Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 02:55 PM

The fact that you find something objectionable about the kidnapping and murder of a child tells us something about God because our sense of morality which can only be explained as an immaterial, i.e., spiritual, component of our existence. It tells us something about God because we are created in his image and our concern over such matter is a reflection of his character.

Like the God of the bible seems particularly concerned over the murder of a child? Give me a break.

How do you explain the defense to the death of their offspring found in many animal species?

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
This is your argument, not mine. You are the one saying "books is books". Do you deny that? Because you can look up a half-dozen posts and see it for yourself.

I am the one saying that books are not equal based on their content, purpose and validity - that Archie comics are not as reliable as Origin of the Species, and that the bible is not the same as a historical book on Cleopatra.

That's right. You apply an apriori prejudice against revelation from the outset. You presume the reliability of sense-perception as chronicles in "secular" books while denying it out of hand in books dealing with "spiritual" issues.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
The fact that you find something objectionable about the kidnapping and murder of a child tells us something about God because our sense of morality which can only be explained as an immaterial, i.e., spiritual, component of our existence. It tells us something about God because we are created in his image and our concern over such matter is a reflection of his character.

Like the God of the bible seems particularly concerned over the murder of a child? Give me a break.

How do you explain the defense to the death of their offspring found in many animal species?

If you want to respond to my posts, deal with the issues. Emoting is not argument - give me a break.

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 02:58 PM

Wrong. The nature of revelation is not empirical, it is spiritual.

But you said : "Since Christians know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge...". Now, knowing in my book is emprical, not spiritual.

Merely observing a phenomenon does not explain its meaning. The miracles of the Bible are only significant because of the context of revelation in which they exist.

The context commonly known as "myth".

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
I would say Archie comics are just as reliable as the Bible. Both belong in the category of fiction.

It is not an assertion; it is revelation. Romans 1:18 - 20, to be exact.

How do you know that what's written there is a revelation and not just someone's assertion?

How WOULD you know it was revelation?

Wyz_sub10 · 06-03-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
The fact that you find something objectionable about the kidnapping and murder of a child tells us something about God because our sense of morality which can only be explained as an immaterial, i.e., spiritual, component of our existence.

No. Our sense of morality can be explained through evolution, social and societal development. I do not need any concept of god to be repulsed by that action. I can feel for the family, I can imagine what my reaction would be if it were my daughter or son, etc.

Quote:

It tells us something about God because we are created in his image and our concern over such matter is a reflection of his character.

I don't even want to get into god's alleged concern for such matters. But can tell you my concern comes from very identifiable factors, and nothing need be attributed to his image.

Quote:

Or how do you explain your moral concern from a materialistic basis?

I just did, but I'll elaborate.

There are a few things - evolution selects those who are more caring and participatory in society. People who revel in murder and hate cannot form a sustainable society, which is the basis of man's development. Our brains are coded to find such actions detestable.

At a conscious level, as noted, I can feel concern because, perhaps, I can understand the loss on a personal level. I can detest rape because I can relate the sickening possiblity of it happening to my wife, or sisters. I can condemn murder because I can fear for my life or the lives of those around me.

There is nothing in the bible that sustains a concern for acts of violence. There is so much god-endorsed violence in the bible, it's not funny.

theophilus · 06-03-2003, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Wrong. The nature of revelation is not empirical, it is spiritual.

But you said : "Since Christians know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge...". Now, knowing in my book is emprical, not spiritual.

And just how do you KNOW that?

Merely observing a phenomenon does not explain its meaning. The miracles of the Bible are only significant because of the context of revelation in which they exist.

The context commonly known as "myth". [/B]

Well, that's puerile, but not meaningful. The context is, of course, revelation.

Wyz_sub10 · 06-03-2003, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
That's right. You apply an apriori prejudice against revelation from the outset. You presume the reliability of sense-perception as chronicles in "secular" books while denying it out of hand in books dealing with "spiritual" issues.

It's not about dismissing the medium. It's about the lack of corroboration. If evidence existed to justify the claim of a 6,000 year old earth, a mass exodus from Egypt, or a global flood, then I would be more receptive.

I may still not believe in a divine god, but at least I'd believe in the supporting events attributed to god.

(My Christian days were filled with me reading every pro-Christian historical book or archaeology book I could get my hands on).

As for as secular books go, just because a book is secular, doesn't mean I think it's realiable. As I said - not all books are of equal validity. The line is not drawn between "spritual" and "secular".

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 03:27 PM

If you want to respond to my posts, deal with the issues. Emoting is not argument - give me a break.

Sorry, dude, but if you can compare Darwin to Archie, I can compare God to Archie. If you can declare the Bible as revelation, I can declare it as fiction.

And as for the question about animals defending their young, that is intended to make a point, and not just for emotive purposes. Our compassion for children is based on a natural, evolved trait which benefits the species. You don't need a magical explanation.

Mageth · 06-03-2003, 03:34 PM

How WOULD you know it was revelation?

I thought I asked you that.

And just how do you KNOW that?

I keep asking you that question, and you keep responding with the same question...it's you who claimed to "know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge." How do you know that?

Well, that's puerile, but not meaningful. The context is, of course, revelation.

You say revelation, I say myth. A book written by men that includes man-invented (not revealed) myths. You show me the source of your revelation, how you know it's a revelation as you claim, and I'll show you the countless other world mythologies that make similar claims to revelation and contain similar metaphorical motifs (god-creation, virgin birth, man-god deity, death, resurrection, etc.) that I'm sure you would also agree are myths.

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

06-03-2003, 02:55 PM	#131
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The fact that you find something objectionable about the kidnapping and murder of a child tells us something about God because our sense of morality which can only be explained as an immaterial, i.e., spiritual, component of our existence. It tells us something about God because we are created in his image and our concern over such matter is a reflection of his character. Like the God of the bible seems particularly concerned over the murder of a child? Give me a break. How do you explain the defense to the death of their offspring found in many animal species?

06-03-2003, 02:58 PM	#134
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Wrong. The nature of revelation is not empirical, it is spiritual. But you said : "Since Christians know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge...". Now, knowing in my book is emprical, not spiritual. Merely observing a phenomenon does not explain its meaning. The miracles of the Bible are only significant because of the context of revelation in which they exist. The context commonly known as "myth".

06-03-2003, 03:27 PM	#139
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	If you want to respond to my posts, deal with the issues. Emoting is not argument - give me a break. Sorry, dude, but if you can compare Darwin to Archie, I can compare God to Archie. If you can declare the Bible as revelation, I can declare it as fiction. And as for the question about animals defending their young, that is intended to make a point, and not just for emotive purposes. Our compassion for children is based on a natural, evolved trait which benefits the species. You don't need a magical explanation.

06-03-2003, 03:34 PM	#140
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	How WOULD you know it was revelation? I thought I asked you that. And just how do you KNOW that? I keep asking you that question, and you keep responding with the same question...it's you who claimed to "know that revelation is the prerequisiite for all knowledge." How do you know that? Well, that's puerile, but not meaningful. The context is, of course, revelation. You say revelation, I say myth. A book written by men that includes man-invented (not revealed) myths. You show me the source of your revelation, how you know it's a revelation as you claim, and I'll show you the countless other world mythologies that make similar claims to revelation and contain similar metaphorical motifs (god-creation, virgin birth, man-god deity, death, resurrection, etc.) that I'm sure you would also agree are myths.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.