Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 10-20-2004, 08:59 AM

(Determining that the Book of Revelation is largely symbolic...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

By studying the linguistic and historical context.

Which makes the Bible something other than the Ultimate Instruction Book, if one has to dig up all this "context". Why isn't it clearly stated in the Bible itself? Especially as the Bible has plenty of precedent for doing so, in the form of the Book of Leviticus contains exacting descriptions of how to perform various offerings, complete with telling us how Nadab and Abihu were zappped for burning incorrect incense.

(God having a deep voice coming out of the sky...)

Quote:

Well, that is not his usual method. He generally speaks to us thru his word, fellow believers, and circumstances.

An allegedly omnipotent being that skulks and hides like that is IMO not worthy of respect. Especially one that never tries to set the record straight in any clear and unmistakable fashion, like make a deep voice come out of the sky.

(Genesis 6: God changing his mind)

Quote:

He is depicted that way, but from other parts of the scriptures we know that he does not change his mind.

The Bible thus clearly contradicts itself.

Quote:

But this is how it appeared to the author and the ordinary Israelites, so he uses anthropomorphic language.

Then it is a misleading appearance. And I think that a non-anthropomorphic god would not be too difficult for the Bible's authors to describe -- where does the Bible state that the Biblical God is non-anthropomorphic?

It is not too difficult to state that; Xenophanes had stated "God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind."

(on why nobody can talk to the dead...)

Quote:

My own and others experiences with dead people.

Tell that to your friendly neighborhood channeler/medium. Or even to the witch of Endor in the Bible, who brought up the ghost of the prophet Samuel.

Quote:

No, in the bible government is servant of God. But of course, since in the NT believers are God's representative on earth, this could be understood that the government should serve the people since the people are in the image of God.

But I thought that we are totally evil original sinners who are incapable of doing anything right on our own initiative, thus making us very unlike the Xtian God.

An inverted pyramids of specious "reasoning".

Furthermore, this "analysis" is contrary to Romans 13 and other parts of the Bible which either state or imply that governments are people's masters, not their servants.

Quote:

Also where do the blessings of liberity come from?

From our efforts, as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution.

(the Bible commanding genocide...)

Quote:

I have already demonstrated my above contention in one of my older threads so I won't rehash that again.

So my contention still stands.

(Who had allegedly revoked that commanded genocide...)

Quote:

Jesus Christ as I demonstrated earlier.

Not that I'm aware of, unless commanding loving one's enemies counts (yes, JC had taught softness on crime).

(JC's foaming at the mouth...)

Quote:

No, most of his anger was directed at BELIEVERS not unbelievers.

However, he may have thought pagans beneath his notice.

(doctrinal difference between different Christian churches)

Quote:

No, none of the differences are part of the essential teachings regarding salvation.

However, the article Christian Salvation? collects the drastically-differing opinions on that subject.

Ed · 10-20-2004, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

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

ss: Ed, he did not ever (If I can remember 19 pages right ) say that:

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.

Just because it is not direct, still ultimately you and Jack are both saying that they come from evolution. So my statement stands.

Quote:

ss: As has been repeatedly explained to you:

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]

But this ought is just an opinion, evolution has no oughts. And Jacks opinion is no better than Jeffrey Dahmer's.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-21-2004, 01:28 AM

Quote:

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

But this ought is just an opinion, evolution has no oughts. And Jacks opinion is no better than Jeffrey Dahmer's.

Ed, everyone knows that you lost this argument. Why are you bringing it up again?

I am STILL waiting for an additional "ought" that Christianity provides and evolution does not.

We know you can't provide one.

So why are you trying to pretend otherwise? Who do you think you're kidding?

Yourself, maybe? Is your faith so weak?

Ed · 10-21-2004, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

Woah... 2 posts in a day!

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

ss: So all the people with AIDS in africa have it for disobeying god? THAT is the source of your morals?

No, not all, but probably most.

Quote:

Ed: 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.

ss: Isn't the burden of proof on you here? Demonstrate his existance.

That is off topic but I did on an another thread, look up my old EoG thread.

Quote:

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

ed: You have yet to prove his existence.

ss: He's proved it as much as you've proved your god's existance. But it's true, the burden of proof is on jtb... and I think he might have lied. You caught him!

Yep, again!

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?

ed: 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.

jtb: And how is it less real than christianity?

Well what I meant was that the Christian worldview is the real worldview while Islam is a made up one.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-22-2004, 01:39 AM

Quote:

ss: So all the people with AIDS in africa have it for disobeying god? THAT is the source of your morals?

No, not all, but probably most.

Another clear demonstration of the moral bankruptcy of Christianity.

Quote:

ss: Isn't the burden of proof on you here? Demonstrate his existance.

That is off topic but I did on an another thread, look up my old EoG thread.

Here we go again.

Quote:

jtb: And how is it less real than christianity?

Well what I meant was that the Christian worldview is the real worldview while Islam is a made up one.

Evidence that Islam is "made up"?

Ed · 10-23-2004, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

(God as male...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed
I don't know exactly why. But I am sure God has a good reason. It could be because God seems to have more male characteristics than female even though he is neither, since he refers to himself as He.

lp: Why should one ever have to speculate about things like that?

Huh?

Quote:

(Divorce supposedly a sin...)

Ed: Its not the unforgivable sin though.

lp: True, it's not saying: "You Holy Ghost you, you are nothing but a spook!" But why let divorcees off scot-free if they just so happen to be Republican politicians?

Huh? I don't follow.

Quote:

Ed: A clear hierarchy: CEO > your boss > you

lp: An analogy which would make legitimate the Divine Right of Kings:
God > king > subjects
among other hierarchies that Ed presumably rejects.

But the analogy does not apply to government only the family.

Quote:

lp: And what is so terrible about women being full citizens in society?

I never said that women could not be full citizens in society.

Quote:

Ed: But that doesn't make you any less human or any less intrinsically valuable.

lp: However, "intrinsic value" means nothing if one is considered subhuman by ohters.

Huh? I never said that women are subhuman. As Genesis 1 says both men and women are created in the image of God.

Quote:

Ed: So what's your point? Any social unit without a leader is in trouble.

lp: Why are social units supposed to need leaders? Especially small ones.

They will operate more smoothly and efficiently.

Quote:

Ed: Again I never said that the bible is a feminist book.

But you implied that it was a sort-of feminist book, at least in the sense of being pro-woman.

It is pro-woman but not feminist.

Ed · 10-25-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Too many misconceptions to address. You need to learn more about Hinduism.

For instance, the "higher" Hindu deities don't have a "shared personhood": they are impersonal. The "lesser" Hindu deities have distinct personalities.

Yes, but the personalities are illusions, they are not real.

Quote:

jtb: The minds of mortals work the same way. We are all part of the Brahman, but we have separate personalities, and only deep meditation can begin to reveal the interconnectedness of all things.

That is right, according to Hinduism with deep meditation you realize that your inidividual personality is an illusion and that ALL is ONE.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-26-2004, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Too many misconceptions to address. You need to learn more about Hinduism.

For instance, the "higher" Hindu deities don't have a "shared personhood": they are impersonal. The "lesser" Hindu deities have distinct personalities.

Yes, but the personalities are illusions, they are not real.

An "illusion" is still real, Ed. It is really an illusion. We merely use the word to describe a phenomenon where reality is not as it appears to be.

Quote:

jtb: The minds of mortals work the same way. We are all part of the Brahman, but we have separate personalities, and only deep meditation can begin to reveal the interconnectedness of all things.

That is right, according to Hinduism with deep meditation you realize that your inidividual personality is an illusion and that ALL is ONE.

Yes, but how is this an argument against Hinduism?

It may well be true. If you can't see it, then you haven't meditated enough.

Ed · 10-26-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

Originally Posted by Ed
Look up my old EoG thread and also read most of my posts in this thread and the Philosophy thread.

ss: Damn ed, you don't like typing do you. Just write it again:

-Whats the evidence against hilary's claims?

All of my and other people I know experiences with dead people.

Quote:

ss: -What evidence is for your claims??

In a nutshell - The Cosmological Argument.

Ed · 10-27-2004, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: Because of this physically coercing belief in the true God is now a sin.

jtb: OK, please provide the chapter and verse where this is made clear.

There is no specific chapter and verse but given that Christ is our ultimate example and He never physically coerced belief in him but rather used arguments and evidence. Then so should we when evangelizing non-believers and to do otherwise is a sin.

jtb: As I suspected: you are inventing doctrine. In this case: inventing a new "sin" that directly contradicts the Old Testament and isn't mentioned in the New.

No, the apostle Paul explicitly teaches that Christ is our example. If we do anything that He wouldn't do, it is a sin.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.