Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Jack Knave on February 26, 2016, 06:46:04 PM
-
In Our Time this week did a programme on Mary Magdalene and it was said that the name Magdalene has its roots in the term tower. They said it may refer to a town(s) with that part of its name in it.
I had the idea that it also could mean tall, and as it was pointed out JC gave some of his followers nick names like Peter the Rock etc. So perhaps Mary was tall. Then I had another thought about the disciple that JC loved; mentioned at the end of John. Perhaps Mary was a he or that this disciple was a she. Either she dressed as a man for some reason because of biases towards women by the culture at the time, and so to blend in with the rest of the Apostles, or that he was a cross dresser and so on.
Just some wild musing.......however, any thoughts anyone?
-
Only that Life of Brian got there before you ;)
https://youtu.be/bDe9msExUK8
-
Only that Life of Brian got there before you ;)
https://youtu.be/bDe9msExUK8
That's no shakes on me, those guys are kings.
-
The terrible thing about Mary Magdalene was the slander against her by the Western church linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Because of the medieval church's attitude to sex it devalued her, and hence the role she plays in the resurrection narratives, right through to modern times. And of course it also gave license for Christians to paint some porn in the name of religious art.
Yet another triumph from the church when it comes to women and sex then.
-
Not formatting brilliantly on my phone but this from Lucy Winkett is worth a read.
http://www.womenpriests.org/magdala/winkett.asp
-
The terrible thing about Mary Magdalene was the slander against her by the Western church linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Because of the medieval church's attitude to sex it devalued her, and hence the role she plays in the resurrection narratives, right through to modern times. And of course it also gave license for Christians to paint some porn in the name of religious art.
Yet another triumph from the church when it comes to women and sex then.
The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery. Where is the man? Why isn't he getting stoned?
-
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene might give a clue ...... http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
-
The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery. Where is the man? Why isn't he getting stoned?
Because he didn't say Jehovah!!!.....by the women in beards
-
It has just dawned on me the Python lot were playing women who were dressed up and posing as men!
-
The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery. Where is the man? Why isn't he getting stoned?
He probably was stoned Khatru, and couldn't be bothered to go out that day ;) .
I take your point though, it was always the woman who got the blame. Never understood that.
-
In Our Time this week did a programme on Mary Magdalene and it was said that the name Magdalene has its roots in the term tower. They said it may refer to a town(s) with that part of its name in it.
I had the idea that it also could mean tall, and as it was pointed out JC gave some of his followers nick names like Peter the Rock etc. So perhaps Mary was tall. Then I had another thought about the disciple that JC loved; mentioned at the end of John. Perhaps Mary was a he or that this disciple was a she. Either she dressed as a man for some reason because of biases towards women by the culture at the time, and so to blend in with the rest of the Apostles, or that he was a cross dresser and so on.
Just some wild musing.......however, any thoughts anyone?
Here is a thought for you.
If you can't say anything sensible then don't say anything at all.
-
Khtru,
Have you even bothered to read John chapter 8? What's with you? It was staged to trap Christ. Nobody had condemned that women for adultery. So who cares about her fake or real lovers. She went home and carried on life, she wasn't stoned. Read the chapter slowly if it helps you, her accusers melted away. Yikes man!
-
Well Jack, I have to say you remind me of Floo and her stunted, was Jesus gay. You want to accuse or slander for kicks? You got the evidence for your stunted notion? No of course you don't. I would more easily believe you to be a cross dresser.
Mary was called Magdalene because she came from the town of Magdala. A town north of Tiberias along the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Several women followed Christ after they were healed. Mary was one that has demons cast out of her. But goof off off come along and tell us Christ was gay but married Mary and moved to France to get away from his crossdressing lover John. Pathetic and stunted to the max.
-
Khtru,
Have you even bothered to read John chapter 8? What's with you? It was staged to trap Christ. Nobody had condemned that women for adultery. So who cares about her fake or real lovers. She went home and carried on life, she wasn't stoned. Read the chapter slowly if it helps you, her accusers melted away. Yikes man!
You do know that this particular myth doesn't appear in the earliest documents. It doesn't even show up on our earliest bibles.
Like most of John, it was an add-on approved by the Catholic Church some centuries later.
-
Well Jack, I have to say you remind me of Floo and her stunted, was Jesus gay. You want to accuse or slander for kicks? You got the evidence for your stunted notion? No of course you don't. I would more easily believe you to be a cross dresser.
Mary was called Magdalene because she came from the town of Magdala. A town north of Tiberias along the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Several women followed Christ after they were healed. Mary was one that has demons cast out of her. But goof off off come along and tell us Christ was gay but married Mary and moved to France to get away from his crossdressing lover John. Pathetic and stunted to the max.
You can't slander someone who doesn't exist.
-
The terrible thing about Mary Magdalene was the slander against her by the Western church linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Because of the medieval church's attitude to sex it devalued her, and hence the role she plays in the resurrection narratives, right through to modern times. And of course it also gave license for Christians to paint some porn in the name of religious art.
Yet another triumph from the church when it comes to women and sex then.
I'd have thought that linking her with the woman caught in adultery (after all, there is no definitive evidence either way) would actually be very powerful evidence for the grace and mercy of Jesus. Here was a woman who, in the culture of the time, was a complete outcast being used by Jesus to announcehis resurrection. It is certainly the approach that many preachers I've heard have taken.
-
The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery. Where is the man? Why isn't he getting stoned?
Khat, think about the way that the Jewish religious leaders had added huge amounts of 'gloss' to the basic laws laid out by God. They had made everything out to be the woman's fault, though we all know that the 'fault' is often on the other boot.
-
You can't slander someone who doesn't exist.
Yet you argue as if he does, in just about every post, Khat.
-
Yet you argue as if he does, in just about every post, Khat.
Nope. That's arguing on the basis of the beliefs you lot hold and the claims you make, not because he believes them and makes the same claims.
This is standard operating procedure. You really don't seem to be up to speed with this whole debate thing at all.
-
Yet you argue as if he does, in just about every post, Khat.
That doesn't mean I actually believe in the Bible god.
I just argue against what you are asserting is real.
-
That doesn't mean I actually believe in the Bible god.
I just argue against what you are asserting is real.
So, you are arguing against something that you don't fully understand.
-
So, you are arguing against something that you don't fully understand.
Why don't I fully understand it?
-
Nope. That's arguing on the basis of the beliefs you lot hold and the claims you make, not because he believes them and makes the same claims.
This is standard operating procedure. You really don't seem to be up to speed with this whole debate thing at all.
Actually, Shakes, the standard operating procedure for debate is for those debating to be at least on the same wavelength with each other. That is generally not the case here, where one side seems to limit the debate to a single aspect of life, the other having a broader outlook.
-
That's the other side which, despite repeated requests, never once provides any evidence for this alleged other component of reality and a methodology for evaluating it, i.e. a demonstration that this so-called "broader outlook" isn't exactly what it looks like, which is an emotion-driven, fallacy-laden fantasy land.
Perhaps if you'd finally stump up with that then we'd be "on the same wavelength."
-
Why don't I fully understand it?
From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic. If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.
-
Actually, Shakes, the standard operating procedure for debate is for those debating to be at least on the same wavelength with each other. That is generally not the case here, where one side seems to limit the debate to a single aspect of life, the other having a broader outlook.
You mean one side is firmly anchored in reality while the other side is away with the fairies?
-
From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic. If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.
There could be anything, but who but a credulous clown would accept it without evidence and a methodology for evaluating it? This is what you don't seem to understand.
Might-bes, maybes and could-bes are not a substitute for actually find out how things really are. You need a method for that, and you don't have one. Or if you do, you're remarkably coy about sharing it, for some reason best known to yourself.
-
From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic. If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.
Then, just for once, instead of claiming these 'other aspects to reality' do us a favour and take the time to describe them and also explain on what basis we should feel prepared to acknowledge them: such as by noting their characteristics, limitations, parameters, effects etc etc.
-
Best of, Gord ;)
-
From what you have said in your posts suggests that you don't accept that reality is anything other than naturalistic. If that is the case, you don't understand that there could be other aspects to reality.
Other aspects to our reality?
If you're referring to those areas that science explains with provisional hypotheses like Dark Matter/Dark Energy, then they are quite possibly, on the cusp of a greater understanding. However, that understanding will come to us by the scientific method and not by closing our eyes and muttering at the ceiling light.
If, however, you're referring to a reality that exists outside of our own reality and that we can only access it by choosing the right god(s) to worship, it's going to take a bit more than your assertions to make me accept it as real.
-
Here is a thought for you.
If you can't say anything sensible then don't say anything at all.
Why is that not sensible?
May be she couldn't be seen in such a group because of cultural biases and so dressed as a man; and being tall, as the nick name implies, she was able to get away with it.
Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box.
-
Here is a thought for you.
If you can't say anything sensible then don't say anything at all.
If you followed your own advice you wouldn't be here in the first place.
-
Well Jack, I have to say you remind me of Floo and her stunted, was Jesus gay. You want to accuse or slander for kicks? You got the evidence for your stunted notion? No of course you don't. I would more easily believe you to be a cross dresser.
Mary was called Magdalene because she came from the town of Magdala. A town north of Tiberias along the coast of the Sea of Galilee. Several women followed Christ after they were healed. Mary was one that has demons cast out of her. But goof off off come along and tell us Christ was gay but married Mary and moved to France to get away from his crossdressing lover John. Pathetic and stunted to the max.
There's no proof that she was from Magdala. And in the earliest gospel, Mark, she is called Mary Magdalene not Mary of....and as I said JC gave his prized followers nicknames, like all top gang godfathers do.
-
Thanks for taking my reply as it was meant. Referring to lack of knowledge or your part and not an insult.
Why is that not sensible?
May be she couldn't be seen in such a group because of cultural biases and so dressed as a man; and being tall, as the nick name implies, she was able to get away with it.
Nothing wrong in thinking outside the box.
It was as wrong to dress as a man as it is to be a prostitute.
King James Bible
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Hence there was no way that MM could be dressed as a man or man dressed as a woman. :)
-
If you followed your own advice you wouldn't be here in the first place.
Are you saying NOTHING here is sensible... Then perhaps you should follow the advice I originally gave.
Since you said nothing of value in reply. :o
-
Are you saying NOTHING here is sensible...
There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.
There's just nothing sensible from you.
-
So, you are arguing against something that you don't fully understand.
He is pointing to the value of the logic of his statement not the value-truth of the content of that logic statement. You can't slander someone who is dead regardless of who that person may have or may not have been or what they stood for.
-
Thanks for taking my reply as it was meant. Referring to lack of knowledge or your part and not an insult.
It was as wrong to dress as a man as it is to be a prostitute.
King James Bible
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
Hence there was no way that MM could be dressed as a man or man dressed as a woman. :)
You haven't said where that quote is from.
JC was always breaking the rules, that was one of the reasons why the high priests and Pharisees didn't like him.
-
There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.
There's just nothing sensible from you.
That is because Sass doesn't do sense at all ... she just spouts scripture like a robot as if that settles everything.
-
That is because Sass doesn't do sense at all ... she just spouts scripture like a robot as if that settles everything.
I don't mind not sensible. I do mind spiteful.
-
I don't mind not sensible. I do mind spiteful.
I don't like either. :)
-
There's lots here that's sensible - we have some highly intelligent members who think clearly and write beautifully.
There's just nothing sensible from you.
We all know you are lost when it comes to religion.
Seems the only thing you have been able to show is sarcasm and insult, no marks for scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intelligent replies for you.
Guess some of us are better off than you when it comes to replies and intelligence concerning the religious matters of the world. Do you want help scraping yourself off the floor where you now lie exposed and face down in the mud of your own creation and ignorance?
-
We all know you are lost when it comes to religion.
We all know you are lost when it comes to any version of religion that clashes with your own.
Seems the only thing you have been able to show is sarcasm and insult, no marks for scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to intelligent replies for you.
Pot, kettle, black.
Guess some of us are better off than you when it comes to replies and intelligence concerning the religious matters of the world.
Apart from your replies and intelligence.
Do you want help scraping yourself off the floor where you now lie exposed and face down in the mud of your own creation and ignorance?
This remark applies to you far more than anybody else on this forum, Sass.
-
Getting back to MM, if Jesus wasn't gay and in a sexual relationship with the disciple whom he loved, I hope he was in consensual sexual relationship with Mary, or even married to her.
-
Very nice of you to wish that for him, floo.
-
Very nice of you to wish that for him, floo.
Yep.
-
The terrible thing about Mary Magdalene was the slander against her by the Western church linking her with the woman caught in adultery. Because of the medieval church's attitude to sex it devalued her, and hence the role she plays in the resurrection narratives, right through to modern times. And of course it also gave license for Christians to paint some porn in the name of religious art.
Yet another triumph from the church when it comes to women and sex then.
Not sure that linking her with the woman caught in adultery was/is in any way slanderous. This would match Jesus' attitude to social mores of that time, something that was reflected in his appearing to women before men. There are plenty of examples of someone being rescued from this kind of sitiation and joining the people who had saved them.
-
The disturbing part of this particular myth is that it's all about the woman caught in adultery. Where is the man? Why isn't he getting stoned?
Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman. In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!
-
Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman. In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!
Evidence please.
-
Precisely, Khat; if you read the passage you will realise that that is part of the argument that Jesus uses to exonerate the woman. In other words, your angst is about 2000 years late!!
Evidence please.
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
-
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Were any of them the other party in the adultery case?
Did Jesus exonerate the woman? Does he say she did not sin?
-
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Have you considered taking this on board yourself, Hope?
-
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Hope quoted this to illustrate that Jesus knew the men were sinful - maybe even more sinful than the poor woman - and they turned away in shame. Which illustrates the importance of judging ourselves before we take the higher moral stance over someone else. Jesus often pointed out that people are all too quick to pass judgement.
Luke 6:42 (NIV)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
-
Were any of them the other party in the adultery case?
Did they need to be? They were using her as a trap for Jesus. The story doesn't even conform that she had been adulterous.
The last couple verses of the passage, which say 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
can be taken in a number of ways, from 'sin' in a general sense to 'sin' in the specific sense. Even in the latter case, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees had failed in their responsibility to arrest the man she had been being adulterous with.
Did Jesus exonerate the woman? Does he say she did not sin?
See above.
-
Did they need to be? They were using her as a trap for Jesus. The story doesn't even conform that she had been adulterous.
The last couple verses of the passage, which say can be taken in a number of ways, from 'sin' in a general sense to 'sin' in the specific sense. Even in the latter case, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees had failed in their responsibility to arrest the man she had been being adulterous with.
See above.
Jesus was in no position to condemn anyone, the guy was hardly 'sinless' himself.
-
Jesus was in no position to condemn anyone, the guy was hardly 'sinless' himself.
Yes, that is the obvious point to draw from the story. The stoners were unable to condemn the woman because none of them were sinless. When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.
-
King James Bible
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-
Yes, that is the obvious point to draw from the story. The stoners were unable to condemn the woman because none of them were sinless. When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.
Yep.
-
Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.
-
It also doesn't have anything to do with Mary Magdalene who is only described as a woman who sinned, we don't actually know what sin but being as everyone sins she was not remarkable for that fact. No-one was planning to stone her as far as I recall.
-
Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.
OK, when was it added?
-
When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.
Why?
He didn't say that he 'couldn't condemn her'; he said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." In other words, he acknowledges that she was a sinner, quite possibly in the way in which she had been accused of, but was forgiving her of the sin. Remember that, in those times, it was believed that only God could forgive sins. If anything, what he said reinforced his claim to be God incarnate.
-
I couldn't understand why people thought there was an implication, from what he said, that Jesus also sinned, so thanks for that.
-
OK, when was it added?
Can't say for sure but it wasn't there about 1600 years ago approximately 350 CE.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
-
Can't say for sure but it wasn't there about 1600 years ago approximately 350 CE.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
Don't worry, I'm not trying to refute your suggestion (a statement along the lines of "The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11" has been in just about every Bible I've ever known). Its just interesting to see when it did appear. You suggest post Sinaticus. I've heard some suggest later than that again; some slightly earlier and have quoted manuscripts I'd never heard of.
-
Don't worry, I'm not trying to refute your suggestion (a statement along the lines of "The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11" has been in just about every Bible I've ever known). Its just interesting to see when it did appear. You suggest post Sinaticus. I've heard some suggest later than that again; some slightly earlier and have quoted manuscripts I'd never heard of.
So what if they have, it still doesn't make them have any veracity.
-
That was not the question floo! ::)
-
So what if they have, it still doesn't make them have any veracity.
Floo, I realise that some of the questions on this and other threads have made you uncomfortable, but that that isn't a good reason to try to stop discussion.
-
Floo, I realise that some of the questions on this and other threads have made you uncomfortable, but that that isn't a good reason to try to stop discussion.
They don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, LOL.
-
Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.
That was going to be my next point. This story is a late interpolation and cannot be traced back to the first century.
-
Why?
He didn't say that he 'couldn't condemn her'; he said "Neither do I condemn you
So the parallel with the stoners is that he also was not without sin. It's pretty simple and obvious, why don'y you get it?
go, and from now on sin no more." In other words, he acknowledges that she was a sinner, quite possibly in the way in which she had been accused of, but was forgiving her of the sin. Remember that, in those times, it was believed that only God could forgive sins. If anything, what he said reinforced his claim to be God incarnate.
It seems to me that you are reading exactly what you want into the story without taking notice of what it says.
-
So the parallel with the stoners is that he also was not without sin. It's pretty simple and obvious, why don'y you get it?
Because you're fogetting the context; he has forgiven her, and only God can forgive her - so by forgiving her Jesus claims divinity. Or are you saying that God can sin?
It seems to me that you are reading exactly what you want into the story without taking notice of what it says.
Interesting that that is what I've been pointing out to you as to what you are doing.
-
They don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, LOL.
Well, why are you so keen to dismiss the ideas, in the context of this (and other) thread's discussions?
-
Well, why are you so keen to dismiss the ideas, in the context of this (and other) thread's discussions?
Because there is nothing to support the existence of any deity, let alone the Biblical one and all that is claimed about it, and its so called 'son'.
-
You say that, in different words, over and over, floo, and we all understand that is what you believe. Why not engage in the discussion? It can be interesting whatever you believe.
-
Or are you saying that God can sin?
How could you know that he can't/doesn't?
Regarding OT genocide, you could go down the road of WLC and say that it would be justified if God had a morally justifiable reason. But, you could also say that God is genocidal dictator.
Which one is true? I don't think it is possible to know therefore, best to hold off on the God can't sin argument (not the same as saying he does sin).
You could also say that by definition God cannot sin, in which case unless you find a justifiable reason for God sanctioned genocide (i.e a reason that shows that genocide was the only option that God had to achieve his means) it's best to hold off on the God exists claim (not the same as saying God does not exist).
-
Because there is nothing to support the existence of any deity, let alone the Biblical one and all that is claimed about it, and its so called 'son'.
Whereas there are people who have looked at the same 'evidence' as you have and concluded that there is such support. That is part of the problem; you are so dogmatic in your 'disbelief' that it becomes very difficult to have a sensible debate with you.
-
You could also say that by definition God cannot sin, in which case unless you find a justifiable reason for God sanctioned genocide (i.e a reason that shows that genocide was the only option that God had to achieve his means) it's best to hold off on the God exists claim (not the same as saying God does not exist).
Oddly enough, a number of perfectly legitimately justifiable reasons have been put forward for God's treatment of some of the people groups athat interacted with the peple of Israel. Many involve protecting the Jews from being wiped out, or being subsumed into other nations.
-
Oddly enough, a number of perfectly legitimately justifiable reasons have been put forward for God's treatment of some of the people groups athat interacted with the peple of Israel. Many involve protecting the Jews from being wiped out, or being subsumed into other nations.
Lets hear them then.
Why was Genocide justified then. We need a reason that shows that only genocide could fulfil God's aims.
-
Lets hear them then.
Why was Genocide justified then. We need a reason that shows that only genocide could fulfil God's aims.
Without enumerating them separately (as my eyelids are beginning to droop), there are a number of occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures which record the threat of annihilation of the Jews at the hands of a neighbouring nation (in one or two not for the first time) which leads God to instruct the Jews themselves to annihilate the nation or leads him to do it on their behalf. Ironically, the former method often doesn't work because thet Jews rescue various elements of the opposing nation and turn them into slaves and/or wives, resulting - down the line - with parts of the Jewish nation being led away from their God to follow 'foreign gods'.
-
Without enumerating them separately (as my eyelids are beginning to droop), there are a number of occasions in the Hebrew Scriptures which record the threat of annihilation of the Jews at the hands of a neighbouring nation (in one or two not for the first time) which leads God to instruct the Jews themselves to annihilate the nation or leads him to do it on their behalf. Ironically, the former method often doesn't work because thet Jews rescue various elements of the opposing nation and turn them into slaves and/or wives, resulting - down the line - with parts of the Jewish nation being led away from their God to follow 'foreign gods'.
But why is Genocide necessary? Why not simply protect the jews if they are attacked? Or simply whisk them away to safety? Or make them inpenatrable to weapons in battle? All easy solutions to an omnipotent God, who likes to perform a miracle now and then.
These all seem better ways of going about things to me. They don't require the wholsale slaughter of children, and would also demonstrate spectacularly the power of the Jewish God. They might even create a few converts amongst the enemy tribe.
Whilst God might have a legitimate reason for ordering gencocide it is easy to imagine alternative solutions to achieve his end such as those above.
Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can err.
Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?
-
But why is Genocide necessary? Why not simply protect the jews if they are attacked? Or simply whisk them away to safety? Or make them inpenatrable to weapons in battle? All easy solutions to an omnipotent God, who likes to perform a miracle now and then.
These all seem better ways of going about things to me. They don't require the wholsale slaughter of children, and would also demonstrate spectacularly the power of the Jewish God. They might even create a few converts amongst the enemy tribe.
Unfortunately, history shows that the likelihood of making converts amongst an enemy tribe is far smaller than a remnant of that enemy within one's ranks influencing your culture and thinking.
Whilst God might have a legitimate reason for ordering gencocide it is easy to imagine alternative solutions to achieve his end such as those above.
So, you would like God to intervene in every aspect of life and in every instance? You want him to make people into robots who don't think? It's also worth remembering that for each of the instances of 'genocide' there are several instances of his employing alternative solutions.
Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can err.
Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?
There is a difference between 'erring' and 'sinning'. For instance, I can take a wrong turning whilst driving to visit friends or family that might take me miles out of the way. Have I sinned? It would depend on whether I did it intentionally. I could, as a civilian, wound or even kill an intruder who threatens the life of me and my family. Have I sinned? In the latter example, I might have broken the law, but have I sinned in the eyes of God?
-
Whereas there are people who have looked at the same 'evidence' as you have and concluded that there is such support. That is part of the problem; you are so dogmatic in your 'disbelief' that it becomes very difficult to have a sensible debate with you.
There is no evidence which is verifiable, you haven't come up with any which would convince sceptics. If there was evidence, which was convincing I would be convinced, but there isn't.
As I have said many times before, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and hide from humanity making its existence purely a matter of faith? If the penalty for unbelief has dire consequences as some believe to be the case, then only a god with a psychopathic personality would leave its existence open to question.
-
There is no evidence which is verifiable, you haven't come up with any which would convince sceptics. If there was evidence, which was convincing I would be convinced, but there isn't.
[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo. Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?
As I have said many times before, if the deity does exist, why does it play silly beggars and hide from humanity making its existence purely a matter of faith? If the penalty for unbelief has dire consequences as some believe to be the case, then only a god with a psychopathic personality would leave its existence open to question.
It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.
-
[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo. Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?
It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.
I have heard some excuses for the behaviour of the deity, but this one must be near the top of the silliness stakes.
I used my brain when I was old enough to think for myself about the topic of the existence god. I came to the conclusion it didn't exist as there is no verifiable evidence to support its existence.
-
[May I point out that the evidence has convinced both sceptics and atheists in the past, Floo. Are you saying that they somehow lost their sceptical or atheistic nerve?
Such people tend to be the ones easily led by turning down the volume in critical, rational scepticism and letting their desires take over. You can see abundant evidence of this in the personal testimonies of those who work as scientists - sometimes very eminent scientists - yet profess supernatural beliefs: I'm thinking specifically of Francis Collins (geneticist; The Language of God) and Ken Miller (cell biologist; Finding Darwin's God) here. What's immediately obvious in both cases is that top-notch science writing of sparkling clarity and lucidity is instantly replaced by every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (such as we see here more or less daily from the usual suspects) as soon as it comes to their beliefs and their reasons for holding them.
It could be that the deity wants humans to use the brains that they have been given by that deity and come to a belief in 'him' (used in the proper English sense of being a non-gender marked pronoun!!) by investigation and intention, rather than simply having everything handed out on a plate.
And yet just about any atheist - whether they have once been a theist or not; in the USA for example probably most will have been, in the UK nowhere near as much - will tell you that they have used their brains and come to the reasoned conclusion that no gods exist because such things are far better explained by other means that don't involve the assumptions inherent in theism. In fact Floo has just done precisely and exactly that. We've plenty of atheists on the forum - ask around and see what they tell you.
"It could be" is of course the placeholder for all manner of wavy-handy, airy-fairy blancmange, presumably designed to absolve those who deploy the phrase of any responsibility for backing up what they say.
-
Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.
REALLY! How selective and cherry picking in nature....
What is OUR earliest bibles? I think you have really excelled yourself this time.
-
Applies to all atheists...
Actually, God cannot sin but you do.
God won't die from sin but you can die in sin.
Instead of worrying about it, why not educate yourself. God created man and God can do what he wants with man. NO SIN as he is the author and giver of all life. Answerable to none and does not sin. But don't you think how you end your life is a reality,
Without God and forgiveness what happens to you? You are the one who is ignoring the true consequences because like Adam and Eve you really think you know better.
-
REALLY! How selective and cherry picking in nature....
What is OUR earliest bibles? I think you have really excelled yourself this time.
Sass, the story doesn't appear in the Codex Sinaticus - which is the prime source for most Bible scholars and translators. That isn't to say tht it hadn't been in oral currency, but it would appear that the initial authors of the Gospels didn't believe that it was worthy of inclusion - as is the case with a few other parts of the Gospels (each is prefaced with a statement to this effect in most editions of the Bible).
-
Such people tend to be the ones easily led by turning down the volume in critical, rational scepticism and letting their desires take over.
I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'. People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).
What's immediately obvious in both cases is that top-notch science writing of sparkling clarity and lucidity is instantly replaced by every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (such as we see here more or less daily from the usual suspects) as soon as it comes to their beliefs and their reasons for holding them. And yet just about any atheist - whether they have once been a theist or not; in the USA for example probably most will have been, in the UK nowhere near as much - will tell you that they have used their brains and come to the reasoned conclusion that no gods exist because such things are far better explained by other means that don't involve the assumptions inherent in theism. In fact Floo has just done precisely and exactly that. We've plenty of atheists on the forum - ask around and see what they tell you.
The problem with this critique is that whenever someone moves from one field of study to another, the language used will change and it may appear that it changes from sparkling clarity and lucidity to every kind of sloppy thinking, assertion and fallacy (as you like to claim) only for it to be dealing with different issues. For instance, if I write an essay about linguistics and language usage, and then write one about the football supporter, they are necessarily going to be very different in tone. For instance, one will reference emotion and use that kind of language than the other. It doesn't mean that they aren't equally valid.
"It could be" is of course the placeholder for all manner of wavy-handy, airy-fairy blancmange, presumably designed to absolve those who deploy the phrase of any responsibility to for backing up what they say.
ou use just as many placeholders in your writings, Shakes. After all, you cannot be certain that what science tells us today is actually what is reality. You and others like you still have to rely of certain beliefs (such as the primacy of science, or the infallibility of the scientific method) to support your ideas.
-
Applies to all atheists...
Actually, God cannot sin but you do.
God won't die from sin but you can die in sin.
Instead of worrying about it, why not educate yourself. God created man and God can do what he wants with man. NO SIN as he is the author and giver of all life. Answerable to none and does not sin. But don't you think how you end your life is a reality,
Without God and forgiveness what happens to you? You are the one who is ignoring the true consequences because like Adam and Eve you really think you know better.
The Biblical deity is the worst sinner, ever, if it exists.
-
I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'. People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).
I haven't carefully avoided anything - some of these I've heard of and some I haven't, but whether I've heard of them or not I've no reason to think that the process is any different for them than for the two men I mentioned earlier. I've read enough such accounts by now to see the similarities.
You can take A. N. Wilson off the list, however. He was a Christian who abandoned theism for a while (late 80s/90s IIRC - writing some far more interesting books as a result) before changing his mind yet again and returning to the sheep fold. (Precisely the same in a Jewish context appears to be the case for Wolpe). The man always strikes me as one of those chop and changing types who doesn't seem to know where he stands. Changing your mind is absolutely fine if done in the light of new evidence, but not only is that not the case here, changing your mind, then back again, then back again just strikes me as rather foolish, vacillating and weak-minded. It's one thing to think long, hard, deeply and seriously about your political beliefs, for instance, and to make a principled change from one party to another (or from one party to no party); if you skip continually from one party to this one to this one to that one to this one most people are likely to take you as a rather shallow and unprincipled individual who doesn't have a serious or consistent stance on anything at all. One of the great Stoic philosophers - either Seneca or Marcus Aurelius, I can't remember which - similarly complained about this using the analogy of over-fussy eaters who claim that they're hungry but skip from one dish to another and another, picking at a bit here and a bit there yet saying they're never satisfied.
You use just as many placeholders in your writings, Shakes.
Feel free to list them.
After all, you cannot be certain that what science tells us today is actually what is reality. You and others like you still have to rely of certain beliefs (such as the primacy of science, or the infallibility of the scientific method) to support your ideas.
There's so much straw here that it's a fire hazard. Nobody who knows anything about science claims that it offers absolute certainty or that the scientific method is infallible - just that it's the most sophisticated and consistently accurate and reliable tool for investigating stuff. This isn't a belief; it's a stance affirmed by observation of the practice of science - its methodology - day in and day out and the success of its results over and over and over and over and over and over again.
People sometimes wave their hands and claim that there are other tools, but they never provide them when asked so we just ignore them.
-
I notice that you have carefully avoided mentioning some high-profile atheists and agnostics who have 'switched sides'. People like Peter Hitchens, Fay Weldon, Paul Jones (of Manfred Mann fame), Richard Peachey, A. N. Wilson; Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (to Islam); Will Herberg and David Wolpe (to Judaism).
What about CR Dawkins to Alf Garnettism?
-
What about CR Dawkins to Alf Garnettism.
Alf Garnett is remembered as a sitcom character notorious for expressing racist views. Are you saying the same of Dawkins, Vlad?
-
Alf Garnett is remembered as a sitcom character notorious for expressing racist views. Are you saying the same of Dawkins, Vlad?
No..........You missed out that Garnett was also loud and intolerant.
-
No..........You missed out that Garnett was also loud and intolerant.
What's loud about Dawkins?
And aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, intolerant of what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?
-
What's loud about Dawkins?
And aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, intolerant of what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?
Alright then........Shrill.
If you are referring to Prof Dawkins he has written a whole chapter of why atheists should be less tolerant of religion.
I have not exhorted anybody to intolerance.
-
Unfortunately, history shows that the likelihood of making converts amongst an enemy tribe is far smaller than a remnant of that enemy within one's ranks influencing your culture and thinking.
I notice that you have missed answering the bulk of my post in this part.
What is wrong with the methods that I outlined?
So, you would like God to intervene in every aspect of life and in every instance?
How you get that from my post is a mystery.
I highlighted an intervention by God. In this case commanding genocide. I am asking why he couldn't have achieved his end of protecting the Jewish tribe by less extreme means.
It seems easy to imagine ways in which an omnipotent God could achieve this.
You want him to make people into robots who don't think?
I can't see how the methods I outlined makes people into robots.
However, he seems to want to make people into dead people who don't think
It's also worth remembering that for each of the instances of 'genocide' there are several instances of his employing alternative solutions.
Giving examples of where you have not committed genocide is not an excuse for the times when you did.
There is a difference between 'erring' and 'sinning'.
"Therefore, there remains the possibility that God can sin.
Hence the original question. How do you know God can't/doesn't sin?"
Happy now?
For instance, I can take a wrong turning whilst driving to visit friends or family that might take me miles out of the way. Have I sinned? It would depend on whether I did it intentionally. I could, as a civilian, wound or even kill an intruder who threatens the life of me and my family. Have I sinned? In the latter example, I might have broken the law, but have I sinned in the eyes of God?
In the eyes of the law it would depend on whether or not you could reasonably have used less extreme means.
Going on to wipe out the perpetrator's extended family/tribe so they can't do it again is definitely going to be seen as extreme I think.
All I am doing here is asking the same questions of God.
-
Alright then........Shrill.
He's the opposite of shrill, but regardless, it's not much of a change: aren't you, given how often you post the same old tropes, shrill about what you call antitheism, ontological naturalism, Stalinism and whatever?
If you are referring to Prof Dawkins he has written a whole chapter of why atheists should be less tolerant of religion.
Where?
-
Shakes,
Where?
Nowhere - it's just another Trollboy fiction. To the contrary, RD says that he wouldn't be without some aspects of Christianity in particular, specifically the cultural aspects. What he does say too though is that we should be less tolerant of the rights some religious arrogate to themselves in the public square - teaching faith beliefs as facts to children, sitting by right in the legislature etc - and I for one am with him on that.
-
Shakes,
Nowhere - it's just another Trollboy fiction. To the contrary, RD says that he wouldn't be without some aspects of Christianity in particular, specifically the cultural aspects. What he does say too though is that we should be less tolerant of the rights some religious arrogate to themselves in the public square - teaching faith beliefs as facts to children, sitting by right in the legislature etc - and I for one am with him on that.
Can't think where at the mo but I think Vlad has got this one right for a change, 'Our Lord Richard' on high, has said something like that somewhere I have either heard or read it somewhere.
I'll get on to it and If I do find it I'll post it.
To be fair to Vlad, even I can be wrong at times, difficult to believe I know.
ippy
-
Ipster,
Well, I'd have thought it was Trollboy's job to provide a citation for his claim. Given RD's oft-stated comments about religion though I'd be surprised if he'd said we should be less tolerant of it rather than less tolerant of the rights and entitlements some claim in its name, which is an entirely different thing.
-
Ipster,
Well, I'd have thought it was Trollboy's job to provide a citation for his claim. Given RD's oft-stated comments about religion though I'd be surprised if he'd said we should be less tolerant of it rather than less tolerant of the rights and entitlements some claim in its name, which is an entirely different thing.
Can't remember where but I can clearly remember the thoughts of mine at the time was, he's giving religion quite a bit more elbow room than I would, the sentiments he was conveying were something like Vlad was saying he had.
Don't worry yourself about me too much blue, I know you do, but I'm not weakening in my resolve, I can't see myself ever taking up religion I never have seen anything that makes any sense that would make me want to take it up.
ippy
-
Sass, the story doesn't appear in the Codex Sinaticus - which is the prime source for most Bible scholars and translators. That isn't to say tht it hadn't been in oral currency, but it would appear that the initial authors of the Gospels didn't believe that it was worthy of inclusion - as is the case with a few other parts of the Gospels (each is prefaced with a statement to this effect in most editions of the Bible).
It appears much has been changed. The original Torah and manuscript of the books of Moses and the Prophets were not chapter and verse either. In fact there were no chapters and verses just scrolls which gave the teachings without chapter and verse.
The original scriptures and the teachings of Christ are most prominent in that the OT can be seen within them.
One gospel writes....
King James Version
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
In three years there was not one feeding of people. Not just the miracles within the bible.
It is clear that the bible is not just words and that clarification is not required when the person lives in the New Covenant.
When God said to Jeremiah.
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.
We know that in Christ we find the way to God. A living way where the word of God is placed within the heart of the person.
2 Corinthians 3:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
When the law came then we died because it convicted us of our sin.
But we find that in Christ the Spirit is life. The same Spirit who had given the words to man through the Prophets even unto Christ. So no one who is in Christ who is a new person requires any man to teach them.
King James Bible
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
John 16:13 and Acts chapters 1-2.
The living words of God came from the Holy Spirit. "My Words are Spirit and they are life." jesus confirming Jeremiah 31:31-34.
The Holy Spirit is required by all believers and we are to heed him in our lives.
Sometimes too much store is put in worldly attributes about the bible.
Rather than the lessons the bible teaches. Every man needs his own oil he requires the presence of Gods Spirit to lead them and be with them. You see mans love for God means he will learn to put him first. Above all that he presently is, so he can become all the things God has ordained for him to receive and to do.
When it comes to the bible this is for the believer and so the unbeliever will have great difficulty trying to make sense.
-
The Biblical deity is the worst sinner, ever, if it exists.
How can the creator of the world sin against himself?
-
How can the creator of the world sin against himself?
It sins against humanity if the deeds attributed to it are true.
-
Sass do you ever think to yourself something like; those blasted non-believers have actually got something, but sod em, fingers in the ears close the eyes la la la la la la la la?
I say the above because I find it difficult to believe that anyone can so readly and almost willingly defy reason and logic on such a large scale, you don't even seem to be able to understand when Blue reminds you about your circular argument, you have never shown in any way that you can even understand exactly what it is Blue is saying.
Surly you're not that thick Sass?
ippy
-
Sass do you ever think to yourself something like; those blasted non-believers have actually got something, but sod em, fingers in the ears close the eyes la la la la la la la la?
I say the above because I find it difficult to believe that anyone can so readly and almost willingly defy reason and logic on such a large scale, you don't even seem to be able to understand when Blue reminds you about your circular argument, you have never shown in any way that you can even understand exactly what it is Blue is saying.
Surly you're not that thick Sass?
ippy
You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.
The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.
I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...
-
You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.
The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.
I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...
That is funny Sass, since when did your posts have anything to do with logic, LOL?
-
You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.
Do you know what "logic" means?
What evidence is there for ignorance?
What is the face of creation?
The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Why?
Why have you used a double negative - if not for the purpose of adding linguistic confusion to your statement?
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.
How does the post show self-deception? How does a real educated reason differ from an unreal educated reason?
I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...
If it is only a guess then it is a poor one.
Quote mining does not imply intellectual rigor.
-
You defy logic everyday with your astounding ignorance in the face of creation itself.
You have no logical reason in the face of science for why you or here exists.
The truth is there is no reason or logic for a person not to believe in God/creator.
Hence your post shows you deceive yourself and have no real educated reason for making such a statement.
I guess I am on the winning side when it comes to logic and what we have around us...
Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?
I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?
You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?
Things like saying" I aint got nuffing", actually means you have got something, think about it Sass.
ippy
-
Because you're fogetting the context; he has forgiven her, and only God can forgive her - so by forgiving her Jesus claims divinity. Or are you saying that God can sin?
Why shouldn't God be able to sin? It's a pretty piss poor god that can't do something its followers seem to be unable to stop doing, by their own accounts.
Interesting that that is what I've been pointing out to you as to what you are doing.
I read into the text what it says. The problem is that your view of the Bible is so encrusted by years of desperate interpretation that what it really says is obscured to you.
-
Why shouldn't God be able to sin? It's a pretty piss poor god that can't do something its followers seem to be unable to stop doing, by their own accounts.
Had thought of responding to this, jeremy, but its such a daft comment that responding would seem pointless.
I read into the text what it says. The problem is that your view of the Bible is so encrusted by years of desperate interpretation that what it really says is obscured to you.
The problem with 'reading into the text what it says' is that there are a whole host of things that need to be taken into account whenever we take part in an conversation or debating exchange. Not just in regard to the Bible, but in regard to just about every aspect of life. For instance, what language are you using to work out what it says? What cultural issues are you considering? What are your presuppositions and prejudices that underlie your reading?
-
And yet you don't apply cultural conditions when reading a handful of anti-gay verses, Hope. Although you do for the ones in slavery. Why?
-
Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?
The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution but a great deal less for macro-evolution.
I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?
That's easy; the evidence is the same for creation as it is for evolution. They just answer different questions that arise from that evidence.
You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?
I've always wondered why you use the process so often.
-
The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose. At the same time, there is plenty of evidence for micro-evolution but a great deal less for macro-evolution.
What do you think the difference between the two is?
That's easy; the evidence is the same for creation as it is for evolution.
No it isn't. Evolution is a scientific matter, predicated on methodological naturalism and built up out of empirical observation, hypothesis framing, hypothesis testing (i.e. experiment) and other features of the scientific method. This "creation" of yours is anything but.
-
What do you think the difference between the two is?
The latter is above the speci-al level. In other words, its all about major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
www.oxforddictionaries.com
On the other hand, the former is all about changes within species and small groups of organisms: Evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
(also oxforddictionaries)
No it isn't. Evolution is a scientific matter, predicated on methodological naturalism and built up out of empirical observation, hypothesis framing, hypothesis testing (i.e. experiment) and other features of the scientific method. This "creation" of yours is anything but.
But the investigation into concepts like purpose, which is very different to the concept of reason (in butterflies, for instance, it often has to do with not being seen by predators), requires the idea of creation. The evidence, as I have said, is the same, but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.
To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.
-
The latter is above the speci-al level. In other words, its all about www.oxforddictionaries.com
On the other hand, the former is all about changes within species and small groups of organisms: (also oxforddictionaries)
So you mean speciation, then?
The evidence, as I have said, is the same
Well yes, you've said it, but having said it again this is mere repetition. Bullshit the first time around becomes merely boring bullshit the second time.
but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.
I know how my approach frames questions, tests them and sifts results into true and false answers. What's yours?
To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.
Probably because I've never mentioned it.
-
But the investigation into concepts like purpose, which is very different to the concept of reason (in butterflies, for instance, it often has to do with not being seen by predators), requires the idea of creation.
No it doesn't, the TofE satisfactorily explains camoflage (if that is what you are alluding to): butterflies don't have a 'purpose' - you're just creating a spurious gap to drop your god into, again.
The evidence, as I have said, is the same, but the two approaches ask different questions of that same evidence.
Nonsense: you've been told this before, 'why' isn't always a valid question: your personal incredulity is getting in the way again.
To tell the truth, I have no knowledge of whether you regard humanity and other species as having a purpose for their existence, or whether you believe that there is no such purpose for existence and that we are all simply purpose-less developments of life.
Why would any sensible person think that any species involves a 'purpose' since there are no good reasons to think so - there are however bad ones, usually due to fallacious thinking and/or ignorance.
-
No it doesn't, the TofE satisfactorily explains camoflage (if that is what you are alluding to): butterflies don't have a 'purpose' - you're just creating a spurious gap to drop your god into, again.
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose? As I said, and you have reiterated, the TofE explains camoflage, but where is the evidence to show that not only butterflies, but human beings, sharks, bees and every species under the sun 'don't have a 'purpose'?
Nonsense: you've been told this before, 'why' isn't always a valid question: your personal incredulity is getting in the way again.
I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being, I don't take everything I am told as 'gospel'. If my 'personal incredulity is getting in the way again', its a situation that I share with just about every other human alive or who has lived.
Why would any sensible person think that any species involves a 'purpose' since there are no good reasons to think so - there are however bad ones, usually due to fallacious thinking and/or ignorance.
Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion? After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't. Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do?
-
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to the old NPF! Another one for the list.
I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being
Cunningly concealed ...
After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't. Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do?
That's explained by the fact that lamentably large numbers of people have the same penchant for fallacy as you do.
-
Follow the evidence Hope.
ippy.
-
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?
Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.
As I said, and you have reiterated, the TofE explains camoflage, but where is the evidence to show that not only butterflies, but human beings, sharks, bees and every species under the sun 'don't have a 'purpose'?
Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.
I know I've been told that before, but as an educated human being, I don't take everything I am told as 'gospel'. If my 'personal incredulity is getting in the way again', its a situation that I share with just about every other human alive or who has lived.
No it isn't - you blunder into the same fallacies repeatedly whereas as others, here in this Forum at any rate, are far less inclined towards making the reasoning errors that you make.
Again, do you have any evidence to support your assertion? After all, millions of very sensible people think exactly what you have suggested they shouldn't. Could it be that it is the 'non-sensible' people who think like you do?
I've no idea regarding what these 'millions of very sensible people' think, and I suspect you don't either, but we're they to offer the same claims that you make here then it would be reasonable to consider they were susceptible to the same fallacies as yourself.
Do feel free to advance a good argument for 'purpose' - one that isn't readily exposed as fallacious.
-
Leaving aside Hopeless's superhuman ability to reel out one logical fallacy after another, going back to the subject of camouflage, anybody educable who finds it interesting enough to chase up should look into Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. Absolutely fascinating.
-
Had thought of responding to this, jeremy, but its such a daft comment that responding would seem pointless.
No it isn't. It was put flippantly, but it is a serious point. Why wouldn't God be able to break his own rules? He's supposed to be omnipotent, remember.
The problem with 'reading into the text what it says' is that there are a whole host of things that need to be taken into account
No. The problem is that it doesn't say what you want it to say.
-
Having read the posts following your post 119 Hope, it looks like you haven't got nothing to be humble about!
ippy.
-
Negative proof fallacy, again - the burden of proof is yours, again.
You did say Gordon 'butterflies don't have a 'purpose'' so that is a positive statement which needs some supporting evidence doesn't it? If you had said there is no evidence for a purpose in response to Hope then that would be different.
-
You did say Gordon 'butterflies don't have a 'purpose'' so that is a positive statement which needs some supporting evidence doesn't it? If you had said there is no evidence for a purpose in response to Hope then that would be different.
Not exactly - I highlighted Hope's specific use of the word 'purpose' as being one of these god of the gaps attempts, since I think he wasn't referring to the natural activities of butterflies but was implying divine design.
-
Not exactly - I highlighted Hope's specific use of the word 'purpose' as being one of these god of the gaps attempts, since I think he wasn't referring to the natural activities of butterflies but was implying divine design.
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct. Purpose needs to be defined of course but it was a positive statement from you and theists are always being asked for evidence when they do that.
-
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct.
If you were a philosopher writing a book on elementary logic for the layman, looking around for examples to illustrate the negative proof fallacy/argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, it would be Hope all the way. He either genuinely doesn't understand what it is and why it's a fallacy, can't stop himself from committing it every other post or simply doesn't care that his reasoning is defective and crashes on regardless like a particularly obtuse Sherman tank.
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?
OK, can you provide us with longitudinal evidence that indicates that homosexual relationships do not create damage within society?
... until you prove categorically, other than merely questioning the idea, that Jesus wasn't God and all that that involves, that documentary evidence stands as a testament to the lack of the Occam's Razor argument, and hence the rest of your argument
... the 'lack of belief' position that most atheists and non-Christians base their arguements on. They can't use science - such as the suggestion that because humans can't come back to life (but don't forget to tell the hundreds of doctors, who perform such miracles every year, that they can't), simply because they can't categorically prove that Jesus was 'merely' human.
If someone believes that they have been healed as a result of prayer, how can anyone prove that they haven't been?
Do you have eye-witness evidence that proves that it didn't occur?
... all that doesn't prove that Christianity isn't true.
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth
Unless you can prove to us that there is no such thing as a deity ...
AS for your use of the terms 'grotesque' and 'impossible', the latter is only the case if Jesus wasn't God - something that no-one has ever managed to prove to be the case.
radiological dating has no way to prove that an all-powerful God hasn't designed age into his creation such that when humanity developed the ability to date things in this and other ways they would ultimately come up with an age for the earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years.
-
But you stated as a fact that there was no purpose so not really a surprise that Hope picked up on that and to describe him doing so as a negative proof fallacy doesn't seem correct. Purpose needs to be defined of course but it was a positive statement from you and theists are always being asked for evidence when they do that.
My use of 'purpose' is, as you say, on the basis of it being undefined by Hope hence my response, which follows on from Hope's use of it in #114.
The problem with that argument, ippy, is that creation seeks to answer a different question to that which evolution deals with - purpose.
It seemed to me, especially in view of my numerous exchanges with Hope, including where he posits these 'different questions', that by 'purpose' he is here referring to something non-naturalistic for which he has been asked repeatedly for a supporting methodology.
I simply cited it for what it is, which is fallacious reasoning, as I noted in #122.
-
You said that Hope asking you for proof to support your statement that there was no 'purpose' was a negative proof fallacy and I don't see that it is.
-
If you were a philosopher writing a book on elementary logic for the layman, looking around for examples to illustrate the negative proof fallacy/argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, it would be Hope all the way. He either genuinely doesn't understand what it is and why it's a fallacy, can't stop himself from committing it every other post or simply doesn't care that his reasoning is defective and crashes on regardless like a particularly obtuse Sherman tank.
Absolutely - and he is picked up on this as he should be. But asking for proof to support a statement that there is no purpose isn't like that is it?
-
You said that Hope asking you for proof to support your statement that there was no 'purpose' was a negative proof fallacy and I don't see that it is.
It is if you unpack what Hope implies by the term 'purpose', such as in #114 that I quoted a couple of posts back.
In #119 Hope said
Do you have evidence to prove that they don't have a purpose?
Which taken in context with his earlier comments in this thread, and others, is the negative proof fallacy since he is asking me to disprove his unfalsifiable non-naturalistic claim.
-
As I acknowledge, he often does use the NPF, and should be picked up on it, as should anyone using it. To 'unpack' his argument is fine, but in the post I'm referring to he's asking you to prove your claim that there is no purpose, which seems fair enough.
-
As I acknowledge, he often does use the NPF, and should be picked up on it, as should anyone using it. To 'unpack' his argument is fine, but in the post I'm referring to he's asking you to prove your claim that there is no purpose, which seems fair enough.
It isn't, since as his posts show what he is implying by 'purpose' is his own unfalsifiable non-naturalistic claim - there is nothing to be said in response other than to point out the fallacy he has committed.
His request is fallacious and as such has no merit.
-
Can you prove there is no non-naturalistic purpose?
-
Can you prove there is no non-naturalistic purpose?
Why would I even try?
Since 'non-naturalistic purpose' has no meaningful definition or methodology to investigate it then as things stand it is no more than meaningless white noise: and is an oxymoron.
It is like saying 'can you prove there are no square circles'.
-
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.
-
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.
I'd say since as far as I know you can't logically define a 'square circle' using geometry then 'square circle' is one of these 'not even wrong' statements - it just doesn't get off the ground.
-
That's because they don't exist. You can define squares and you can define circles and prove there is no subset of "square circles". Assuming your proposed definition of a "square circle" is in the same domain.
It's completely different to trying to define "purpose" or "non-naturalistic" and proving anything about them. There's no logical way of disproving the existence* of anything except by showing that such an entity would be inconsistent with the definitions (and/or axioms) accepted as an agreed or known starting point.
* ie. proving the non-existence
-
It's completely different to trying to define "purpose" or "non-naturalistic" and proving anything about them. There's no logical way of disproving the existence* of anything except by showing that such an entity would be inconsistent with the definitions (and/or axioms) accepted as an agreed or known starting point.
* ie. proving the non-existence
What though if what is proposed is so contradictory or lacking in meaning that there is no agreed or known starting point?
In that situation, which as I'd say was the case with ideas of 'non-naturalistic purpose', then the claim is just meaningless and requests to disprove it are fallacious.
-
Yes, I agree with that. We can dispense with it as meaningless.
Probably it is not meaningless to Hope personally, but it's not a meaning that can be shared and thus explained or discussed.
-
Thanks for the response Sass, thing is Sass there is irrefutable evidence that we have evolved and no evidence that we were created, verifiable evidence puts anyone on the winning side, where's the verifiable evidence for creation Sass?
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.
Made up, you see.
I know it's impossible for you to supply an answer, but, go on have a try, you know, evidence that would prove we were created?
Without being created we could not exist. FACT.
You do know a double negative says the opposite of whatever it is you meant to say?
Double negative cannot apply to God. Man made and has absolutely nothing to do with us and creation.
Things like saying" I aint got nuffing", actually means you have got something, think about it Sass.
ippy
Not accepting something is not the same as not having... You choose not to believe and that is the reality,
Soz it is rushed.
-
There's an absolute ton of evidence, although it's unlikely in the extreme that anybody who uses a word such as "evolvement" [sic] would understand it.
-
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.
Made up, you see.
Followed by ...
Not accepting something is not the same as not having... You choose not to believe and that is the reality.
-
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WE EVOLVED AND NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EVOLVEMENT STILL HAPPENING SINCE IT WAS SUGGESTED WE EVOLVED. Man has always been man and always will be. So evidence for creation is the lack of any evidence of us coming from anywhere to evolve. Nothing evolves nothing new created and so we are still here and we are what we are as God created us. As for evolving... things would still be evolving and coming into existence but nothing ever does.
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass. Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.
Furthermore, nothing in the creation story rules out evolution, remembering that it gives no details on how anything was 'created'. When one remembers that the early chapters of Genesis is more of a theological treatment of God and his relationship with humanity, rather than a historical record, it doesn't even touch on the issue.
-
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass. Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.
In what way do you regard this "evolution in general" as being separate from the evolution of humans (for which there's an embarrassment of riches, actually), and why would that be the case?
-
In what way do you regard this "evolution in general" as being separate from the evolution of humans (for which there's an embarrassment of riches, actually), and why would that be the case?
Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive. They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it. As for the idea of 'evolution in general' as opposed to 'evolution in particular', there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution. Most of the latter is conjecture, and sometimes contradictory.
-
But you can prove that there are no square circles - from the definitions of squares and circles.
Yes
-
Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive.
Nonsense, the evidence for the evolution of humans is incontrovertible. Find some scientist friends who have got a clue.
-
Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists
Yes, I'd have put money on your claiming that.
both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive. They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it.
You find cranks and crackpots in any group.
As for the idea of 'evolution in general' as opposed to 'evolution in particular', there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution. Most of the latter is conjecture, and sometimes contradictory.
When I asked you before as to what you consider the difference between the two to be, the nearest you could get to any kind of answer was speciation, IIRC.
What's contradictory about the evidence? Exactly and specifically, I mean.
-
Sorry to see your ignorance showing, Sass. Whilst I would agree that there is no definitive evidence for the 'evolvement' of human beings, there is plenty of evidence for evolution in general.
What evidence in the absence of no evolvement since before evolution suggested?
Furthermore, nothing in the creation story rules out evolution, remembering that it gives no details on how anything was 'created'.
Wrong! God clearly says he spoke everything into being then he in his own words he created man by ..
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Nothing else has come into being since he created everything...
We know that in chapter 3 he curses the ground he formed the man from.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Hence no scientist will know how God formed man from the dust of the ground.
When one remembers that the early chapters of Genesis is more of a theological treatment of God and his relationship with humanity, rather than a historical record, it doesn't even touch on the issue.
When one knows God and knows why the words of Genesis are truth he understands why man never evolved but was 'formed' by God and his life breathed into him. So it touches perfectly on the issue.
Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Moses words came straight from the mouth of God and so the Torah is true.
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 words of God are pure words... It is in knowing God personally that you understand why the book of Genesis is true.
God cannot and does not lie.
King James Bible
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
By every word.... We know we shall see Adam on the day of judgment the first man as his name means.
Why do you not believe Gods own words about his creation?
-
Shakes, I know a number of evolutionary scientists, both non-Christian and Christian, and talking with them they all say that whilst there is some evidence, none of it comes anywhere close to being definitive. They tend to use the legal term - circumstantial - to describe it. As for the idea of 'evolution in general' as opposed to 'evolution in particular', there is plenty of evidence for microevolution, but very little concrete evidence for macroevolution. Most of the latter is conjecture, and sometimes contradictory.
Must know them better than you know God. You believe them over God and Christ?
Shows where your truth really lies...
-
Evolvement ... bloody hell ::)
-
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evolvement