his papers, you will find no mention of religion in it at all.
-
And yet Dawkins couldn't seem to do anything without saying there couldn't be a God.
No. that's just you making up bullshit in that boneheaded way that you do. I really think you should try applying some thought to some of your posts.
-
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
What makes you think this, jeremy? I can't think of anyone, Christian or otherwise, who puts aside their belief system when doing work, whatver that work might be.
-
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
Yet none of those points are evidence that the individuals put aside their belief system when doing science, jeremy. One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system. It is only those who feel that science and religion are opposites who believe that that is what has to happen.
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way?
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
I note your ambiguous terminology. They use methodological naturalistic principles.
However, let's go back to #311 which said
Vlad: In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
You: I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
-
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
What makes you think this, jeremy? I can't think of anyone, Christian or otherwise, who puts aside their belief system when doing work, whatver that work might be.
That is what science is about, Hope. You will not do good science if you let your personal beliefs and hopes intrude on the work. If you do, you'll start seeing things that aren't there and missing things that are.
-
One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system.
What do you think that "putting aside your beliefs" means?
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
Because they would jump to conclusions that are false. You do it all the time. You apply your religious beliefs to doing history and thus convince yourself that the Resurrection of Christ is historically sound when it isn't. If scientists applied their religious beliefs to science, we would have a World view that is distorted by the need to harmonise it with Genesis.
-
In what way? One of their "religious beliefs" is that God is faithful and consistent and therefore the way the universe works is likely to be consistent. I don't see that having a "tendency to ruin the science".
That isn't science for starters.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.
I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.
-
Polkinghorne and Collins do manage to keep their beliefs (some pretty weird and wacky ones in Collins's case) away from the science when they're doing science, but Conway Morris has a tendency to adulterate his science with his theism. He holds for example that human beings - not hares and moths, notice, but human beings - were/are in some sense inevitable in the universe, such that if the "tape" of life were rewound right back to the beginning and played again, humans or something nearly identical to humans would result. He has been less than shy about tying this view to his belief in God.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
Because they would jump to conclusions that are false. You do it all the time. You apply your religious beliefs to doing history and thus convince yourself that the Resurrection of Christ is historically sound when it isn't. If scientists applied their religious beliefs to science, we would have a World view that is distortedly the need to harmonise it with Genesis.
I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.
The alternative ideas do not have the same historical documentation.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.
I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.
It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.
And of course Hawking made a spectacular ''disproof'' of God in the conclusion but never actually mentioned God in the hypothesis or method........About five years ago.
-
It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.
Not a pity at all, not even a bit of one - that no god dunnit is bog-standard, straightforward science, for all the reasons which have been clearly explained many, many, many times before which I'm sure shouldn't need to be explained to you yet again.
Still, if we have to remind you, we'll do so.
-
It's a bit of a pity Dawkins couldn't keep Goddidn't do it out of his science.
Not a pity at all, not even a bit of one - that no god dunnit is bog-standard, straightforward science, for all the reasons which have been clearly explained many, many, many times before which I'm sure shouldn't need to be explained to you yet again.
Still, if we have to remind you, we'll do so.
Shaker....another one who thinks Atheism=science. Just a word about the scientific method Shakes.
If you don't mention God any where else but your conclusion features God, you're not doing science properly.......Don't be so stupit in future.
-
I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.
No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.
-
I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.
No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.
Eh?
-
One doesn't have to refer to one's belief system within a dissertation or scientific paper to hold to that belief system.
What do you think that "putting aside your beliefs" means?
The Oxford Dictionary states that 'to put something aside' means to 'Forget or disregard something' (though it also means 'save money for future use'). I doubt whether they would 'forget' their beliefs, and since there is dichotomy between religion and faith, I see no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs.
-
If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.
I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.
They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith. Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is. Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.
-
I'm afraid there are historical documents providing all kinds of evidence for the event. What could be in question is the interpretation of it. That of course depends on factors other than historical.
No Vlad, there aren't, not if you are trying to do science.
Eh?
Other factors.
-
The Oxford Dictionary states that 'to put something aside' means to 'Forget or disregard something' (though it also means 'save money for future use'). I doubt whether they would 'forget' their beliefs, and since there is dichotomy between religion and faith, I see no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs.
The disregard bit is the part that matters and you see "no reason for them to feel that they need to 'disregard' their beliefs" because you do not understand what science is or how it is done. You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.
-
They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith. Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is.
They may not but many do.
Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.
Is that a scientific stance? (The answer you're after is "no").
-
You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.
I'm sorry, but I know a number of Christians who are also scientists - some pretty high-powered - none of whom who feel the need to 'disregard (their) prior beliefs to do successful science'. They believe that the two don't actually conflict with each other because they deal with different aspects of their real lives.
-
They may not but many do.
I won't disagree that some may, but because of the places I've lived - such as Oxford, London and Cardiff - and some of the work I've been involved with - such as medical and sustainable development - the majority of the many mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. I know, who are also Christians, see no conflict between the two positions. On the other hand, the people I know who really push that conflict are the likes of you, who seem determined to believe that there has to be a conflict - perhaps in order to validate your owm personal positions.
Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.
Is that a scientific stance? (The answer you're after is "no").
Shaker, if one believes that God created the universe, as these folk I've referred to state that they do, science must - by definition - be 'one element' of that creative process. As such, its neither a scientific or religious stance.
-
I won't disagree that some may, but because of the places I've lived - such as Oxford, London and Cardiff - and some of the work I've been involved with - such as medical and sustainable development - the majority of the many mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, etc. I know, who are also Christians, see no conflict between the two positions.
Nice anecdote, but of all mathematicians, biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers etc. how representative do you think they are?
In the other hand, the people I know who really push that conflict are the likes of you, who seem determined to believe that there has to be a conflict - perhaps in order to validate your owm personal positions.
My own personal position is perfectly well validated as it is; this is about recognising the irreconcilable difference(s) between science and religion, which some seek to gloss over, possibly because it points up the shakiness of the religious stance which does't even have a methodology to demonstrate its principles.
-
You absolutely have to disregard your prior beliefs to do successful science.
I'm sorry, but I know a number of Christians who are also scientists - some pretty high-powered - none of whom who feel the need to 'disregard (their) prior beliefs to do successful science'.
And you have been telephoning them this evening to ask them that, have you? No, I don't think you've ever asked any of them. Because, if you did, they would tell you I am right.
They believe that the two don't actually conflict with each other because they deal with different aspects of their real lives.
If you think that, why would you think it a problem to put aside your prior beliefs to do science?
-
If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.
I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.
They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith. Having heard at least 2 of them speak, I understand that they don't believe that there is. Instead, science is just one element of God's creation and, as such, deals with certain areas of that creation.
Then your two tame scientists are rationalising, else they would publish in a peer-reviewed science journal a methodology for investigating claims of divine intervention - and we both know that isn't so.
All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.
-
All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.
Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.
-
All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.
Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.
Yep - good old 'doublethink': an essential personal attribute if you are an otherwise clever Christian.
-
Shaker, if one believes that God created the universe, as these folk I've referred to state that they do, science must - by definition - be 'one element' of that creative process. As such, its neither a scientific or religious stance.
Look at this, you're a classic case of such doublethink. If it's "supranatural" (or whatever other silly made up buzz word you're using this week) it's god, but then if it's natural it's still god. You make a mockery of what it means to have evidence, which is what the scientific method requires in order to play the game of probability, by throwing your theistic blanket over absolutely everything.
-
They are only guilty of doublethink if there is a dichotomy between science and faith.
There is a dichotomy. Science is based on evidence - the ability to test and repeat in order to come to a tentative conclusion. Faith is the antithesis of this. Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have evidence. If you start with a faith based position before doing science, then you ain't doing science.
-
All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.
Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.
Yep - good old 'doublethink': an essential personal attribute if you are an otherwise clever Christian.
I don't think I've agreed with Hope before but there's always a first time for everything.
I can't see why a theist cannot study his science and still believe the goddidit nonsense. If they think God can do one-off miracles (unexplainable events) they can ignore those 'events' in their studies. Of course, if they were studying abiogenesis or biopoesis it would be difficult but there are plenty of sciences that it wouldn't need to be a problem.
-
All it shows is that some otherwise clever people have a personal weak-spot when it comes to religious nonsense.
Or to say the same thing in a slightly different way, some people are tremendously good at compartmentalising incompatible and irreconcilable elements.
Yep - good old 'doublethink': an essential personal attribute if you are an otherwise clever Christian.
I don't think I've agreed with Hope before but there's always a first time for everything.
I can't see why a theist cannot study his science and still believe the goddidit nonsense. If they think God can do one-off miracles (unexplainable events) they can ignore those 'events' in their studies. Of course, if they were studying abiogenesis or biopoesis it would be difficult but there are plenty of sciences that it wouldn't need to be a problem.
It's not that they can't believe the goddidit stuff, it's that they must leave it at the door and not factor it in when doing science. And they don't factor it in... when it suits them. They often start off with naturalism to assess probability and then make a switch to a supernatural outlook in order to pander to and special plead for their specific theological miracles. All the while they're simultaneously believing that goddidit is the answer to nature. There's not many better examples of doublethink.
-
Couldn't have put it better myself, Andy.
-
It's not that they can't believe the goddidit stuff, it's that they must leave it at the door and not factor it in when doing science.
Exactly.
-
It must be difficult to be a religion-science accomodationist these days. For centuries science has been so ... almost embarrassingly good at explaining and understanding the world that even with all the caveats and provisos of which the science-savvy should be aware (that all knowledge is to a greater or lesser degree tentative and provisional; that all ideas are subject to revision, and so forth), to invoke science, to say that such-and-such has scientific evidence in its favour (or doesn't) is generally regarded as the hallmark of truth. Even TV adverts for brands of up-market shampoo have a "Here comes the sciencey bit" in them, because even people who don't know their macromolecules from a hole in the ground regard it as the seal of reliability.
There are very good reasons for that. The way that science is done tries to root out deliberate fraud and tries to eliminate to the greatest possible degree personal prejudice and subjective bias, both of those things having been demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction as egregiously poor indicators of how things really are.
That science is permanently and perpetually working with limited knowledge (by definition; if we knew everything there is to know, there'd be no science), carried out by fallible people who get tired and make mistakes and very rarely deliberately falsify things doesn't alter this one jot. The checking and rechecking process deals with them. When you have a tool this powerful and this effective, one that keeps on proving itself literally every day, you don't set it aside.
The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.
-
It must be difficult to be a religion-science accomodationist these days. For centuries science has been so ... almost embarrassingly good at explaining and understanding the world that even with all the caveats and provisos of which the science-savvy should be aware (that all knowledge is to a greater or lesser degree tentative and provisional; that all ideas are subject to revision, and so forth), to invoke science, to say that such-and-such has scientific evidence in its favour (or doesn't) is generally regarded as the hallmark of truth. Even TV adverts for brands of up-market shampoo have a "Here comes the sciencey bit" in them, because even people who don't know their macromolecules from a hole in the ground regard it as the seal of reliability.
There are very good reasons for that. The way that science is done tries to root out deliberate fraud and tries to eliminate to the greatest possible degree personal prejudice and subjective bias, both of those things having been demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction as egregiously poor indicators of how things really are.
That science is permanently and perpetually working with limited knowledge (by definition; if we knew everything there is to know, there'd be no science), carried out by fallible people who get tired and make mistakes and very rarely deliberately falsify things doesn't alter this one jot. The checking and rechecking process deals with them. When you have a tool this powerful and this effective, one that keeps on proving itself literally every day, you don't set it aside.
The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.
Watching antitheists trying to appropriate science or worse equate science with atheism is indeed a sad spectacle.
Poor Shaker has written reams but still cannot make any connection.
You are deluded boys quite deluded.
Yes it has a comical element like the chap on here who tried to say that everyone becomes a philosophical naturalist when doing science.
Oh the mysticism, oh the romance, oh the sentimentality.
Science is a method indeed the only people I see who are wrecking science by coming up with theological conclusions, by proposing the scrapping of falsifiability and category are the antitheists for whom science has become a melange of their own smartness, their job security or lack of it particularly among those whose branch of science has not yielded experimental research and Dawkins through his reductionism almost stifled those concerns about the environment as described by Lovelock and others.
You guys have a really bad case of intellectual imperialism.
-
The scientifically literate understand the limitations of science, but it's precisely because they're scientifically literate that they also know its strengths and understand what makes the application of the scientific method matchless in understanding reality. It's a poor, pathetic view of the world that can't provide its own methodology and has to limp along behind science looking for gaps and, to paraphrase Dara O'Briain, filling in the blanks with whatever fairy tale most appeals.
Sentimental and wrong bollocks.
-
There's nothing like an insightful and in-depth analysis, and that was nothing like one Vladdypops.
Not that we expected one, mind ;)
-
As with Polkinghorne, Lemaitre, Conway-Morris, Francis Collins and the like?
I think you'll find that all of those people put aside their religious beliefs when doing science.
In what way?
Well Georges Lemaître, for instance, formulated the idea of the Big Bang based on Einstein's equations, not based on his religious principles. Simon Conway-Morris's scientific papers do not invoke God in any way at all. They are all based on sound naturalistic scientific principles.
I note your ambiguous terminology. They use methodological naturalistic principles.
However, let's go back to #311 which said
Vlad: In one of his shows Faith school danger? He quizzes a science teacher as to why he is not actively discouraging religious belief. That is his demand.
You: I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
Nudge for JeremyP.
-
Watching antitheists trying to appropriate science or worse equate science with atheism is indeed a sad spectacle.
Poor Shaker has written reams but still cannot make any connection.
You are deluded boys quite deluded.
Yes it has a comical element like the chap on here who tried to say that everyone becomes a philosophical naturalist when doing science.
Oh the mysticism, oh the romance, oh the sentimentality.
Science is a method indeed the only people I see who are wrecking science by coming up with theological conclusions, by proposing the scrapping of falsifiability and category are the antitheists for whom science has become a melange of their own smartness, their job security or lack of it particularly among those whose branch of science has not yielded experimental research and Dawkins through his reductionism almost stifled those concerns about the environment as described by Lovelock and others.
You guys have a really bad case of intellectual imperialism.
Wow. You don't half talk bollocks sometimes all the time.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
Already answered at length.
-
The Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT.
I find it odd when they themselves translated the books that you think it is flawed.
Sass, the KJV was NOT translated by Jews. It was translated by, no doubt perfectly worthy, Church of England clergy and scholars in the early 17th century under strict instructions from the monarch to reflect the ecclesiology and episcopal structure of the Church of England of the time. OK, in this, it was probably trying to counter some of the Roman Catholic ideas that can be found in Catholic translations, but James also wanted it to reflect the role of the monarchy as he saw it.
As for the "Jews believe the KJV to be the closest in definition to their own Torah in the OT", its the first time I've heard that suggestion. Do you have any evidence for it? By the way, what do you mean by 'definition' in this comment?
The OT is not flawed in definition as God himself through Jeremiah taught.
Sorry Sass, but when one comes to discussing the relative merits of English or any other language's translations of the Bible, the passage you quote from Jeremiah is absolutely irrelevant. The reality of what is said in the passage may well be great news, but it has no relevance to the issue we're discussing.
The LORD, is the person I believe taught me and told me to use the KJV, for definition purposes.
What do you mean by 'for definition purposes'?
It matters not what instructions man gives. God teaches his own people himself. Just as he has always done. Spirit and Truth.
And how do Jesus and others like Paul suggest is a good way to discover what that truth is? Is reading the Scriptures included in that advice? If so, then the translation has to be the most accurate that we can get. To believe that a translation reflecting the linguistic norms of 400 years ago is 'the best available' is to dismiss 400 years'-worth of theological scholarship and its related linguistic studies.
The bible is like milk for those not yet taught by God. You see when you have the Spirit then truth is within you.
Yet I notice that all your posts make use of Biblical imagery and phraseology. Clearly it has a very important place in your belief system.
If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...
Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass? If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV. ;) Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?
The Bible.
The books of Holy scripture . The Septuagint is a greek version Hebrew books prepared at Alexandria by Hebrew scholars in the 3rd-2nd century BC. It is this version which the KJV is closest to and they both are closest to the original Hebrew having been prepared by Hebrew Jewish scholars.
The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT known as the LXX. It is ascribed to 70 or 72 Scholars working under the patronage of Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria.
I think it is clear your knowledge of the history of the bible is not really clear.
The fact is that God teaches men today as he did in the time of Jeremiah and those others born of the Spirit. By the power of the Holy Spirit.
King James Bible
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
John 16;13
King James Bible
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come..
Jesus said; ''My words are SPIRIT and they are LIFE''
Whatever you say, your argument is already lost.
Gods words came to man through the Spirit and today mankind know the truth by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have what is called a useless argument for the truth of the bible is clear in the teachings of Christ and the Prophets.
-
If the NT disappeared tomorrow Gods people would still go on with the truth from the OT....
The Lords words are preserved...
Are you telling us that you are a Jew, Sass? If that is the case, why are you even thinking of touching the KJV. ;) Oughtn't you to be working from the Hebrew texts of the Torah, Tanakh and the other Hebrew scriptures?
Once you have finished reading the last post. Would you like to explain what you have written.
What is it that you do not understand about this...
12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
My writings are not personal or about me it is simply about the truth of Gods words.
When the time comes it isn't a personality contest it is about the truth.Gods truth.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
Because they would jump to conclusions that are false. You do it all the time. You apply your religious beliefs to doing history and thus convince yourself that the Resurrection of Christ is historically sound when it isn't. If scientists applied their religious beliefs to science, we would have a World view that is distorted by the need to harmonise it with Genesis.
Sorry, I had missed this post.
So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this.
If they do not have views on those things which lead to a conflict between their "religious beliefs" and science, then how would their "religious beliefs" "ruin the science"?
-
In what way? One of their "religious beliefs" is that God is faithful and consistent and therefore the way the universe works is likely to be consistent. I don't see that having a "tendency to ruin the science".
That isn't science for starters.
So how does this view have a "tendency to ruin the science"? That is what JeremyP claimed.
-
So, again I ask, how would Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. applying their religious belief tend to ruin the science?
If, as part of their professional science role, they were do include a 'goddidit' hypothesis they would then be required to outline the methods, data and analysis they applied - exactly what that some of us here have requested.
I suspect that when it comes their professional science work they steer well clear of 'goddidit', esle they drift into psuedo-science, while outwith this they are theists: they are guilty of doublethink, I think.
So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?
-
Polkinghorne and Collins do manage to keep their beliefs (some pretty weird and wacky ones in Collins's case)
Please tell us of the ones which would "tend to ruin the science".away from the science when they're doing science, but Conway Morris has a tendency to adulterate his science with his theism. He holds for example that human beings - not hares and moths, notice, but human beings - were/are in some sense inevitable in the universe, such that if the "tape" of life were rewound right back to the beginning and played again, humans or something nearly identical to humans would result.
So what is wrong with his scientific case here (as messed up by his religious beliefs)?He has been less than shy about tying this view to his belief in God.
And? If the two are in harmony, tough. Bit of a bummer for you atheists, I suppose though.
Time for some more guff about compartmentalisation?
-
And? If the two are in harmony, tough.
They're not, though. That's the point.
Bit of a bummer for you atheists, I suppose though.
The existence of such addled non-reasoning is, yes. Always :(
Time for some more guff about compartmentalisation?
If the cap fits ...
-
And? If the two are in harmony, tough.
They're not, though. That's the point.
So which of the views of Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris, Collins et al. are not in harmony? Come on, cough up.
-
So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?
Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.
-
So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?
Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.
Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?
In #311, JeremyP wrote, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science."
I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.
Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.
-
Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic.
A sophistical distinction given that while doing science the true methodological naturalist must ignore/set aside any so-called "supernatural" input every bit as much as the philosophical naturalist.
-
So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?
Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.
Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?
Not sloppy in the least - I used the term 'scientific method' quite deliberately. and science is as you say methodologically naturalistic. Therefore, any personal beliefs that any scientist holds about anything non-naturalistic are inappropriate when 'doing' science.
In #311, JeremyP wrote, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science."
I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.
Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.
I'm not familiar with the details of the theistic views of these guys, but that isn't my point: my point is quite simply that scientists aren't in a position to include supernatural elements in any hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis without there being an appropriate methodology, and as things stand there isn't.
They might choose to interpret their science in the light of their theism on a strictly personal basis - but that is a separate matter from the actual process of 'doing science' within the discipline of the scientific method.
-
So you "suspect"? Which of their beliefs specifically?
Any and all of them that involve supernatural agency, since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic.
Naughty. It is methodologically naturalistic, but not philosophically naturalistic. Was your ambiguity deliberate or just sloppiness?
Not sloppy in the least - I used the term 'scientific method' quite deliberately. and science is as you say methodologically naturalistic. Therefore, any personal beliefs that any scientist holds about anything non-naturalistic are inappropriate when 'doing' science.
My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".
In #311, JeremyP wrote, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science."
I have been asking JeremyP which of the religious beliefs of people like Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris, which if applied to doing science, would "tend to ruin the science". I can't get anyone to give any examples apart from some alleged conflict between their views on Genesis and science, but no-one will say what the views of Polkinghorne, Collins and Conway-Morris about Genesis are that are in conflict with science.
Do you agree with JeremyP here? If so, perhaps you would tell me what those conflicting views are.
I'm not familiar with the details of the theistic views of these guys, but that isn't my point: my point is quite simply that scientists aren't in a position to include supernatural elements in any hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis without there being an appropriate methodology, and as things stand there isn't.
They might choose to interpret their science in the light of their theism on a strictly personal basis - but that is a separate matter from the actual process of 'doing science' within the discipline of the scientific method.
Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis? JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.
I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.
-
My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".
Bearing in mind that what I said was 'since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic' then I'd say I made a very clear association between 'method' and 'naturalistic' that isn't in the least bit ambiguous.
Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis?
I am - my point being that when 'doing' science the supernatural is out of scope without an appropriate methodology, so that scientists who are also theists need to recognise this distinction.
JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.
I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.
Then I'll leave this point to Jeremy since it isn't one I was making.
-
My point about the ambiguity was about your use of the term "naturalistic".
Bearing in mind that what I said was 'since the scientific method is essentially naturalistic' then I'd say I made a very clear association between 'method' and 'naturalistic' that isn't in the least bit ambiguous.
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
Who was talking about including supernatural elements in any hypothesis?
I am - my point being that when 'doing' science the supernatural is out of scope without an appropriate methodology, so that scientists who are also theists need to recognise this distinction.
They do. At least the ones I quoted do and all the ones I know and have known personally.
JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up and one or two others have chipped in on his side and not backed up the claim either.
I did ask JP if he was thinking of YECers in his #311, but he hasn't said he was thinking more of them.
Then I'll leave this point to Jeremy since it isn't one I was making.
OK.
-
So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that if scientists generally had allowed their religious views to interfere with their scientific work, we would be in that situation.
If they do not have views on those things which lead to a conflict between their "religious beliefs" and science, then how would their "religious beliefs" "ruin the science"?
In exactly the same way as you allow your religious beliefs to ruin your conclusions about history. You happily go around claiming all sorts of daft things like it is a fact that Jesus was witnessed eating with people after he had been executed. The available evidence does not support that conclusion and you would know it if your thinking wasn't warped by your belief in the Christian god.
-
JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up
This is a lie.
What do you think methodological naturalism is, if it isn't putting aside your supernatural (including religious) beliefs at least temporarily?
-
Conway Morris is an interesting example, as he does write more popular books, which speculate about various ideas, e.g. convergent evolution, and of course he is a Christian. However, he is famous for his work on the Burgess Shale, (a rich fossil field in Canada), and it seems very unlikely to me that he used in his palaeontological work any reference to God. Hmm, these fossils are a bit mixed up, I wonder why God allowed that? Or did God sort these animals into phyla or was it the devil?
-
JeremyP made a claim and has not even attempted to back it up
This is a lie.
What do you think methodological naturalism is, if it isn't putting aside your supernatural (including religious) beliefs at least temporarily?
You wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?
In #378 you replied to my, "So are you saying that Polkinghorne, Collins, Conway-Morris et al. hold views about Genesis which are at odds with what science says about the creation of the universe, the Earth, the start of mankind and so on? If so, what views are they. Please supply evidence for this." with
"No, I'm not. I'm saying that if scientists generally had allowed their religious views to interfere with their scientific work, we would be in that situation."
So which scientists do you mean? From what era? From what background? Do you mean all scientists? Presumably not since you seem to be excluding Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris and Collins for starters. Which religious views would interfere with their scientific work? Which ones would have "a tendency to ruin the science"? That's the question I keep asking and not getting answers for.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
-
ou wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?
It should be bloody obvious even to you that, if you let any of your supernatural beliefs infect your scientific work, that work will be invalidated. It should be an easy exercise to extrapolate that to any specific beliefs of these scientists. This is a general point as I explained later. You know what characterises a general point? It can be applied to any of the individuals in the group about which it is talking.
Science is successful precisely because its exponents put aside their supernatural views while they are doing it. Any supernatural view imposed on the work will compromise the science. Why? Because it leads to nonsense like pretending the thing you want to be true is true even though it is unbelievably unlikely because "God could make it happen".
That should be enough to answer the substance of your questions. If you want to continue your amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks, I can't stop you, but expect me to give it the attention it deserves.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
Science is methodologically naturalistic. Methodological naturalism is a subset of naturalism, therefore science is naturalistic. I really don't see what his problem is...
...Well I do, his problem is not having a leg to stand on.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.
-
ou wrote #311, "I haven't seen the programme in question, but, I bet, if I do, I'll find that Dawkins was asking the science teacher why he does not actively discourage applying religious belief to doing science, because that has a tendency to ruin the science.", I then asked you which of the religious beliefs of scientists, e.g. Polkinghorne, Conway-Morris or Collins would have "a tendency to ruin the science"?
It should be bloody obvious even to you that, if you let any of your supernatural beliefs infect your scientific work, that work will be invalidated. It should be an easy exercise to extrapolate that to any specific beliefs of these scientists. This is a general point as I explained later. You know what characterises a general point? It can be applied to any of the individuals in the group about which it is talking.
Science is successful precisely because its exponents put aside their supernatural views while they are doing it. Any supernatural view imposed on the work will compromise the science. Why? Because it leads to nonsense like pretending the thing you want to be true is true even though it is unbelievably unlikely because "God could make it happen".
That should be enough to answer the substance of your questions. If you want to continue your amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks, I can't stop you, but expect me to give it the attention it deserves.
So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"? Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.
-
So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"?
Any of them, if applied to science.
Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.
I have not evaded anything. Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.
It's not an ad hominem to point out that your argumentation is petty and obtuse.
-
Any of them, if applied to science.
In waht way, jeremy? How is a belief that God created the universe and hence all that science is based upon going to 'ruin' that field of study?
I have not evaded anything. Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.
If only, jeremy! From what I can see from the 'preceding few pages of the thread' all there is is claim and counter-claim, assumption and counter-assumption.
-
So which religious view "would tend to ruin the science"?
Any of them, if applied to science.
It should be easy to name one then. Please name one which will "tend to ruin the science."
Some may wonder why you have resorted to repeated evasion and now an ad hominem.
I have not evaded anything. Just read the preceding few pages of the thread and you'll find there is sufficient information there to answer all of your boring stupid questions.
It's not an ad hominem to point out that your argumentation is petty and obtuse.
No, but calling my argumentation "amateur court room wannabe lawyer bollocks" is.
Looking forward to seeing one, just one, Christian belief which will "tend to ruin the science" of a scientist who is a Christian if he applies it to his science. I did ask you whether YEC beliefs were what you were thinking of, but you have not taken me up on that.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.
As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.
As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.
Seemed pretty clear and obvious to me.
I'll go further and state that from my background knowledge of you, you understand that science is MN and not PN, so when you mention the scientific method alongside naturalism, you're exactly talking about MN. To say you're being ambiguous or "naughty" is to ignore what can be clearly identified from your previous posting.
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science. However, if it's being claimed that science is being done while introducing the supernatural then you are giving a false impression, and anyone none the wiser would not recognise that it isn't science. It's the equating of psuedo-science with actual science which tarnishes it.
-
To misquote admiral David Beattie "there's something wrong with our bloody Christians today".
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
-
Then it seems you misunderstand. Science is basically about how we determine things. Science without a method is not science. Its methods are methodologically naturalistic. They do not need to invoke anything supernatural, but say nothing about whether there is a supernatural. Some people use the term "naturalistic" to mean "philosophically naturalistic" and science is not that. Your statement was unnecessarily ambiguous.
I think my meaning was quite unambiguous, in noting that the scientific method is naturalistic, on which point we agree - I think you are indulging in pedantry.
No, just being accurate my little friend. The scientific method is methodologically naturalistic. It is not philosophically naturalistic. Saying which you mean is important as they are fundamentally different. One is where someone has come to the conclusion that there is no supernatural and the other is where the user is not looking for anything supernatural and not invoking anything supernatural.
As I say, Alan, you are resorting to pedantry - I was clearly referring to methodology and to suggest otherwise is digression pure and simple.
Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.
Life goes on though.
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.
-
Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.
Life goes on though.
Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.
No it isn't.
-
Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.
Life goes on though.
Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!
What would've been conducive to a more productive and succinct discussion would be to ask if you meant MN or PN because I don't find it clear and am confused, instead of accusing you of being ambiguous and poking you with a stick all day. It comes across that Alan sees himself as some sort of pariah of authority on such matters, in that if he thinks your being ambiguous, then you should pander to that whim. Fuck off, I say.
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.
No it isn't.
Quick, get on stage...!
-
Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.
Life goes on though.
Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!
What would've been conducive to a more productive and succinct discussion would be to ask if you meant MN or PN because I don't find it clear and am confused, instead of accusing you of being ambiguous and poking you with a stick all day. It comes across that Alan sees himself as some sort of pariah of authority on such matters, in that if he thinks your being ambiguous, then you should pander to that whim. Fuck off, I say.
Yep.
Goings on today remind me of the bit in 'Yes Minister' when Jim Hacker gives some advice to Sir Humphrey along the lines of when dealing with something you find awkward digress by attacking one word in the question - so if someone says 'frequently' then say 'what do you mean by 'frequently'? - I think Alan is using the Hacker strategy!
-
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?
-
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?
It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
-
Then it would not have hurt to put "methodologically naturalistic" to avoid people thinking you meant "philosophically naturalistic" then. Just "naturalistic" was sloppy.
Life goes on though.
Beats me why you would think, bearing in mind the sequence of words I actually used (e.g 'scientific method'), that I was implying more than I actually said!
What would've been conducive to a more productive and succinct discussion would be to ask if you meant MN or PN because I don't find it clear and am confused, instead of accusing you of being ambiguous and poking you with a stick all day. It comes across that Alan sees himself as some sort of pariah of authority on such matters, in that if he thinks your being ambiguous, then you should pander to that whim. Fuck off, I say.
Yep.
Goings on today remind me of the bit in 'Yes Minister' when Jim Hacker gives some advice to Sir Humphrey along the lines of when dealing with something you find awkward digress by attacking one word in the question - so if someone says 'frequently' then say 'what do you mean by 'frequently'? - I think Alan is using the Hacker strategy!
There we go again. The old ad hominem.
Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.
Ho hum.
Any rate. Over to you for the last word. I'm off.
-
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?
Did I say this? No. I was responding to a point that Andy made.
-
There we go again. The old ad hominem.
Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.
Ho hum.
Any rate. Over to you for the last word. I'm off.
I think I will.
If I had used 'naturalisitic' without the qualifier of my direct reference to 'scientific method' in the same sentence then you would have a point: but I didn't, so you don't.
-
Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.
Well we'll never know will we, because you were too busy being argumentative.
-
Did I say this? No. I was responding to a point that Andy made.
I was responding to your comment
but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science
in the context of recent posts on this thread.
-
Conway Morris is an interesting example, as he does write more popular books, which speculate about various ideas, e.g. convergent evolution, and of course he is a Christian. However, he is famous for his work on the Burgess Shale, (a rich fossil field in Canada), and it seems very unlikely to me that he used in his palaeontological work any reference to God. Hmm, these fossils are a bit mixed up, I wonder why God allowed that? Or did God sort these animals into phyla or was it the devil?
wiggi
Interesting your mentioning the Burgess Shale. This was of course the subject of a fine book by Stephen Jay Gould, who has come into some shtick, because his views have been erroneously misappropriated by the Creationists (aided and abetted by the egregious Michael Behe). The Burgess Shale seems to display a wide variety of phyla which no longer exist, (and indeed only a few of the modern phyla are represented in the Burgess Shale). The complexity and apparent rapid appearance of such phyla have seemed a gift to creationists, despite Gould's vehement opposition to such ideas.
The so-called 'Cambrian Explosion' seemed an even bigger gift to those who insisted on a literal interpretation of Genesis, and the finding of many pre-Cambrian fossils has done little to stem the mudslide of 'Creation Science'.
Has Conway Morris done his best to oppose such ant-evolutionary views as the above? I haven't read him, but from what you say, he sounds as though he's trying to give life to Bergson's old ideas of 'Creative Evolution', which certainly made much of convergent evolution.
-
There's a big game of semantics going on here. I wouldn't say that introducing supernatural beliefs into sceince ruins science, but actually stops it being science.
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
I've no problem with that - horses for courses, which is why I think this silly bitchfest is just for the sake of being argumentative.
No it isn't.
Is that the five minutes or the full half hour?
-
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?
Why don't you try reading the earlier posts. As soon as you bring supernatural beliefs into your science, it stops being science.
I'm sure the above has been stated many times before. What is it you are having trouble understanding about it?
-
There we go again. The old ad hominem.
I think you ought to look that up. It doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
Andy suggested asking whether you meant MN or PN. That would be fine unless you asked me why I was asking. My answer would have been "because the term naturalistic" is ambiguous.
No, not really, not in the context.
-
Call me a linguistic martinet if you must, but to me stopping science from being science meets my criterion of ruining science.
And how does having a religious belief, and being a scientist, hinder the latter?
It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life......happy to put you straight.....no need to thank me.
-
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life......
Possibly, but in any case one less than the believer in "God".
happy to put you straight
and clearly happy to have scored an own goal once again, ;)
......no need to thank me.
I know, that's why I'm not thanking you. ;D
-
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
FIFY
-
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
FIFY
Why have you just repeated #403?
-
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
FIFY
Why have you just repeated #403?
I didn't - my post was a play on Vlad's 413 (in which he again used one of his favourite phrases).
-
It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage and (2) differ from anyone else. We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience? ;))
-
Yes Len, but a philosophical naturalist Christian might have preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
FIFY
Why have you just repeated #403?
I didn't - my post was a play on Vlad's 413 (in which he again used one of his favourite phrases).
OK, it just seemed a bit strange that Len said Vlad had preconceived ideas and Vlad pointed out that Len might have the same problem then you pointed out that Vlad might have preconceived ideas. I'll leave you lot to get on with it.
-
It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage and (2) differ from anyone else.
1) Pre-conceived ideas are bound to influence your thinking to some extent, and give a false slant to your studies.
2) It means that non god believers have one less disadvantage than believers.
We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience? ;))
See 2)
-
It gives you the disadvantage of starting with preconceived ideas about the nature of the universe and life.
And in what way does this (1) count as a disadvantage
Because of things like confirmation bias.
and (2) differ from anyone else. We all come to things we study with preconceived ideas (or are you suggesting that non-religious scientists come with empty minds and nil life experience? ;))
Religious ideas are particularly pernicious in this respect.
-
The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate! >:(
-
1) Pre-conceived ideas are bound to influence your thinking to some extent, and give a false slant to your studies.
Thanks for confirming that this is something that affects everyone, Len.
2) It means that non god believers have one less disadvantage than believers.
No, it means that 'non god believers' come to the table with a different underlying understanding than do 'god believers'. After all, all one's preconceived ideas are based on this fundamental understanding of life.
-
The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate! >:(
Yet some of the most abusive posts I've read on this and other forums, Floo, have been 'penned' by the atheists amongst the forums' members.
-
The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate! >:(
Yet some of the most abusive posts I've read on this and other forums, Floo, have been 'penned' by the atheists amongst the forums' members.
No atheist on this forum comes close to the likes of Johnny Canoe, Vlad, Bashful Anthony and TW for abusive posts.
-
Because of things like confirmation bias.
Something, of course, that non-religious people never suffer from, Jeremy ;)
Religious ideas are particularly pernicious in this respect.
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
-
The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling.
Why do make unfounded assumptions. The 'saved' mob are not going to heaven because of anything they did past or present.
They are going because God has forgiven their sins because Jesus Christ has paid the price for them. What is your excuse.. you are not really nice are you when it comes to attacking believers... The only reason you are not going to heave is because.....
Did you mean 'end up' not 'end of'
We have witnessed some of it on this forum!
Who is WE are you deeming to speak for all on the forum..
What you are witnessing is your own bias and jealousy. Also the baiting in your post and insulting of believers in a general free for all.
There is no appalling behaviour. You just do not like it when they answer you back and show how little knowledge you really have.
You come to tear down but end up falling yourself.
They think they have some sort of moral high ground,
That sounds like Satan accusing the Saints... But if you actually knew the truth then you would know that Christ is the truth and the way they are saved. That his life was perfect without sin and showing true love for God and Man. A believer is a person who recognises their sin, their lack and their need for forgiveness from God.
What is your excuse... why do you believe you are better than they...As Christ said...''Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone...
yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate! >:(
You are the one spreading hatred and lies about those who actually belong to God. Is your opinion about Christians and your condemnation of them any different to any other persons bias and hatred whatever form it is towards others who are different.
You condemn but you never show names or events to support accusations which have no foundation other than your personal opinion. In the here and now everyone knows that you make it up.
Jesus Christ.... is the answer and you cannot condemn him in anyway. So why not get over your false indignation and accept the truth about Jesus being the Son of God and the saviour. Why not become a true believer and find forgiveness for your false accusations...
-
No atheist on this forum comes close to the likes of Johnny Canoe, Vlad, Bashful Anthony and TW for abusive posts.
OK, Floo regards herself as an agnostic, but then the likes of Shakes, ippy, Gordon (occasionally), jakswan, even yourself are no better than those you've mentioned above. Some of the dismissive posts penned by these are not only dismissive but rude, deprecatory (even towards some potentially on their own side of the debate) and occasionally couched in discriminatory language.
Just to take one example - Shakes' comment on the assisted dying thread which suggests that those who oppose the ideas that have been put forward aren't 'functioning fully above the neckline' - bearing in mind that there are, of course, people who may ONLY function fully above the neckline, yet hold a different opinion on the issue to him. Those you have listed in your post rarely stoop to that level of abuse.
-
No, it means that 'non god believers' come to the table with a different underlying understanding than do 'god believers'.
Yes indeed! An understanding that is not biased by ideas put their by religious belief.
After all, all one's preconceived ideas are based on this fundamental understanding of life.
And god beliefs muddy the water of that understanding.
-
Because of things like confirmation bias.
Something, of course, that non-religious people never suffer from, Jeremy ;)
If you say so.
Religious ideas are particularly pernicious in this respect.
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Because you have so much invested in continuing it.
-
Because of things like confirmation bias.
Something, of course, that non-religious people never suffer from, Jeremy ;)
Religious ideas are particularly pernicious in this respect.
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Hope, it's not exactly clear by the way you've worded this post of yours but I have to ask, are you a creationist as opposed to some believers, or those of faith that fully accept Darwin's theory?
ippy
-
Hope, it's not exactly clear by the way you've worded this post of yours but I have to ask, are you a creationist as opposed to some believers, or those of faith that fully accept Darwin's theory?
ippy, its not exactly clear what you are asking me here, but I assume you are asking me whether I am a believer in a Creator God who may have used evolution as one element of the creative process, or a believer in 'creationist science'. As I have made very clear on a number of other occasions, I am not a believer in creationist science nor in what is commonly called 'creationism'.
-
The behaviour of some of the 'saved' mob of Christians, who think only they are going to end of in heaven is truly appalling. We have witnessed some of it on this forum! They think they have some sort of moral high ground, yet behave no better, and often much worse, than the heathen they just love to hate! >:(
Yet some of the most abusive posts I've read on this and other forums, Floo, have been 'penned' by the atheists amongst the forums' members.
I DON'T THINK SO! Besides which, isn't faith meant to make people better, or what is the point of it?
-
I DON'T THINK SO!
OK, I've accepted that you don't regard yourself to be an atheist.
Besides which, isn't faith meant to make people better, or what is the point of it?
For one thing, you have no idea what said people were like before they became Christians, Floo. Secondly, faith isn't like a magic wand which makes someone perfect overnight; rather faith is a journey towards perfection, a journey which may be longer or shorter depending on one's start point (you'd appreciate this had you read the Bible in any way seriously). Thirdly, in view of some of the abuse and unfounded claims about religion, let alone Christianity and Christians that I've seen from people on this and other forums, I am amazed at how restrained the vast majority of responses have been.
-
I DON'T THINK SO!
OK, I've accepted that you don't regard yourself to be an atheist.
Besides which, isn't faith meant to make people better, or what is the point of it?
For one thing, you have no idea what said people were like before they became Christians, Floo. Secondly, faith isn't like a magic wand which makes someone perfect overnight; rather faith is a journey towards perfection, a journey which may be longer or shorter depending on one's start point (you'd appreciate this had you read the Bible in any way seriously). Thirdly, in view of some of the abuse and unfounded claims about religion, let alone Christianity and Christians that I've seen from people on this and other forums, I am amazed at how restrained the vast majority of responses have been.
I know one person who was a damned sight nicer to know before he become one of the 'born again' mob! He is now a sanctimonious twit. Do you really think that if Jesus was around today he would be proud of some of those who claim to be his buddies, but behave in a disgusting manner ?
-
Hope, it's not exactly clear by the way you've worded this post of yours but I have to ask, are you a creationist as opposed to some believers, or those of faith that fully accept Darwin's theory?
ippy, its not exactly clear what you are asking me here, but I assume you are asking me whether I am a believer in a Creator God who may have used evolution as one element of the creative process, or a believer in 'creationist science'. As I have made very clear on a number of other occasions, I am not a believer in creationist science nor in what is commonly called 'creationism'.
Thank goodness for you Hope.
ippy
-
Do you really think that if Jesus was around today he would be proud of some of those who claim to be his buddies, but behave in a disgusting manner ?
Floo, how many times do you have to be reminded of Jesus' words in Matthew: 31-46? Remember that there are sanctimonious atheists and well as sanctimonious religious and agnostic people.
By the way, I'm still awaiting a reply to a question I asked you on the 'UK 0, California 1' thread. Incidentally, I seem to remember that I'm still awaiting one from Shakes on the same thread.
-
Which question?
You are the last person on this forum to bitch, bleat and whine about waiting for a response to a question.
-
Which question?
You are the last person on this forum to bitch, bleat and whine about waiting for a response to a question.
Exactly, when did Hope give a straight answer to a straight question? ;D
-
Which question?
You are the last person on this forum to bitch, bleat and whine about waiting for a response to a question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
-
Which question?
You are the last person on this forum to bitch, bleat and whine about waiting for a response to a question.
Exactly, when did Hope give a straight answer to a straight question? ;D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
-
Which question?
IIRC, it was in my first post on the thread, #4 I believe. I've bumped it for you. The question is in the second half of the post.
-
No atheist on this forum comes close to the likes of Johnny Canoe, Vlad, Bashful Anthony and TW for abusive posts.
OK, Floo regards herself as an agnostic, but then the likes of Shakes, ippy, Gordon (occasionally), jakswan, even yourself are no better than those you've mentioned above. Some of the dismissive posts penned by these are not only dismissive but rude, deprecatory (even towards some potentially on their own side of the debate) and occasionally couched in discriminatory language.
Just to take one example - Shakes' comment on the assisted dying thread which suggests that those who oppose the ideas that have been put forward aren't 'functioning fully above the neckline' - bearing in mind that there are, of course, people who may ONLY function fully above the neckline, yet hold a different opinion on the issue to him. Those you have listed in your post rarely stoop to that level of abuse.
I fully accept to being rude and dismissive, you have to be sometimes when dealing with the likes of Hopalong. I would say I treat posters with the respect they deserve, there are theist posters I respect and I rarely am dismissive unless I'm paying in kind.
How exactly you can say words to the effect 'you will be tortured forever unless you agree with me and that is justice' and could be more insulting, pass.
-
Cunting dick filled pus sucking whining morons, lice covered shite licking ponce mincing turd spreading smegma bearing fuck fiddling cockcheese juggling santorum nipple wankmonkeys!
I claim this thread insults for the atheists!
-
Cunting dick filled pus sucking whining morons, lice covered shite licking ponce mincing turd spreading smegma bearing fuck fiddling cockcheese juggling santorum nipple wankmonkeys!
I claim this thread insults for the atheists!
Something annoying you N S?
ippy
-
Cunting dick filled pus sucking whining morons, lice covered shite licking ponce mincing turd spreading smegma bearing fuck fiddling cockcheese juggling santorum nipple wankmonkeys!
I claim this thread insults for the atheists!
Something annoying you N S?
ippy
Was torn between 2 replies
'actually one of my better moods'
And
'Sorry, your highness, one of Shaker's, I believe'
-
jeremy,
You think I am abusive? Well how about you list some of those abusive posts of mine and we will have a look at them in context. And after that I recommend you go out looking for a spine donor.
Name calling is abusive behavior and that is something some of you godless atheist do around here. Some Christians do that as well and of course the resident witch does it more than anybody else around here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/it-starts-with-calling-names-but-can-end-in-despair-and-suicide-6261615.html
-
http://www.swatch.com/en/collections/irony
-
Name calling is abusive behavior and that is something some of you godless atheist do around here.
Know any atheists who aren't godless, canoe?
-
jeremy,
You think I am abusive? Well how about you list some of those abusive posts of mine and we will have a look at them in context. And after that I recommend you go out looking for a spine donor.
Name calling is abusive behavior and that is something some of you godless atheist do around here. Some Christians do that as well and of course the resident witch does it more than anybody else around here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/it-starts-with-calling-names-but-can-end-in-despair-and-suicide-6261615.html
Pot and kettle JC, you are one of the worst name callers on this forum at present, since another member appears to have left the stage for the time being.
-
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Evolution is a demonstrable phenomenon. The theory of evolution adequately explains the available evidence and has made a wealth of predictions that have been borne out by subsequent investigation.
God, by contrast, is a unevidenced claim.
I think 'pernicious' is a little pejorative, don't get me wrong, but it is a qualitatively different thing to show that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains it than to claim that gods are real and that we have any clue about what one might want of us.
O.
-
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Evolution is a demonstrable phenomenon. The theory of evolution adequately explains the available evidence and has made a wealth of predictions that have been borne out by subsequent investigation.
God, by contrast, is a unevidenced claim.
I think 'pernicious' is a little pejorative, don't get me wrong, but it is a qualitatively different thing to show that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains it than to claim that gods are real and that we have any clue about what one might want of us.
O.
Pernicious is the right word for a "god" that offers a gift for believing in it but a threat if you don't.
-
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Evolution is a demonstrable phenomenon. The theory of evolution adequately explains the available evidence and has made a wealth of predictions that have been borne out by subsequent investigation.
God, by contrast, is a unevidenced claim.
I think 'pernicious' is a little pejorative, don't get me wrong, but it is a qualitatively different thing to show that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains it than to claim that gods are real and that we have any clue about what one might want of us.
O.
Pernicious is the right word for a "god" that offers a gift for believing in it but a threat if you don't.
Not all depictions of the Christian god are like that, though, Len, and if you lump all of them together you end up coming across like you're building straw-man arguments. You aren't, exactly, but you're not necessarily addressing the argument of the people you're talking to, either.
O.
-
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
Evolution is a demonstrable phenomenon. The theory of evolution adequately explains the available evidence and has made a wealth of predictions that have been borne out by subsequent investigation.
God, by contrast, is a unevidenced claim.
I think 'pernicious' is a little pejorative, don't get me wrong, but it is a qualitatively different thing to show that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains it than to claim that gods are real and that we have any clue about what one might want of us.
O.
Pernicious is the right word for a "god" that offers a gift for believing in it but a threat if you don't.
Too true! >:(
-
Not all depictions of the Christian god are like that, though, Len, and if you lump all of them together you end up coming across like you're building straw-man arguments. You aren't, exactly, but you're not necessarily addressing the argument of the people you're talking to, either.
O.
If there are Christians who believe that their "God" treats everybody the same after earthly death, I was unaware of them, and apologise to them.
-
Hope,
Why is a belief in a creator God any more pernicious than a belief in evolution with no purpose or design behind it?
For two reasons.
First, evolution can no more be "pernicious" than gravity can be pernicious. It's a natural process that occurs without the need for it to be directed towards a pre-determined outcome.
Second, because if as you suggest there really is a god at the wheel then presumably he's responsible for fluffy kittens alright, but also for the everyday occurrences of countless creatures torn apart by predators, ridden with painful diseases, dying slow and agonising deaths from starvation, excess cold or heat etc. A god who for example steered evolution towards the African worm Loa loa that bores through the human eye really would be pernicious don't you think?
-
Not all depictions of the Christian god are like that, though, Len, and if you lump all of them together you end up coming across like you're building straw-man arguments. You aren't, exactly, but you're not necessarily addressing the argument of the people you're talking to, either.
O.
If there are Christians who believe that their "God" treats everybody the same after earthly death, I was unaware of them, and apologise to them.
Hope appears to be one of them. He defends the view that the Christian version of the afterlife isn't better than earthly life, just "different." No paradise; no "gone to a better place"; according to him it's just "different." ::)
-
Just catching up with the general flow of this thread and just thought I would add, why would there be any need to feel insulted by any one that cares or believes in unsupportd ideas such as paganism, christian or any of the other religious beliefs, (however you might wish to title them).
ippy
-
Not all depictions of the Christian god are like that, though, Len, and if you lump all of them together you end up coming across like you're building straw-man arguments. You aren't, exactly, but you're not necessarily addressing the argument of the people you're talking to, either.
O.
If there are Christians who believe that their "God" treats everybody the same after earthly death, I was unaware of them, and apologise to them.
I was one such, and so is my former parish priest. We were/are universalists which means a belief that God is so loving and merciful that all will be saved. Most universalists still believe in a process of judgement in which the person has to face up to any evil they have done to others.
-
Just catching up with the general flow of this thread and just thought I would add, why would there be any need to feel insulted by any one that cares or believes in unsupportd ideas such as paganism, christian or any of the other religious beliefs, (however you might wish to title them).
ippy
So because a person has a faith nothing else they might know or understand is of consequence?
-
Just catching up with the general flow of this thread and just thought I would add, why would there be any need to feel insulted by any one that cares or believes in unsupportd ideas such as paganism, christian or any of the other religious beliefs, (however you might wish to title them).
ippy
So because a person has a faith nothing else they might know or understand is of consequence?
If an insult is tended within the area of an unsupported idea whatever that idea might be, I wouldn't see it as an insult and I don't.
ippy
-
Hope appears to be one of them. He defends the view that the Christian version of the afterlife isn't better than earthly life, just "different." No paradise; no "gone to a better place"; according to him it's just "different." ::)
But Hope has never given me the impression that he thinks everybody gets to enjoy this "afterlife", whether they believe in his god, other gods, or none at all. :-\
-
But Hope has never given me the impression that he thinks everybody gets to enjoy this "afterlife", whether they believe in his god, other gods, or none at all. :-\
But Hope has always made it clear that he believes that everyone experiences the afterlife; in what manner, depends on the choices that we make during our life here on earth.
-
But Hope has never given me the impression that he thinks everybody gets to enjoy this "afterlife", whether they believe in his god, other gods, or none at all. :-\
But Hope has always made it clear that he believes that everyone experiences the afterlife; in what manner, depends on the choices that we make during our life here on earth.
Ah so that's what I said in the first place. So their choices made here on earth DO affect the 'quality' of the afterlife. Some get a better one than others, is that it?
-
Ah so that's what I said in the first place. So their choices made here on earth DO affect the 'quality' of the afterlife. Some get a better one than others, is that it?
It depends on what your choice is, ahead of one's life here on earth. I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative Otherwise, there seems to be a sense of hypocrisy at large.
-
It depends on what your choice is, ahead of one's life here on earth. I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative Otherwise, there seems to be a sense of hypocrisy at large.
I don't see hypocrisy. I can understand the concept of heaven, the idea of a closeness to a god, without being entirely clear on exactly what that god is supposed to be. I can understand the idea that heaven is supposed to be a perfect afterlife for my spirit to reside in - that might not be your particular take on the idea, but it's the concept that most clearly comes through to me from Christianity.
I don't think there's enough evidence to support the claims that those ideas are real, but equally I don't think there's anything solid to disprove them.
I'm an atheist, but I don't see any hypocrisy in saying that if heaven's real I'd like to be there.
O.
-
It depends on what your choice is, ahead of one's life here on earth. I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative
For the umpteenth time, Hope, nobody can CHOOSE to believe in "God" if their reason decides the evidence for it is unconvincing ... any more than you can choose NOT to believe it.
Otherwise, there seems to be a sense of hypocrisy at large.
No way! The hypocrisy is saying that a god can punish you for choosing not believing in it, when it is not a matter of choice!
-
Floo,
Shame on you! I didn't expect you to be so dishonest. Now produce my past posts where I have targeted somebody with my name calling. You can't do it, can you. I can't recall personally attacking somebody with name calling. You say I am one of the worst. You need to show me because right now, I believe you are not the honest person I thought you were. I don't go for friends lying about me, that's something I hold personally and unfortunately forever.
-
But Hope has never given me the impression that he thinks everybody gets to enjoy this "afterlife", whether they believe in his god, other gods, or none at all. :-\
But Hope has always made it clear that he believes that everyone experiences the afterlife; in what manner, depends on the choices that we make during our life here on earth.
Ah so that's what I said in the first place. So their choices made here on earth DO affect the 'quality' of the afterlife. Some get a better one than others, is that it?
Only some Christians believe this, Len - see my post on universalism above. FWIW most Christians I know think it matters much more how you live your life than what you believe.
-
Floo,
Shame on you! I didn't expect you to be so dishonest. Now produce my past posts where I have targeted somebody with my name calling. You can't do it, can you. I can't recall personally attacking somebody with name calling. You say I am one of the worst. You need to show me because right now, I believe you are not the honest person I thought you were. I don't go for friends lying about me, that's something I hold personally and unfortunately forever.
Go back and read your posts they aren't very pleasant. Witch and godless atheists are examples of name calling, imo! ::)
-
Ah so that's what I said in the first place. So their choices made here on earth DO affect the 'quality' of the afterlife. Some get a better one than others, is that it?
It depends on what your choice is, ahead of one's life here on earth. I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative Otherwise, there seems to be a sense of hypocrisy at large.
So a lot of it depends on how many brownie points we acquire while we're alive and hear on earth?
ippy
-
It depends on what your choice is, ahead of one's life here on earth. I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative Otherwise, there seems to be a sense of hypocrisy at large.
I don't accept the existence of a god due to lack of evidence.
Depends what this 'god' is like, if its the 'god' which burns people forever I'd like to chin the cunt, if its nicer then eternal life with it might be something I'd opt for.
-
I assume that those who choose not to accept the existence of God whilst here on earth would not regard eternal life with that God as being 'better' than any alternative.
There are actually two assumptions at work here, the other one being that people can choose what they believe, which I know is absolutely and definitely not true in my case.
Why on earth do you lot keep on parrotting this twaddle when surely you must have been told innumerable times that it's plainly false?
-
There are actually two assumptions at work here, the other one being that people can choose what they believe, which I know is absolutely and definitely not true in my case.
Why on earth do you lot keep on parroting this twaddle when surely you must have been told innumerable times that it's plainly false?
A truth they will not accept because it brings down their whole house of cards.
-
I am bumping this topic up.
I have been posting on an over 50s forum where I have been threatened with burning in hell forever and ever by a woman who is so proud to consider herself a 'spirit filled' a 'born again'! The amusing thing is that when she is posting on other boards on that forum rather than the religious one, you would never guess in a million years she was supposed to be a 'Christian'. The ladies of the night would think of her as one of their own when it comes to entertaining dirty old men who like porno chats. Maybe her version of Jesus enjoys it too!
-
Is there a question in there somewhere?
Or are you just having a wee Floo-rant?
-
I am bumping this topic up.
I have been posting on an over 50s forum where I have been threatened with burning in hell forever and ever by a woman who is so proud to consider herself a 'spirit filled' a 'born again'! The amusing thing is that when she is posting on other boards on that forum rather than the religious one, you would never guess in a million years she was supposed to be a 'Christian'. The ladies of the night would think of her as one of their own when it comes to entertaining dirty old men who like porno chats. Maybe her version of Jesus enjoys it too!
Funny you should say that floo but years ago when I posted occasionally on a few forums, each with a Christian emphasis, I 'knew' a lovely poster who was extremely kind and reasonable and what one would describe as a 'liberal' Christian. One day I looked at that now defunct forum, Charisma online which some people called "Strang", you may remember. There she was dishing out hell fire and being as extreme as one could imagine.
It was a bit of a shock. So your experienced must have been even more of a shock! Maybe the poster you have encountered just likes posting on forums and gets a kick out of having different personae - she might even try racing car forums or diy ((!!!) forums :-).
-
Funny you should say that floo but years ago when I posted occasionally on a few forums, each with a Christian emphasis, I 'knew' a lovely poster who was extremely kind and reasonable and what one would describe as a 'liberal' Christian. One day I looked at that now defunct forum, Charisma online which some people called "Strang", you may remember. There she was dishing out hell fire and being as extreme as one could imagine.
It was a bit of a shock. So your experienced must have been even more of a shock! Maybe the poster you have encountered just likes posting on forums and gets a kick out of having different personae - she might even try racing car forums or diy ((!!!) forums :-).
I don't remember the forum you are speaking of, certainly not one on which I have posted.
The poster I am talking about believes once a person is 'saved' they can't get 'unsaved'. I have come across a good number of 'born agains' in my time who believed in that mantra, including a very close relative, now dead. It is a very convenient dogma as many of them did the ever so holy bit in church on Sunday, whilst living a much less than blameless life during the week, like cheating on their partners, and being less than honest there their business affairs were concerned.!
-
I am bumping this topic up.
I have been posting on an over 50s forum where I have been threatened with burning in hell forever and ever
So now you are telling us human beings a female at that has the power to cast you into hell?
So really someone suggested the way you live and the mindset you have could land you in hell.
Not the same thing is it?
by a woman who is so proud to consider herself a 'spirit filled' a 'born again'! The amusing thing is that when she is posting on other boards on that forum rather than the religious one, you would never guess in a million years she was supposed to be a 'Christian'.
Why and how do you know she posts on other forums?
The ladies of the night would think of her as one of their own when it comes to entertaining dirty old men who like porno chats. Maybe her version of Jesus enjoys it too!
Oh! so prostitutes only entertain dirty old men who like porno chats. And where does the Jesus enjoying it come into anything?
Character assassination based on what evidence exactly?
Is there a point to anything you have just spouted? If so can you explain it.
-
So now you are telling us human beings a female at that has the power to cast you into hell?
So really someone suggested the way you live and the mindset you have could land you in hell.
Not the same thing is it?
Why and how do you know she posts on other forums?
Oh! so prostitutes only entertain dirty old men who like porno chats. And where does the Jesus enjoying it come into anything?
Character assassination based on what evidence exactly?
Is there a point to anything you have just spouted? If so can you explain it.
I have no idea if the woman posts on other forums, I was talking about one particular forum, where she posts on the religious board and the secular ones!
You are a fine one to moan about the posts of others when yours don't make much sense!
-
Why and how do you know she posts on other forums?
Why and how did you get to there ^
from here? ;
The amusing thing is that when she is posting on other boards on that forum rather than the religious one,
(please show your working)
::) ::)
edit; Floo beat me to it!