David Mathews

Hello Sandlewood,

David: You were being overly sensitive. I am inclined to agree with any manner in which you describe your beliefs, character, motives, opinions and all other qualities of your person.

David: The Supreme God of monotheism was under consideration. Of course, Muslims and Jews do not accept Jesus' Divinity.

David: If the Muslims did accept Jesus in the above manner they would be Christians, not Muslims. The God of monotheism is under consideration, not the status of Jesus.

David: The concept of the Trinity is not a rejection of Monotheism.

David: Christians who are theists are still monotheists and they still believe in the God of Abraham.

David: I am glad that you think that I am safe.

David: I think that this is merely a trivial observation.

David: I do utilize science. But I do not import any metaphysical significance to the conclusions of science.

David: Origin accounts (such as Genesis 1 - 11) serve a specific purpose for cultures and their primary concern is not objective history nor scientific realism. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus occurred in Israel during a time well attested by historical sources and was recorded soon after the events occurred.

David: I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

rainbow walking

Hi David,
I see no reason to start another thread on this question and I don't know what you mean by my having a problem with them. Have I said I had a problem with the geneaologies? Apparently it is you who has the problem since you claimed there was an alternative interpretation or explanation of them, I suppose to account for the length of life spans or something, I'm not really sure. I merely requested you provide me these alternatives. Is there some good reason why you appear to be ducking this?

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: I have said and continue to say that Genesis was not written to convey objective history or scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe or the history of humankind. I make no effort to interpret the excessively long lifespans of people prior to the flood. It is quite possible that these people lived normal life spans which had become exaggerated over time for whatever reason.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

wordsmyth

I have not as yet described my beliefs or opinions, but you have assumed that they are identical to all other atheists, which is the heart of the problem. I do not consider it being overly sensitive to defend my character against your wild accusations for which there is no basis. Your only justification for these wild accusations is a misguided belief that all atheists are of the same character and opinions. I will say again that Atheists as a whole only hold one common belief and that is the non-existence of God(s). Any belief or opinion expressed beyond that is irrelevant to atheism by definition and other atheists in general.

That is why muslims and jews do not believe in the same concept of God that xians do.

Score one point for logic.

Uh oh, looks like I spoke too soon.

The status of Jesus as a part of the Trinity is a fundamental belief of xianity. The God of monotheism according to xianity is a Trinity comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The God of monotheism according to Islam is comprised of Allah. Period. It is irrelevant that both religions claim their deity is the God of Abraham as both beliefs about the nature of that particular deity are irreconcilable with each other.

That is another argument entirely and irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is that the concept of the Trinity as the xian ideal of God is irreconcilable with the muslim belief in which there is no Trinity.

Again, this is another argument entirely and is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, xians believe their deity is the God of Abraham, but the attributes of that God are comprised of a Trinity. Muslims also believe their deity is the God of Abraham, however the attributes that they grant this deity does not include the concept of a Trinity.

It is not trivial in the least, the idea of demon possession was obviously an important belief among early xians, thus the authors’ inclusion of the event in several places throughout scripture demonstrates as much.


If it were not for the theoretical work of science new treatments and cures for disease would never be found. If it were not for the theoretical work of science man would never have flown into space or walked on the moon. Or do you consider those insignificant conclusions of science? It is irrefutable that science, even abstract science, has demonstrably done more to benefit mankind than any religion, deity, or supernatural power ever has.

I can understand why you would be afraid of science’s quest for knowledge when that knowledge potentially threatens one of the beliefs you hold dear. I wonder if early xians felt the same way when people were first treated for mental illness rather than demon possession.

I’m always intrigued at how some xians believe that biblical accounts such as Genesis are mere allegories while others zealously insist those same accounts are literal truth. I’m sure that if you have ever had a verbal exchange with the latter type of xian you know how casually they seem to dismiss any amount of reasoning so as to maintain their beliefs.

Ryanfire

So you agree with me. Religion is the bringer of war.

Just as you are with your abstract intellectual concepts. I find your descriptions of an incomprehensible being rather embarrassing on your part.

I do not believe in war, yet religion is the bringer of war as you have cleary said above.
Does that not make you angry? Do you like seeing fellow man die? Where's the love in that?

Who said I was an atheist? I'm an agnostic David.
Agnosticism allows me to be an outsider from both atheism and theism. I look to truth, logic, and reason in my life. I do not enjoy living a lie, even it fills my life with delusions of happiness.
I stand for truth and freedom, not beliefs and faith.

But to better answer your question. Atheism has shown me great understanding, the path to logic and reason, to not just accept life as it is, to always question that which I believe, and stay true to myself.

No matter the reason for my creation, I would be forever in debt to my creator. I enjoy my life and the fact I got to experience life, known as existence.

Even when I was a kid David, when it was not my reason or logic coming into work, I somehow sensed with my intuition that something was really wrong within church. All these people gathered together all blurting out the same pre-programmed crap. Praise the lord, jesus sacrificed himself for you, love jesus, become one with god, love is god...blah blah blah.
I felt like I was in a mental hospital.

Now how does a kid, with no beliefs, with no logic or reason, feel wrong within religion?

I knew as a kid, every man's destiny was decided within himself, not god. If you want to become a doctor, you do it on your own, not because god wants it.

A god that rewards and punishes its creations for their actions, which are already known to god, has created nothing.

Humans who hope for a reward, based on their actions, which are already known to god, become meaningless.

This is what atheism and theism has taught me thus far. I keep an open mind and consider all possibilities to existence. I trust my senses, I trust my intellect, I trust me.

Not faith.

David Mathews

Hello wordsmyth,

David: The concept of God in Christianity is analogous to Judaism and Islam for all three religions are monotheistic and proclaim their worship to the God of Abraham.

The theology of Christianity differs in some ways from Judaism and Islam. The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental paradox in Christianity and I won't even attempt to resolve it into some form acceptable to you.

David: The status of Jesus is fundamental to Christianity. The Muslims consider Jesus an inspired prophet. That's life: Different religions describe God in different manners. Otherwise there would be no different religions.

David: Obviously, the trinitarian concept of God is irreconcilable with non-trinitarian concepts of God.

David: Evidently that is true.

David: I don't imagine that the demons were the focus of these accounts. I believe that Jesus' power over mental illness would serve the same function of displaying His power and benevolence.

David: Religion has done a lot for mankind. Religion has a lot more resources than science -- four billion adherents -- and it can motivate them to extreme acts of love and benevolence. Science can't compete with religion's power to motivate and unite people into common goals.

David: I am not afraid of science at all.

David: I have had discussions with a whole lot of people and can tell that atheists dismiss reasoning as readily as any Christian. You atheists don't have a monopoly on truth, logic, reason, science, rationality or anything at all.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

excreationist

David Mathews:
Could you reply to my post? Note that half of the verses I'm talking about don't refer to Genesis. Were other books "not written to convey objective history or scientific facts"? How do you know that the NT isn't similar to other books in that way?
What about the other questions I asked in my post? Was Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt in Genesis 19 an exaggeration? Maybe her mouth just felt a bit salty. What about Jonah being swallowed by a big fish? Jesus even says that he spent 3 days in the belly of a big fish (Matthew 12:40). In Luke 11:29-32 he also talks about Jonah as if that person really existed.

What about in 2 Kings 1:6-14 where Elijah asks God to send fire from heaven to kill captains and their men? Did that happen? What about in Joshua 10:12-14 when the sun stopped moving for about a full day? Or in 2 Kings 20:9-11 when the sun reversed 10 steps (maybe 5 or 6 hours on a sun-dial)? Did those miracles really happen? Maybe they were just symbollic and meant that God can do anything - but if it isn't literal then it isn't a very powerful message... it is just saying that in this make-believe STORY that God can do anything.

You might think that much of the O.T. wasn't "written to convey objective history or scientific facts" - well I thought God would be able to send the humans an accurate message about things. For many passages about why all of the Bible is supposed to be accurate (i.e. without exaggeration) see <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4306apol_v3n21994.asp" target="_blank">AiG - The Authority of Scripture</a>

Anyway, it seems that you don't think much of the O.T. is literal... what about the Gospels then? Did Jesus really walk on water? Did Moses and Elijah meet up with Jesus on earth (Matthew 17)? Did Jesus feed thousands of people on multiple occasions with a couple of fishes and loaves? Did demon possessions and exorcisms happen in the Bible? (see <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/dem_bibl.htm" target="_blank">Demons and the Bible article</a>) Do demons still possess people today? Have you had any encounters with those who are demon possessed? Or are those dozens of passages about demon possession just allegories or something?

Basically I'd like you to demonstrate how consistent you are at interpreting what the Bible says. You said that the talking snake wasn't literal - and yet you probably believe that the miracles in the Gospels were literal. What about Balaam's talking donkey (Numbers 22)? Was that a literal event? I think that many of the miracles that Jesus performed were more miraculous than those "exaggerated" ages in the O.T... e.g. the fishes and loaves miracle, casting out the demons into some pigs, etc. I guess you don't think the miraculous ages are literal is because it is more consistent if you say that the O.T. isn't always literal, and the N.T. is.... since the Christian faith is mostly about the N.T.

Philosoft

<strong>quoth David Mathews:

David: I have had discussions with a whole lot of people and can tell that atheists dismiss reasoning as readily as any Christian. You atheists don't have a monopoly on truth, logic, reason, science, rationality or anything at all.</strong>

C'mon Dave, you're falling apart here. Surely you can do better than the "I've seen you guys do 'x' so you can't complain when we do 'x'" defense?

Ryanfire

Such as destroying humanity and all it stands for

Believing humans are insignificant, hopelessly depraved, evil, and never worthy.

Religion, the bringer of delusional love and happiness but also the destroyer of true love and freedom.

David Mathews

Hello excreationist,

David: Perhaps the New Testament is similar to the Old Testament.

David: Jonah probably did exist. Lot's wife was most likely killed in their escape from the condemned cities. I don't feel any particular obligation to defend either of these accounts from your criticism.

David: All of these events may or may not have occurred. I certainly can't prove that any of them actually occurred. I won't defend any of them from your criticism.

David: If you have a dispute with Answers in Genesis, you should address that dispute to them directly.

David: These passages may or may not be allegorical. I don't have any means of verifying any of the events recorded. If you want to reject the accounts, that is your own choice to make.

David: As a Christian I believe in the Old and New Testament. I have no means of determining whethree an account therein is objective history, poetic, allegorical, symbolic or a mystical experience. Nor is it especially important for me to do so.

My Christianity is about how I live my life now, not about what happened to some prophet twenty five hundred years ago. The message of Christ is living and powerful, the gospel is much more than a book. God is more than the Bible.

Sincerely,

David Mathews