Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 11-03-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I may not understand gravity and may not be able to explain it, but I still take advantage of it all the time. I may not understand everything there is about God, but I can still follow His laws and gain the benefit from doing so.

John A. Broussard
Fascinating!

Equating your lack of understanding of something that doesn't exist with something that you know exists speaks well about the way you think.

We (both you and I) have evidence every day about the nature of gravity (though there is a current "falling by design" theory which denies the existence of gravity and states that it's just god's hand holding us down--but I think it's safe to leave that behind even though you may want to resort to that explanation).

However, I have no evidence of your god's existence, while you claim you do. There is a very real difference in the understanding of those two concepts "gravity" and "god."

Making them equivalent in "understanding" is utterly absurd.

Except in my view it is equating my lack of understanding of something that does exist with something that I know exists.

That it is absurd to equate the two is your opinion but hardly the truth. If one could prove that God does not exist, it might be a different story.

JPD · 11-03-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Except in my view it is equating my lack of understanding of something that does exist with something that I know exists.

That it is absurd to equate the two is your opinion but hardly the truth. If one could prove that God does not exist, it might be a different story.

Your understanding or knowledge takes you neither nearer to nor further away from God for whom/which/what there is no direct evidence for or against. It is merely a concept. And a very muddled one judging by the arguments put forward.

John A. Broussard · 11-03-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Your understanding or knowledge takes you neither nearer to nor further away from God for whom/which/what there is no direct evidence for or against. It is merely a concept. And a very muddled one judging by the arguments put forward.

Actually, I'm swinging over to rhutchin's view of both gravity and god.

If you jump off of a high building, you know what gravity is going to do to you. You're going to end up in rather bad shape. High enough, and death is guaranteed.

If you pray to god to replace a limb you've lost in an accident, you know what god is going to do to you.

Nothing!

So there is some point in equating god with gravity. We do know some of the results of dealing with either.

JPD · 11-03-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Actually, I'm swinging over to rhutchin's view of both gravity and god.

If you jump off of a high building, you know what gravity is going to do to you. You're going to end up in rather bad shape. High enough, and death is guaranteed.

If you pray to god to replace a limb you've lost in an accident, you know what god is going to do to you.

Nothing!

So there is some point in equating god with gravity. We do know some of the results of dealing with either.

Isn't it the argument that God does not permit Godself to intervene in physical existence? Yet there is God being banked and thanked when young Johnny wins the lottery just after his mum has jumped off a bridge onto the motorway. Truly mysterious.

rhutchin · 11-03-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Actually, I'm swinging over to rhutchin's view of both gravity and god.

If you jump off of a high building, you know what gravity is going to do to you. You're going to end up in rather bad shape. High enough, and death is guaranteed.

If you pray to god to replace a limb you've lost in an accident, you know what god is going to do to you.

Nothing!

So there is some point in equating god with gravity. We do know some of the results of dealing with either.

Let's take another example. I have two boys for whom I have prayed since before they were born. If I could go back and do it all over and this time not pray for them, would I observe the same outcome? My thinking is, No, but there is no way for me to prove it. I think it would be neat to go back about 200-300 years and pick a great theologian like a Jonathan Edwards or a John Owen and some known atheist and look at their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. and see if there was a noteable difference.

John A. Broussard · 11-03-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's take another example. I have two boys for whom I have prayed since before they were born. If I could go back and do it all over and this time not pray for them, would I observe the same outcome? My thinking is, No, but there is no way for me to prove it. I think it would be neat to go back about 200-300 years and pick a great theologian like a Jonathan Edwards or a John Owen and some known atheist and look at their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. and see if there was a noteable difference.

Sorry. Analogies are flimsy arguments in the first place. Analogies comparing fallible human beings with your infallible god are worthless. This analogy is also totally irrelevant.

Let's deal with the argument. You have NOT dealt with the problem of an omnipotent god vs. the existence of terrible human suffering.

Want to try again?

I'm looking foreward to the excuses you will offer for why your god gives every evidence of thoroughly enjoying the horrible agony he wishes upon her/it/his creatures.

Julian · 11-03-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Julian, I recently came to this conclusion myself. However, I have never read any scholarship that discusses the question. The commentaries on Mark that I've looked in, for instance, completely fail to mention the possibility of a separationist/adoptionist christology. Can you point me to any references that discuss this?

Thanks!

I would start here, one of the best books about the topic as well as one of the best books I have ever read on the bible: The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

Julian

cass256 · 11-03-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Actually, I'm swinging over to rhutchin's view of both gravity and god.

If you jump off of a high building, you know what gravity is going to do to you. You're going to end up in rather bad shape. High enough, and death is guaranteed.

If you pray to god to replace a limb you've lost in an accident, you know what god is going to do to you.

Nothing!

So there is some point in equating god with gravity. We do know some of the results of dealing with either.

There may be a God working in both situations. The difference is that if there is a God you may be given the emotional ability to deal with the loss of a limb.. if you pray to him/it/her. If you jump off a building god may give you the clarity and ability, for at least a few moments, to realize what a stupid mistake you just made.

cass256 · 11-03-2005, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's take another example. I have two boys for whom I have prayed since before they were born. If I could go back and do it all over and this time not pray for them, would I observe the same outcome? My thinking is, No, but there is no way for me to prove it. I think it would be neat to go back about 200-300 years and pick a great theologian like a Jonathan Edwards or a John Owen and some known atheist and look at their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. and see if there was a noteable difference.

Why not just look back from 20 some odd years ago to now, and see how Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's children turned out compared to Ozzie and Sharon Ozborn's?

cass256 · 11-03-2005, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBill

One of the few things in the gospels which has a possibility of at least sounding true, in the context of a historical Jesus, is his purported last words, recorded in both Mark and Matthew. It seems entirely plausible that this man, after spending his adult life believing and fervently preaching the end of the world was at hand, would utter such words of despair, "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

If an actual man named Jesus suffered a crucifixion, this looks like his eureka moment, his understanding that he was mistaken all along, no end of the world, no god to rescue him.

How do the Jesus mythicists treat this? Do they have anything to say?

The Eureka moment may have been when he remembered Jeremiah 31:29,30

Quote:

29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Or maybe he remembered that a sin sacrifice can't have any blemish such as sin on it. So he couldn't take on the sins of the world and then die, and expect to live again.
Jesus mythicists have to skip a lot of the Hebrew Bible to make him fit, but you can see that clearly when no 2 gospels agree on much of what happened after Jesus died.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.