Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 10-01-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

(the Shroud of Turin vs. the Cloak of Kandahar and the Tooth of Kandy...)
Ed: You should take seriously whichever one is backed up by the most evidence. Or reject both if neither has strong evidence.

lp: So if the Cloak of Kandahar turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Islam? And if the Tooth of Kandy turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Buddhism?

I would recommend choosing my worldview based on more than just one piece of evidence. As I stated above I beilieve the truth of Christianity is based on multiple threads of evidence from history, science, experience and philosophy.

There are no more historical, scientific or philosophical threads of evidence for Chritianity than there are for Islam or Buddhism.

Quote:

(a hundred-part or a million-part creator...)

Ed: Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

lp: Prove it.

I can't, but I have never heard of any religion or scientific theory with such a belief. If you can provide one I will accept your refutation.

Amazing.

Not only are millions of Hindus either insane or on drugs... but now you've never heard of them!

lpetrich · 10-01-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

As I stated above we will not be singing hymns all day, remember Revelation is mostly symbolic and not meant literally.

How does one tell that that book is to be interpreted symbolically? And how does one tell what's literal and what's symbolic? The Bible is very short on guides as to how to interpret it. It's not enough to say that "all scripture is god-breathed" or whatever; there has to be some explicit description of how to distinguish the literal parts from the symbolic parts.

(LP earlier: And how does one determine what Mr. G. does in the present day?)

Quote:

By communicatiing with Him and seeing if his actions back up His words.

No gods have unmistakably communicated with me, though; I've never heard any deep voice come out of the sky.

(Ed earlier: I don't know what they "honestly believe". Sometimes people are dishonest even to themselves.)
(LP earlier: Can you show that that's the case for both CD and QoS?)

Quote:

No, only God knows their hearts.

Earlier, you seemed rather sure of what those two are like.

(on not wanting Xianity to be true and instead discovering it to be true...)

Quote:

Talking to other Christians and my own experience.

The same could be said about atheism in many cases.

Quote:

Change your mind about what?

Change my mind about whether the Biblical God has ever regretted anything -- I reread Genesis 6, and I verified that that entity was depicted as expressing regrets.

(on dead people talking to Hillary Clinton...)

Quote:

Well maybe not research but experience with dead people.

And what, specifically, makes you so sure of that?

(prayers to various deities and saints...)

Quote:

No, because none of those beings are living persons.

So it's not really prayer if it's to some other deity or to some saint? But if it's not prayer, then what is it?

On Hillary Clinton:

Quote:

Well I guess she is not as horrible as her husband.

That's very generous of you, Ed.

Ed · 10-03-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Also, since He designed the universe His moral laws provide the most fulfilling life possible in His universe and out of love for Him as stated above in an earlier post.

lp: Is it possible to demonstrate that without begging the question?

How am I begging the question?

Quote:

Ed: Fraid not, a study done by Dr. Donald Lutz found that the most cited source in the Founding Fathers letters and writings was the Bible.

lp: Maybe the most quoted single source, but its quotations are dwarfed by quotations of other sources. Furthermore, where does the Bible explicitly present the social-contract theory of government? I mean something like what is described here:

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and ensure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does talk about the Covenant between Man and God quite often which is very similar to a social contract. James Madison believed that this contract could not contravene the "law of nature and nature's God". IOW the Constitution is required to respect natural law and natural rights as are the institutions created by the Constitution. This is true whether a majority approves or not.

Quote:

(Acts and selection of certain people to perform certain tasks...)

Ed: Yes, but they were appointed by the people, not by a king or etc.

lp: No, they were selected by church officials -- they were appointed, not elected.

No, it says in Acts they were selected by the congregation.

Quote:

Ed: The leaders were equivalent to legistlatures.

lp: A single leader is NOT equivalent to a legislative council. And why in the hell is the Senate called the Senate and not (say) the Sanhedrin?

No, the NT church was led by apostles, elders, and deacons. There was no single leader unless you are referring to the ascended Christ. And I never said the FF used names of specific biblical institutions in the development of the US government.

Quote:

Ed: A Bill of Rights could be derived from biblical principles quite easily, ie You shall not murder = Right to life and etc.

lp: That's being rather selective about "biblical principles" here, because parts of the Bible command the exact opposite, like genocide.

Nowhere in the bible does God command genocide. But you are probably referring to the destruction of the tribes inhabiting Canaan, those commands only applied to the ancient hebrew theocracy. The FF only used universal biblcal principles.

Quote:

lp: Furthermore, where does the Bible support:

* Leaders elected for limited periods of time, the election being by votes

See above though they were elected for life.

Quote:

* Legislative bodies that vote on proposed laws

Jerusalem council voted on requirements for Gentile believers.

Quote:

* Members of those bodies being elected in the fashion of the leaders

See Acts.

Quote:

* Freedom of religion, as opposed to only being allowed to practice only some alleged One True Religion
* Freedom of speech and of writing

Christ and his disciples never forced anyone to become Christians, they only used persuasive arguments and miracles.

Quote:

* Fredom from unreasonable searches and seizures

Thou shalt not steal.

Quote:

* Trial by jury (not that I think that juries are the bee's knees, just that I wonder where juries are in the Bible)

Trial by jury did not come from the bible.

Quote:

Ed: and second is irrelevant because I am referring to the basics of historic orthodox Christianity not to any particular denomination.

lp: Whatever that's supposed to be, and whatever sects qualify as representing that.

Any denomination that accepts the infallible authority of the scriptures.

lpetrich · 10-03-2004, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

How am I begging the question?

By referring back to your premises.

Quote:

It does talk about the Covenant between Man and God quite often which is very similar to a social contract.

It's the same sort of "social contract" as between ruler and subject. The Constitution's social contract refers to government existing on the initiative of those who are governed; the government is supposed to be the servant of its citizens, not its master -- which is plainly contrary to what the Bible implies. I will now quote the US Constitution's Preamble to make it clear:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote:

James Madison believed that this contract could not contravene the "law of nature and nature's God".

A Deist God is not quite the same as the God of the Bible -- the God of the DoI only appears in the background, as the ultimate lawgiver, and does NOT fix political contests the way he allegedly fixes football games. Which the Biblical God is described as repeatedly doing.

Quote:

No, it says in Acts they were selected by the congregation.

THat's not the impression I got.

Quote:

And I never said the FF used names of specific biblical institutions in the development of the US government.

Which is strange for those who were allegedly so inspired by the Bible.

Quote:

Nowhere in the bible does God command genocide.

Shall I quote chapter and verse?

Quote:

But you are probably referring to the destruction of the tribes inhabiting Canaan, those commands only applied to the ancient hebrew theocracy.

Says who?

Quote:

The FF only used universal biblcal principles.

Whatever those allegedly are.

Quote:

Jerusalem council voted on requirements for Gentile believers.

Whatever that council allegedly was.

Quote:

Christ and his disciples never forced anyone to become Christians, they only used persuasive arguments and miracles.

And threats of eternal damnation; JC would foam at the mouth at those who were unwilling to listen to him.

Quote:

Trial by jury did not come from the bible.

Hooray for Ed for acknowledging that!

("historical orthodox Christianity"...)

Quote:

Any denomination that accepts the infallible authority of the scriptures.

However, there are serious doctrinal divergences between many of those who profess to do so, so that's not much of a help.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-04-2004, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Nowhere in the bible does God command genocide.

Why bother to make such a statement when everyone knows it's not true?

Including yourself, as you immediately demonstrate:

Quote:

But you are probably referring to the destruction of the tribes inhabiting Canaan, those commands only applied to the ancient hebrew theocracy.

Similarly, at no time did the Nazis order or commit genocide.

Unless you're referring to the destruction of the Jews, gypsies, communists, homosexuals etc inhabiting Nazi-occupied Europe, those commands only applied to the Third Reich.

Ed · 10-04-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I am still waiting for you to provide an additional "ought". You have still not provided an extra reason why a Christian "ought" to care, other than reward/punishment and an "innate moral sense".

I am still waiting for one single "ought" from your theory of evolution.

A. Uiet bhor · 10-05-2004, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I am still waiting for one single "ought" from your theory of evolution.

???

Ed, are u serious?

There are not supposed to be any "oughts" in natural science, its descriptive, not prescriptive, maybe I misunderstood, nobody could be that ignorant.

Ed · 10-05-2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Uiet bhor

Originally Posted by Ed
I am still waiting for one single "ought" from your theory of evolution.

???

Ed, are u serious?

There are not supposed to be any "oughts" in natural science, its descriptive, not prescriptive, maybe I misunderstood, nobody could be that ignorant.

No, it was Mr. Jack the Bodiless that was claiming that morality came from evolution!

Ed · 10-05-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

jtb: I think you are confusing free will with freedom of conscience and religion. Free will means that the person has the ability to make choices whether they have very negative consequences or not. The bible plainly teaches that humans have free will to choose to obey God or not.

jtb: Correction: the authors of the Bible recognize the obvious fact that we have this ability. They had no choice but to accept this.

...But they sought to prevent people from choosing to disobey, by threatening dire consequences if they did.

There are dire consequences if you disobey, ie stds if you engage in promiscuous sex and etc.

Quote:

Ed: Freedom of conscience means that a person can choose what to believe or not to believe about God and not face any consequences in the temporal realm. Because ancient Israel as a nation was held to a much higher standard than other nations they were not given freedom of conscience.

jtb: Neither were "heretics" in medieval Europe. There is no such doctrine in the Bible: again, the authors had to work with the problems caused by God's actual nonexistence, they needed political power to enforce compliance.

The medieval church had corrupt leaders who were consolidating their power, they cared little about the bible. You have yet to demonstrate God's non existence.

Quote:

jtb: I am STILL restraining my pet dragon to allow you to live, Ed. You haven't thanked me yet.

You have yet to prove his existence.

Quote:

Ed: From God's perspective natural and supernatural consequences are basically identical, since God is the ultimate cause of both.

jtb: Being hacked to death by religious fanatics isn't a "natural consequence" of failing to worship God.

It may be, it certainly isn't supernatural.

Quote:

jtb: Would you like to argue that the 3,000 victims of 9/11/2001 died as a natural consequence of America's failure to adopt Islam?

No, because Islam is not part of reality as Christianity is. But I am not claiming I know what the purpose of 9-11 was.

Quote:

jtb: God didn't turn everyone into robots because he lacked the power to do so.

Ed: A being that can create an entire universe is quite capable of creating robots.

jtb: As an argument, this fails on several levels.

1. God, being fictional, can't actually create anything. This also limits his ability to turn people into robots.

Non sequitor, we were not discussing the existence of God, reread the OP.

Quote:

jtb: 2. The ability to create a Universe does not imply the ability to turn people into robots. Are we compelled to worship and obey the Big Bang?

Fraid so, a universe and everything that eixsts in it, is far more complex than a robot. You have yet to demonstrate that the BB alone could occur much less create the universe.

Quote:

jtb: 3. As already explained, the Hebrew word "bara" also means "to separate by cutting", and this is consistent with its usage in Genesis: God separated the heavens from the Earth, god separated humans from clay (by scooping some up and shaping it), and so forth. Furthermore, it was the Elohim that supposedly did this, not YHWH (no, they're not the same).

I dealt with these issues on one of my other threads so I won't get into it again now.

Quote:

jtb: 4. In the Bible, YHWH's ability to actually influence minds is very limited, confined to a few instances of "heart-hardening" of one person at a time. God never demonstrates any power to alter the minds of a large group, but he nevertheless alters minds just enough to destroy the notion that he has an ethical prohibition on doing so.

He may not demonstrate it because He loves us and does not want us to be robots. But the scriptures plainly teach He has the power to do so.

secular spoon · 10-05-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, it was Mr. Jack the Bodiless that was claiming that morality came from evolution!

Ed, he did not ever (If I can remember 19 pages right

) say that:

Quote:

Ed: What is the reason that child rape is wrong?

jtb: Because I have an innate moral sense that says so.

Ed: If it is just a feeling then what is difference between your feeling and someone who has a feeling that it is not wrong?

jtb: My innate moral sense says so.

ed: But what if some other person's moral sense says it is not wrong? How is your moral sense superior to his? Both of your moral senses come from the same source, ie evolution, so none is any better than the other.

jtb: Evolution explains WHY my "moral sense" is better than that of the person you're considering: it aids my own survival and that of my children.

Social concience or an innate moral sense is a product of our continual evolution, morals in no way come from evolution directly.

As has been repeatedly explained to you:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtb

We OUGHT to act in a manner which ensures our own survival and the survival of the society in which we are a part [snip]

And ed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless
I am still waiting for you to provide an additional "ought". You have still not provided an extra reason why a Christian "ought" to care, other than reward/punishment and an "innate moral sense".

You care to provide one?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.