NationStates Jolt Archive

All he wants is for you to obey, in everything, forever. Also, you have to think he's pretty cool and that you suck and he rocks and basically state that as such.
Oh, so he really is like a lawyer then -- a least, a litigation attorney. :p

then how can you say that anyone else is wrong in their intepretation of scriptures?

The basic understanding of scripture can not be denied. The bible is plain and simple. What it says is what it says. Now if there are certain things in the Scriptures you do not know look for the answer in the Scripture. And if you can not find it, pray and meditate on it. Paul said the Word of God is a mystery.

The meaning of the word Satan is accuser in Hebrew. He is a figure in the Bible that tempts people to sin, but at the same to time goes before God and accuses the sinner. Consider the book of Job, when he said that if God took off his hedge over Job then he would curse him to his face. Paul said Satan stands as our accuser while Jesus stands in our defence.
So, what he really is then is a tattle-tale, more than an accuser. He gets you to do something and then runs and tells on you to the boss. So all sin is really entrapment then?

I suppose that's how Jesus would have to argue it, because otherwise, Satan's case is strong, since you really did do whatever it is he says you did (since if you hadn't given in to temptation, then he'd have nothing to accuse you of and there'd be no need for Jesus to defend you to your god). But if it's entrapment, then Jesus could probably get the case dismissed because the situation was manufactured solely for the purpose of getting you into trouble. But that does make it seem to me then that some Christians seem to think Jesus is a god because he'll get them off on a technicality.

What? There are no actual 'jesus wil come' type prophecies in the Hebrew bible! All of the supposed ones are either a)taken out of context or b)nothing to do with the messiah at all. All of the messianic prophecies are about a human king who will rule during the messianic age. Jesus failed this. He will not die, being only human (jesus failed this) and will bring about peace and harmony during his lifetime (jesus failed this). Out of all the messianic prophecies in the bible, jesus hardly managed one.

No but through out the Old Testament are obvious prophesies of one who will come to take way the sins of the world. Read the book of Isaiah,the Pslams, and the other prophetic books.

The basic understanding of scripture can not be denied. The bible is plain and simple. What it says is what it says. Now if there are certain things in the Scriptures you do not know look for the answer in the Scripture. And if you can not find it, pray and meditate on it. Paul said the Word of God is a mystery.
The same can be said of Alice in Wonderland. Actually, the same can be said of every book that has ever been written. How does that answer Ashmoria's question?

After the Messiah comes, all the Jews who are scattered around the world will be regathered into the homeland, the Temple will be rebuilt, and the Jews will become the most revered people in the world, leading the world into a time of universal peace and justice.

After Jesus came, all the Jews who were in the homeland were scattered around the world, the Temple was trashed, and the Jews became the most despised people in the world, as the world sank into an escalating cycle of brutal wars and atrocious tyrannies.

Nice going, "Messiah"!

The prophecies of the Messiah say that he will come and save the sins of the world. They also teach that as said the Lord will reach down a second time and he will not return until the Jewish people believe on him. Any Christian who persecutes the Jewish people is not of God and Jesus said people will come in his name but by there fruits you will know them. Many Christians were and some are today ignorant of the Scriptures and are thus hateful toward the Jews. But hating is the Jews is totally against Jesus teaching.

The same can be said of Alice in Wonderland. Actually, the same can be said of every book that has ever been written. How does that answer Ashmoria's question?

Ohh, except Alice in Wonderland was a chess game - or was that Through the Looking Glass, one of them anyway.

Irrelevant point I suppose.

So, what he really is then is a tattle-tale, more than an accuser. He gets you to do something and then runs and tells on you to the boss. So all sin is really entrapment then?

I suppose that's how Jesus would have to argue it, because otherwise, Satan's case is strong, since you really did do whatever it is he says you did (since if you hadn't given in to temptation, then he'd have nothing to accuse you of and there'd be no need for Jesus to defend you to your god). But if it's entrapment, then Jesus could probably get the case dismissed because the situation was manufactured solely for the purpose of getting you into trouble. But that does make it seem to me then that some Christians seem to think Jesus is a god because he'll get them off on a technicality.

That is exactly the point Satan's case against us is extremely strong, but when Jesus died on the cross he paid for sin so now we need only plead his blood and follow his teachings. The whole point is that when you are tempted the Bible says you must resist the wiles of the Devil. In other words you should not let yourself fall in to the trap Satan has set for you.

The same can be said of Alice in Wonderland. Actually, the same can be said of every book that has ever been written. How does that answer Ashmoria's question?

Yes it does because essentially if you call yourself a Christian but your theology is different than the book on which your faith is based than you are not a Christian.

By which logic, real Christians remain virgins, absolve themselves of all worldy possessions, divorce themselves from their families, and commit suicide.



This is a good point. Although it ignores the fact that the Tankah isn't ALL of the (prophetic) scripture of the Hebrews.

It's also a bit of a shame that the consensus of the Hebrew scripture is that Jesus fails to meet the requirements of 'messiah'.

Jesus fulfilled every requirement and just as he said the Word of God says he will return a second time. Even the Tanach says the Lord will return a second time to reclaim his people Israel once they learn to believe on him.

I've actually always liked the Greek Gods, I suppose the Norse Gods are similar - I prefer Gods with as many emotions and faults as my own.

My favourite creation story, though, is the Silmarillion, the song of creation is beautifully described, especially the discord of Melkor, a symphony.

interesting pick a god just as incompetant as us, only with the ability to do it with style! the greco-roman godsalways squabble amongst eachother *cough* the judgement of paris *cough*

Oh, and if anyone's wondering, the creation according to Salmarillion is an analogy to the jewish/ christian genesis, if nobody guessed that of J.R.R. Tolkein.

interesting pick a god just as incompetant as us, only with the ability to do it with style! the greco-roman godsalways squabble amongst eachother *cough* the judgement of paris *cough*

Oh, and if anyone's wondering, the creation according to Salmarillion is an analogy to the jewish/ christian genesis, if nobody guessed that of J.R.R. Tolkein.

...and I believe in none of them, some are just nicer stories.

Something I don't think anyone's commented on is the Aboriginal creation song but I remember something about it having difficulty with the issue of modern inventions, like cars.

In response to your original point, I find a squabbling bunch of Gods far more relevant to an earth like this compared to one supreme being. I also prefer the idea that life started with Chaos (or was Kronos first?) rather than Mr. All-Good.

I studied Ancient Greek at school and I was a bit of a mythology nut with another friend, another cause of preference.

Strong, dutiful, and captivating gods, so the Norse gods.

What do you mean by " the larger nations could care less about religion " ?
I absolutly don't understand.
I don't think that the Babylonian or the Egyptian could be considered as less religious than were the ancient Jews...after all, half of the Bible came from those religions ( exemple: the Flood, Mesopotamian myth wich is copied in the Bible nearly word for word, just changing the name of the characters and the final message... )

Your second part about the Messiah and Jesus is your point of view, lots of religions claimed the same thing, there was just a bunch who was more succesfull.

Don't forget that the Jews were polytheist until the Fifth century BC and the exil of some elites, who then created the idea of an omnipotent god in order of explaining their defeat and in a traditionnal communatarian phenomenom.

They were indeed really successfull, doesn't mean that was they said wasn't absolut bullshit.

I did not say these nations did not care about religion, I said they could care less about the religion(to be more specific Judaism)when it came down to taking over Israel. Please thoroughly read my responses. Also you must realize that the story of the Jews throughout history is extraordinary. They were the most few of all the nations of the Earth and still are today but their theology is the basis for the World's greatest religions and their history is probably the most well known and most influental. Also your comment that the Jews were polytheist up until the 5th century BC is incorrect. Please watch the History Channel program the Exodus Decoded in it they speak of an archaeological find in an old Egyptian stone quarry in which a Hebrew slave called out to the Hebrew God of the Bible. There is evidence that the Hebrew group known today as Israelites had been polytheistic for a while. The Ahmose stele also from the 16th century speaks of the Exodus story almost exactly as it is written in the Scriptures, though the stele is not as detailed it is obviously the same story. The Israelites are called the Evil Ones and Moses is called the Prince of the Desert. Pharoah Ahmose' very name is known by many to mean "Child of the Moon" however another more likely translation of the name is "Brother of Moses". "Ah" meaning brother and "Mose" meaning the same as Moses. Ponder this my friend. Furthermore there are more archaeological discoveries that continually validates the Bible. Ponder these things my friend. God bless.

I did not say these nations did not care about religion...

They found Troy, doesn't make Zeus any more real does it?

They found Troy, doesn't make Zeus any more real does it?

The Trojan War probably happened, but at least the Ahmose stele says that the Israelites' God was in fact stronger than their gods. Look up the stele. Just because you found Troy only means their was a Troy, not that these gods exist.

The Trojan War probably happened, but at least the Ahmose stele says that the Israelites' God was in fact stronger than their gods. Look up the stele. Just because you found Troy only means their was a Troy, not that these gods exist.

So?

Why does a stele have such validity?

So, anyway, I did look it up, including your beloved Exodus Decoded, even biblical scholars call it trash.

Some criticisms...

Jacobovici's assertions have been extensively criticized both by scientists, and by religious scholars. The criticism addresses virtually every single of Jacobovici's claims, as well as his methods in general. Critics point out, among the following:

Jacobovici uses circular logic for his assertions.

Circular logic, used by religion, how unusual...

In absence of any other evidence, Jacobovici attempts to find a real world explanation for a Biblical phenomenon. Then, from the fact that a phenomenon could be caused by a certain event, Jacobovici surmises that a Biblical phenomenon was caused by exactly that type of an event.

Biblical scholars further criticize Jacobovici's method of first assuming that the Biblical description was an embellished description of a real world event, followed up with a claims that his explanation is "exactly as the Bible describes", whereas in reality his explanation diverges from the Bliblical description.

While a single supposition is not an invalid tactic, Jacobovici uses a chain of supposition to support each subsequent claim, often using commercial breaks to move from 'it could be possible that' to 'now that we've established that', an invalid rhetorical trick.

The Santorini eruption happened some time between 1550 BC and 1650 BC, narrowed to between 1627-1600 BC, with a 95% probability of accuracy. There's absolutely no evidence that it happened in 1500 BC.

Jacobovici puts the Exodus in 1500 BC. However, the pharaoh Ahmose ruled decades earlier, in 1550–1525 BC. Jacobovici does not address the issue, and simply moves Ahmose's rules 50 years to the future in order to fit his theory, without presenting any evidence or support for his claims.

These and many more...

Wikeeeee! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded)

Well, I'm going to go with Brahman. While I am not Hindu, the concept of Hindu god hood is very interesting, and more or less one I can agree with: everything is a part of god (or, perhaps that everything is separate from yourself and god is false). The goal is not to be "follow" the rules to reach paradise, but to but to become one with god, whom your a part of. Not to mention the amazing variety of ways Hindu faith takes to achieve his goal.

Of course, like all religions, it has its flaws, but then again, I'm not Hindu, so why care.

Then you better actually read the Bible :)

I'll go get the quotes for you now, though. BRB.

I have, and I'm not going to read it again.

Because unlike the small passage in the Bible which is in the same book, the passage is clearly a summary. However the two accounts of Aphrodite are not even written by the same people and are visually to different stories, like Jack and the Beanstalk and Goldilocks and the Three Bears are. In one Aphrodite is borne hundreds of years before Zeus and in another she is Zeus' daughter.

So it takes a bit of faith to believe in two contradicting descriptions of an event. Should come easy to you, shouldn't it?

And I'm pretty sure you can't say for sure if the two biblical accounts were written by the same person, either...

No one knows how old the Earth is. Based on Biblical geneaology many historians claim the Bible says the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. However you have to be careful when basing the Earth's age on these geneologies because unless the passage says something,"... and he knew his wife and she conceived, so one and so forth." or if it says, "he had the child at a certain time and says and then he had other sons and daughters." If it does not say something like that the person in question may not exactly be the actual son or daughter of that person. In many geneologies certain people are skipped but this is not a contradiction. If I said my name is David and my father is Thomas and his father is Archibald, but I am called the son of Archibald this is not a contradiction, I am his son and he did beget me.
As for the Messiah question, in Genesis, "God said that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent." Women do not have seed only men do. This is saying the Messiah who will crush the serpent will come of a woman, not a man, and will get his bloodline from her. And if he does not have a father and the Bible says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, this means that God is ultimately Jesus' father how ever since he was the seed of the woman who came from David, he is of the line of David. Now I understand your confusion on who found Jesus. One account says Mary Magdalene found the empty tomb and another says Mary was with other women. This is not a contradiction. The account that just mentions Mary did not say she was alone. If I was with a group of people and we saw Brad Pitt on TV, but I said I saw him no one is lying, I merely just did not mention the others. These are not contradictions.

Contradiction, upon contradiction is all that you offer me now.

You said this:

'The basic understanding of scripture can not be denied. The bible is plain and simple. What it says is what it says.'

Now you say this:

'God said that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent." Women do not have seed only men do. This is saying the Messiah who will crush the serpent will come of a woman, not a man, and will get his bloodline from her.'

The later is not easy to understand, and I can say without fear of contradiction, that the way you interpret it, is only one interpretation. What man, ever in the history of humankind(non biblical) has not come from a woman?

Nobody knows for sure how old the earth is, but we can reasonbly say about 4.5 billion years.

So in your world when two writters disagree over something, and say differant things, there is no contradiction there?

Sorry my freind you are grasping at straws you really are.

You say that the bible is plain and simple, and now you claim that we have to be carefull, as somethings may not mean what they apper to mean. You lie! You contradict yourself!

Which one is it Nana, is the message of the bible plain for all to understand, or do we need to read it with our special philosophical glasses on?

Based on biblical sources, what would your best guess be for the age of the earth?

The meaning of the word Satan is accuser in Hebrew. He is a figure in the Bible that tempts people to sin, but at the same to time goes before God and accuses the sinner. Consider the book of Job, when he said that if God took off his hedge over Job then he would curse him to his face. Paul said Satan stands as our accuser while Jesus stands in our defence.

I always understood that the word 'Satan' translated as 'Advesary' which makes far more sense to me.

I always understood that the word 'Satan' translated as 'Advesary' which makes far more sense to me.

Correct.

The Ahmose stele also from the 16th century speaks of the Exodus story almost exactly as it is written in the Scriptures, though the stele is not as detailed it is obviously the same story.

Uh, no it doesn't, and no it isn't.

The Israelites are called the Evil Ones and Moses is called the Prince of the Desert. Pharaoh Ahmose' very name is known by many to mean "Child of the Moon" however another more likely translation of the name is "Brother of Moses". "Ah" meaning brother and "Mose" meaning the same as Moses. Ponder this my friend. Furthermore there are more archaeological discoveries that continually validates the Bible. Ponder these things my friend. God bless.

Learn your languages, my friend. First and most important both "Ahmose" and "moses" are translations, not the original names.

The name of Ahmose I had two different renderings, the most commonly seen one being "iaHms"

"iaH" (with "a" as an ayin not aleph) in Egyptian refers to the lunar disc. There is no way at all in the Egyptian language it can refer to brother ("sn" in Egyptian). The sign used for "iaH" is also found as part of the word for carob however, but I think we can safely dismiss this usage, given the context.

the "ms" comes from the Egyptian "msi", to "child" or "born/birth". It occurs in other names too, including Thutmose and Ramesses, as well as non-royal names.

The whole "brother of moses" argument is full of fail. Sorry.

Contradiction, upon contradiction is all that you offer me now.

You said this:

'The basic understanding of scripture can not be denied. The bible is plain and simple. What it says is what it says.'

Now you say this:

'God said that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent." Women do not have seed only men do. This is saying the Messiah who will crush the serpent will come of a woman, not a man, and will get his bloodline from her.'

The later is not easy to understand, and I can say without fear of contradiction, that the way you interpret it, is only one interpretation. What man, ever in the history of humankind(non biblical) has not come from a woman?

Nobody knows for sure how old the earth is, but we can reasonbly say about 4.5 billion years.

So in your world when two writters disagree over something, and say differant things, there is no contradiction there?

Sorry my freind you are grasping at straws you really are.

You say that the bible is plain and simple, and now you claim that we have to be carefull, as somethings may not mean what they apper to mean. You lie! You contradict yourself!

Which one is it Nana, is the message of the bible plain for all to understand, or do we need to read it with our special philosophical glasses on?

Based on biblical sources, what would your best guess be for the age of the earth?

All right when it says seed of a woman, that is referencing a virgin birth because traditionally men give the woman the seed, but if the woman has the seed that means there is no man involved. You must understand from a hebraic point of view. Through out the Bible only men have the seed. So technically based on the original Hebrew understanding of scripture there is no other understanding. Think about men plant the seed in the woman, but according to that prophecy no one gives it to her.For instance Abraham had seed, Isaac had seed, Jacob had seed, and David had seed. Now when I said the basic understanding of the Bible can not be denied I did not lie. The "Seed of the Woman" prophecy I spoke of is not a basic part of Scripture, but I was talking about basic things like, Jesus died on the cross, or thou shalt not kill. If you read my responses you will see that I said prophecies maybe given to different interpretations. I have never contradicted mysef, now you are nitpicking. Furthermore we can not safely say the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old there is astounding evidence against that. Furthermore, dating is highly unreliable, when they date the Earth there are totally different ages that are given from 1,000 all the way to 20 billion. These top scientists came together and settled on 4.5 billion to fit their evolutionary agenda.

Uh, no it doesn't, and no it isn't.



Learn your languages, my friend. First and most important both "Ahmose" and "moses" are translations, not the original names.

The name of Ahmose I had two different renderings, the most commonly seen one being "iaHms"

"iaH" (with "a" as an ayin not aleph) in Egyptian refers to the lunar disc. There is no way at all in the Egyptian language it can refer to brother ("sn" in Egyptian). The sign used for "iaH" is also found as part of the word for carob however, but I think we can safely dismiss this usage, given the context.

the "ms" comes from the Egyptian "msi", to "child" or "born/birth". It occurs in other names too, including Thutmose and Ramesses, as well as non-royal names.

The whole "brother of moses" argument is full of fail. Sorry.

I'm sorry I mixed up my languages, in Hebrew, Ahmose means "brother of Moses."

So?

Why does a stele have such validity?

So, anyway, I did look it up, including your beloved Exodus Decoded, even biblical scholars call it trash.

Some criticisms...



Circular logic, used by religion, how unusual...



These and many more...

Wikeeeee! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded)

Well I never said the Exodus Decoded. Now I know Simcha is can be quite looney at times in his assertions I watch his show sometimes. Like when he said at one point Neanderthals and homo sapiens lived together and had kids. YUCKlol.
And I do not believe a lot of what he said in the program actually, like the Santorini Eruprion caused the plagues. I agree he does make to many assumptions. But I still find it interesting that during the reign of a man whom the Hebrews would have called "Brother of Moses" he has a stele that details the Biblical event, I am just saying I got the information from that program and the stele does exist.

So it takes a bit of faith to believe in two contradicting descriptions of an event. Should come easy to you, shouldn't it?

And I'm pretty sure you can't say for sure if the two biblical accounts were written by the same person, either...

But if you actually read the Genesis account there is no contradiction.

Correct.

Not correct the actual Hebrew word, haSatan means accuser.

All right when it says seed of a woman, that is referencing a virgin birth because traditionally men give the woman the seed, but if the woman has the seed that means there is no man involved. You must understand from a hebraic point of view. Through out the Bible only men have the seed. So technically based on the original Hebrew understanding of scripture there is no other understanding. Think about men plant the seed in the woman, but according to that prophecy no one gives it to her.For instance Abraham had seed, Isaac had seed, Jacob had seed, and David had seed. Now when I said the basic understanding of the Bible can not be denied I did not lie. The "Seed of the Woman" prophecy I spoke of is not a basic part of Scripture, but I was talking about basic things like, Jesus died on the cross, or thou shalt not kill. If you read my responses you will see that I said prophecies maybe given to different interpretations. I have never contradicted mysef, now you are nitpicking. Furthermore we can not safely say the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old there is astounding evidence against that. Furthermore, dating is highly unreliable, when they date the Earth there are totally different ages that are given from 1,000 all the way to 20 billion. These top scientists came together and settled on 4.5 billion to fit their evolutionary agenda.



Bwahahahahah ohh dear ohh dear. Nana please forgive my laughing, I truely love to see a person with deep, deep conviction in his faith, but not foolishly, without thought, following instead of thinking, do you belive that is what God has asked you to do?

Word games are where we are at now. Nitpicking? Call it that if you wish, I call it trying to sort through your contradictions piled one upon another.

So now although the bible is clearly understood, one must think about it from an hebraic point of view, not only that but although the bible is clearly understood, and what it says is what it says, this now only correspondes to basic biblical teneants like 'thou shalt not kill'.

It seems also that you are shying away from what your belife is about the age of the earth, yet one can gain a glimpse of your actual belife from the following:

'These top scientists came together and settled on 4.5 billion to fit their evolutionary agenda'

Which is not only 100% an outright lie(can you point me to a source?) but tells me that you do not belive in evolution, which means I shall have to ask the question again.

What is your belife about the likely age of the earth?

I'm sorry Nana, I feel I could quite like you, you seem a really nice person, I can't take your words as(and do pardon the pun) gospel though, I have witnessed too many lies from you.

Furthermore we can not safely say the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old there is astounding evidence against that.
Show it, then.

Furthermore, dating is highly unreliable,
Radiometric dating is accurate to approximately ten half-lives. U-Pb, as an example, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.

when they date the Earth there are totally different ages that are given from 1,000 all the way to 20 billion.
No, they don't.

These top scientists came together and settled on 4.5 billion to fit their evolutionary agenda.
Got any evidence for that?

Not correct the actual Hebrew word, haSatan means accuser.

IIRC that's a case where a Hebrew word can have different meanings depending upon context.

Bwahahahahah ohh dear ohh dear. Nana please forgive my laughing, I truely love to see a person with deep, deep conviction in his faith, but not foolishly, without thought, following instead of thinking, do you belive that is what God has asked you to do?

Word games are where we are at now. Nitpicking? Call it that if you wish, I call it trying to sort through your contradictions piled one upon another.

So now although the bible is clearly understood, one must think about it from an hebraic point of view, not only that but although the bible is clearly understood, and what it says is what it says, this now only correspondes to basic biblical teneants like 'thou shalt not kill'.

It seems also that you are shying away from what your belife is about the age of the earth, yet one can gain a glimpse of your actual belife from the following:

'These top scientists came together and settled on 4.5 billion to fit their evolutionary agenda'

Which is not only 100% an outright lie(can you point me to a source?) but tells me that you do not belive in evolution, which means I shall have to ask the question again.

What is your belife about the likely age of the earth?

I'm sorry Nana, I feel I could quite like you, you seem a really nice person, I can't take your words as(and do pardon the pun) gospel though, I have witnessed too many lies from you.

I am sorry but I still do not understand what contradictions I have stated. Over the years there have been differing ages for the Earth. I could never tell you how old the Earth is, I do not know. It is not a lie that we can not find out the true age of the Earth. If you want a source here is one go to: www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm - 98k -

IIRC that's a case where a Hebrew word can have different meanings depending upon context.

Fair enough

So far Nana, I haven't seen anything to prove that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the only one that should be followed.

Show it, then.


Radiometric dating is accurate to approximately ten half-lives. U-Pb, as an example, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.


No, they don't.


Got any evidence for that?

Here is a site for you, because you all have been asking me for sources: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

I am sorry but I still do not understand what contradictions I have stated. Over the years there have been differing ages for the Earth. I could never tell you how old the Earth is, I do not know. It is not a lie that we can not find out the true age of the Earth. If you want a source here is one go to: www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm - 98k -

The bit where they claim that creationism qualifies as science puts their credibility at somewhat below the Weekly World News. That's like saying that the Sun orbits the Earth and expecting to be taken seriously. It's so completely unrelated to reality that the person's competence at anything is called into question.

So far Nana, I haven't seen anything to prove that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is the only one that should be followed.

You haven't proven that it is not.

Here is a site for you, because you all have been asking me for sources: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove

"Oh hey radiometric dating doesn't work in situations in which scientists explicitly state it doesn't work therefore it must always be wrong" is what AiG is saying. In other words, they're lying to fool the gullible. Like they always do.

You haven't proven that it is not.

He doesn't have to. The one making the positive assertion is the one that must supply proof.

The bit where they claim that creationism qualifies as science puts their credibility at somewhat below the Weekly World News. That's like saying that the Sun orbits the Earth and expecting to be taken seriously. It's so completely unrelated to reality that the person's competence at anything is called into question.

It does qualify as science because even Richard Dawkins in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed he states that there is some "Creator Gene" that created the Universe. He jsut is afraid to call it God.

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.
Which concept is the best one?


HEATHENS! INFIDELS! Bow your heads in shame and ask for forgiveness to the ONLY TRUE GOD for you have sinned greatly against his DIVINE WORD!

The only True and Authentic God is ICE CREAM!

Revere its Divine name or you shall be damned to live without Ice Cream. A man or woman without Its Divine Presence is not a woman nor a man but a lowly beast!

Do not be ashamed of speaking its name loudly! It is the Superior God, every other god is just a pale shadow of its Divine Radiance!
It is superior to the Christian God: their God is one and thrice, ours is one and MANY (flavours)!
It is superior to the Jewish God: when you buy It, you don't have to fight for it.
It is superior to the Muslim God: their God promises Heaven, our God actually GIVES you Heaven.
It is superior to the Loa Gods: you don't have to mess with chicken heads to have It.
It is superior to the Hindu Gods: you can lick it, which is more than what can be said about their Gods.

Now repent and chant Its Holy Gospel:
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!

:D

It does qualify as science because even Richard Dawkins in the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed he states that there is some "Creator Gene" that created the Universe. He jsut is afraid to call it God.

(Dawkins didn't actually say that, for the record.) And even if he did, that wouldn't make creationism science. Do you even know what science is?

"Oh hey radiometric dating doesn't work in situations in which scientists explicitly state it doesn't work therefore it must always be wrong" is what AiG is saying. In other words, they're lying to fool the gullible. Like they always do.

No but that means that radiometric dating is not in fact infallible and there are some problems with it. So in the end you still can not know how old the Earth is, because you do not know if what it is reading is true or not.

No but that means that radiometric dating is not in fact infallible and there are some problems with it. So in the end you still can not know how old the Earth is, because you do not know if what it is reading is true or not.

That doesn't follow at all. It's like saying that a watch doesn't work when you hit it with a brick, so it's impossible to ever know what time it is. It's plain stupid.

No but that means that radiometric dating is not in fact infallible and there are some problems with it. So in the end you still can not know how old the Earth is, because you do not know if what it is reading is true or not.

nothing is infallible. That doesn't mean we should ignore everything and lapse into solipsism.

Luckily science keeps on trying new methods to find out about the world, and makes our picture more and more accurate over time, and will eventually admit when it has got it wrong. Scientific method is a tad more useful than reading an old book.

(Dawkins didn't actually say that, for the record.) And even if he did, that wouldn't make creationism science. Do you even know what science is?

Oh I'm sorry I did not quote Dawkins correctly it has been a long time since I saw this clip but he said as follows, " If you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you will find a signature of some sort of designer. And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe." I'm sorry in that instance they were talking about the creation of cells not the Creation of the Universe. But I was just as suprised as you were when I heard Dawkins "the son of Darwin" say that.

That doesn't follow at all. It's like saying that a watch doesn't work when you hit it with a brick, so it's impossible to ever know what time it is. It's plain stupid.

Yes but that means the watch could make a mistake and it is not perfect just like radiometric dating. That is not a fair analogy because first of all evolutionists talk about radiometric dating like Christians talk about God. It is impossible to know for a surety how old the Earth is.

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?


HEATHENS! INFIDELS! Bow your heads in shame for you have sinned greatly against the Only True God! Your words offend me beyond imagination! Such obscenities I have read in this thread! Unbelievable!

The ONLY and AUTHENTIC God is ... ICE CREAM!

Now get on your knees and ask for forgiveness or else you shall not taste Its Divine Perfection ever again! A woman or a man without Ice Cream is not man nor woman, but a lowly beast! The Only Goodness and Nobility that can be found in the Cosmo derives from It!

Can't you see? It is the Coolest (by definition) God of them all and the Superior One too!
It is superior to the Christian God: their God is one and thrice, our God is one and MANY!
It is superior to the Muslim God: their God can only promise you Heaven, our God actually GIVES you Heaven.
It is superior to the Jewish God: you can have a steak before It and it is more than what can be said about their God.
It is superior to the Loa Gods: you don't have to mess with chicken heads to have It.
It is superior to the Hindu Gods: you don't have to read 123 books to understand Its Sublime Beauty.

Now repent and chant Its Holy Gospel:
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!

:D

HEATHENS! INFIDELS! Bow your heads in shame for you have sinned greatly against the Only True God! Your words offend me beyond imagination! Such obscenities I have read in this thread! Unbelievable!

The ONLY and AUTHENTIC God is ... ICE CREAM!

Now get on your knees and ask for forgiveness or else you shall not taste Its Divine Perfection ever again! A woman or a man without Ice Cream is not man nor woman, but a lowly beast! The Only Goodness and Nobility that can be found in the Cosmo derives from It!

Can't you see? It is the Coolest (by definition) God of them all and the Superior One too!
It is superior to the Christian God: their God is one and thrice, our God is one and MANY!
It is superior to the Muslim God: their God can only promise you Heaven, our God actually GIVES you Heaven.
It is superior to the Jewish God: you can have a steak before It and it is more than what can be said about their God.
It is superior to the Loa Gods: you don't have to mess with chicken heads to have It.
It is superior to the Hindu Gods: you don't have to read 123 books to understand Its Sublime Beauty.

Now repent and chant Its Holy Gospel:
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!
I scream for Ice Cream!

:D

Amen to that! :hail:

Amen with extra chocolate sauce and sprinkles! :hail:

nothing is infallible. That doesn't mean we should ignore everything and lapse into solipsism.

Luckily science keeps on trying new methods to find out about the world, and makes our picture more and more accurate over time, and will eventually admit when it has got it wrong. Scientific method is a tad more useful than reading an old book.

The Bible was way ahead of its time when it came down to science. When the world believed the Earth sat on the back of a great turtle the Bible said,"The Lord holds up the World on nothing." Albert Einstein based his theories on the speed of light on the verse," And God said let there be light and there was light." The Bible was always way ahead of its time. Though it is a book of the supernatural there are scientific basis for the Scriptures.

Ha! I always hated Ice Cream. I am not a man who enjoys his dairy products. lol

How do you make your own thread again? Peepelonia gave me the directions but I can't find which it was on. I want to make a thread on people's ideas for the next Batman movie.

Ha! I always hated Ice Cream. I am not a man who enjoys his dairy products. lol

DEMON! FIEND! WITCH! Go back to the Hell that has spawned thee!

From the Sacred Writings of the Most Holy Prophet "Alfio" (and owner of a most exquisite Ice Cream Temple) : "suffer not the non-Ice Creamers to have Dessert".

We all Scream for Ice Cream.

How do you make your own thread again? Peepelonia gave me the directions but I can't find which it was on. I want to make a thread on people's ideas for the next Batman movie.

Go in the Forum you want to post. Now, look on the left side, just above (and below) all the threads you will see a little banner with "new post" written on it. Click on it.

Also, this link should do the trick:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=1227

Albert Einstein based his theories on the speed of light on the verse," And God said let there be light and there was light."

Can you prove this claim?

The Bible was way ahead of its time when it came down to science. When the world believed the Earth sat on the back of a great turtle the Bible said,"The Lord holds up the World on nothing." Albert Einstein based his theories on the speed of light on the verse," And God said let there be light and there was light." The Bible was always way ahead of its time. Though it is a book of the supernatural there are scientific basis for the Scriptures.

An incredibly complex scientific theory using 4-dimensional geometry can be derived from the sentence "let there be light"? Where did Einstein say that?
A word being in the bible and in a scientific theory /=/ necessary connection.

The bible also said:


Job 37:18 "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a heavy metal mirror?"


Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth."

(circle, not sphere, I believe they are distinct Hebrew words)

Matthew 4:8 "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

(only possible if the world is flat, no matter how unusually high)


So instead of being on the back of a turtle, the Earth is a flat disc and the sky is made of metal. Is that really much better?

Also, even if there are scientific facts in the bible somewhere, you admit it is also about the supernatural, so how do you tell the difference?

The bible also said:


Job 37:18 "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a heavy metal mirror?"


Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth."

(circle, not sphere, I believe they are distinct Hebrew words)


They're being poetic.



Matthew 4:8 "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

(only possible if the world is flat, no matter how unusually high)


It was a vision.

They're being poetic.

That was my point, it can't be used as anything like science, to explain physical facts about the world. How do you know the creation myths aren't poetic?

It was a vision.

So does that mean the vision was wrong, because the real world isn't like that? Why would God send someone a false vision of the world? How do you know which bits of the vision are right, if that part is wrong?

An incredibly complex scientific theory using 4-dimensional geometry can be derived from the sentence "let there be light"? Where did Einstein say that?
A word being in the bible and in a scientific theory /=/ necessary connection.

The bible also said:


Job 37:18 "Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a heavy metal mirror?"


Isaiah 40:22 "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth."

(circle, not sphere, I believe they are distinct Hebrew words)

Matthew 4:8 "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory."

(only possible if the world is flat, no matter how unusually high)


So instead of being on the back of a turtle, the Earth is a flat disc and the sky is made of metal. Is that really much better?

Also, even if there are scientific facts in the bible somewhere, you admit it is also about the supernatural, so how do you tell the difference?

First of all the Scripture did not say the sky was metal but was as hard as metal. And in fact the atmsophere of the Earth is hard to get past because of gravity the layers it has. So in a poeticbook like Job the sky could be as hard as layers. Such things in poetry must not be taken as seriously. Look at the NASA pictures of Earth from a far it does not look like a sphere, but a circle. Now I am not saying the Earth is a disc and not a sphere, but if God is above the Earth to him it would look like a circle. Now it is not fair to use Hebrew poetry and prophecy which uses a lot of poetic liscence. Furthermore the Bible says the mountain Jesus stood on was an unusually high mountain. Mount Everest is high but it is not unusual. Jesus could have been easily taken by Satan (who is a spirit)to a mountain in the spiritual world and Jesus could have been seeing a vision. These are all spiritual things you are talking about.

How do you make your own thread again? Peepelonia gave me the directions but I can't find which it was on. I want to make a thread on people's ideas for the next Batman movie.

Her message was: "go to General, and hit the New Post button" (the tiny one just above and below all the threads).

That was my point, it can't be used as anything like science, to explain physical facts about the world. How do you know the creation myths aren't poetic?



So does that mean the vision was wrong, because the real world isn't like that? Why would God send someone a false vision of the world? How do you know which bits of the vision are right, if that part is wrong?

That is the point God did not send Jesus there if you read the whole passage it was the Devil who sent him there to tempt. He said to Jesus "I will give you all this if you bow down and worship." Then Jesus said," It is written you shall worship the Lord your God and only him shall you serve." Then the devil left him, and angels attended him. Read the whole passage.

You haven't proven that it is not.

I don't have to. you're the one saying that your interpretation was the correct one and all other interpretations by the other denominations of Christianity were 'wrong'.

or are you saying that people now days have to beat fools and children alike?

That was my point, it can't be used as anything like science, to explain physical facts about the world. How do you know the creation myths aren't poetic?

Because when I read Scripture I read it for understanding, not crawling through it with a microscope looking for excuses to find fault.


So does that mean the vision was wrong, because the real world isn't like that? Why would God send someone a false vision of the world? How do you know which bits of the vision are right, if that part is wrong?

What do you mean a false vision? You do realize, don't you, that a vision isn't the same as a model of reality?

First of all the Scripture did not say the sky was metal but was as hard as metal. And in fact the atmsophere of the Earth is hard to get past because of gravity the layers it has. So in a poeticbook like Job the sky could be as hard as layers. Such things in poetry must not be taken as seriously. Look at the NASA pictures of Earth from a far it does not look like a sphere, but a circle. Now I am not saying the Earth is a disc and not a sphere, but if God is above the Earth to him it would look like a circle.

Wouldn't God know the earth was a sphere anyway, no matter how it appears?

Now it is not fair to use Hebrew poetry and prophecy which uses a lot of poetic liscence. Furthermore the Bible says the mountain Jesus stood on was an unusually high mountain. Mount Everest is high but it is not unusual.

This is getting into semantics, but the mountain was unusually high, not unusual

Jesus could have been easily taken by Satan (who is a spirit)to a mountain in the spiritual world and Jesus could have been seeing a vision. These are all spiritual things you are talking about.

Then how do you know, I mean definitively know, when it's not 'spiritual things' being talked about? When it's not metaphor?

That is the point God did not send Jesus there if you read the whole passage it was the Devil who sent him there to tempt. He said to Jesus "I will give you all this if you bow down and worship." Then Jesus said," It is written you shall worship the Lord your God and only him shall you serve." Then the devil left him, and angels attended him. Read the whole passage.

Why would the Devil show a false representation of the world to Jesus, he is trying to show him the world as something he can have. And surely the Son of God can tell the difference, so what would the devil be gaining by showing the world as flat?

Yes, I am guilty of not reading everything. Have you read 'Origin of the Species'? Any of Einstein's relativity theses? But you are happy to talk about them too.

I don't have to. you're the one saying that your interpretation was the correct one and all other interpretations by the other denominations of Christianity were 'wrong'.

or are you saying that people now days have to beat fools and children alike?

Did you read what I said, now remember the Proverbs are poetic Hebrew wisdom. The proverb about children means that a man who loves his child will chastise him, but one who does not love his child will not chastise hime. Where it speaks of a fool, it is saying that a man who says and does foolish things deserves a rod to his back. These are Proverbs, that is not fair to use against me. Proverbs in any culture use things figuratively. I suppose I understand your point but I do not think you fully understand mine. I am saying any denomination that goes against what Scripture says is not a denomination of God. Now do not play dumb, because I know you are highly intelligent, you know there is a big difference between commands, history, and poetic wisdom.

Wouldn't God know the earth was a sphere anyway, no matter how it appears?



This is getting into semantics, but the mountain was unusually high, not unusual



Then how do you know, I mean definitively know, when it's not 'spiritual things' being talked about? When it's not metaphor?



Why would the Devil show a false representation of the world to Jesus, he is trying to show him the world as something he can have. And surely the Son of God can tell the difference, so what would the devil be gaining by showing the world as flat?

Yes, I am guilty of not reading everything. Have you read 'Origin of the Species'? Any of Einstein's relativity theses? But you are happy to talk about them too.

Yes Jesus knew the difference. The way the Devil showed the knigdoms of the Earth is not the message. The Devil was showing the knigdoms of the world to Jesus to tempt him so that Jesus would bow down to him. It really does not matter how, Jesus was seeing a vision. The Devil wanted to break Jesus down because all he ever wanted was God to worship him. Remember the Devil is the Father of lies there is no truth in him.

Did you read what I said, now remember the Proverbs are poetic Hebrew wisdom. The proverb about children means that a man who loves his child will chastise him, but one who does not love his child will not chastise hime. Where it speaks of a fool, it is saying that a man who says and does foolish things deserves a rod to his back. These are Proverbs, that is not fair to use against me. Proverbs in any culture use things figuratively. I suppose I understand your point but I do not think you fully understand mine. I am saying any denomination that goes against what Scripture says is not a denomination of God. Now do not play dumb, because I know you are highly intelligent, you know there is a big difference between commands, history, and poetic wisdom.

Except the word 'Rod', that which you defined as "Chastise", which was taken from the same Greek word has a different meaning and use from your definition.

Except the word 'Rod', that which you defined as "Chastise", which was taken from the same Greek word has a different meaning and use from your definition.

The Tanach was not originally Greek was it, it was Hebrew.

Wouldn't God know the earth was a sphere anyway, no matter how it appears?



This is getting into semantics, but the mountain was unusually high, not unusual



Then how do you know, I mean definitively know, when it's not 'spiritual things' being talked about? When it's not metaphor?



Why would the Devil show a false representation of the world to Jesus, he is trying to show him the world as something he can have. And surely the Son of God can tell the difference, so what would the devil be gaining by showing the world as flat?

Yes, I am guilty of not reading everything. Have you read 'Origin of the Species'? Any of Einstein's relativity theses? But you are happy to talk about them too.

Isaiah is a prophetic book and has figurative language in it.

Because when I read Scripture I read it for understanding, not crawling through it with a microscope looking for excuses to find fault.

If I read something for understanding I also read it critically, to assess its consistency and how it agrees with my experience. Is that unreasonable?

Also, I do not go crawling through the bible with a microscope to find fault, unless someone has already gone crawling through the bible with a microscope to find something that is meant to disprove scientific theories. I have no problem with people believing mystical contradictions in a text, only when they try and say it supersedes physical evidence.

What do you mean a false vision? You do realize, don't you, that a vision isn't the same as a model of reality?

Yes, but don't you think that causes problems for trying to work out what a vision means? Which parts are figurative, or just plain false?


There's been a lot of quoting, and context can be lost. However if someone says "The Lord holds up the World on nothing." is proof that the bible was making radical new and more accurate picture of the world, then if I quote from the same book I am told it is 'a poetic book' and cannot be taken at face value, how does that make sense?

The one that decided to come and live with His people, and then die for them. :)


Ah. Odin, then.

The prophecies of the Messiah say that he will come and save the sins of the world.

No, they don't.

But you can PRETEND that some stuff is prophecy, and then go with that.

Jesus fulfilled every requirement and just as he said the Word of God says he will return a second time. Even the Tanach says the Lord will return a second time to reclaim his people Israel once they learn to believe on him.

Jesus did not fulfill every requirement of Messiah, as anyone who had made an honest approach would know.

An honest approach would require working through ALL the Hebrew scripture, and finding all the verses that are actually prophecies of Messiah.

A dishonest approach is assuming that Jesus WAS Messiah, and then going back through the Tanakh looking for stuff that looks like he fulfilled it.

I've met maybe a half dozen Christians in my life, that had taken an honest approach. (And a lot more people that were Christians UNTIL they took an honest approach).

I'm sorry I mixed up my languages, in Hebrew, Ahmose means "brother of Moses."

But Moses isn't a Hebrew name.

Why would Moses' brother have a Hebrew name, when Moses has an Egyptian one?

thats an interesting question "which god is good", cuz it seems to me that almost every religion seems to intimidate you into it. e.g. "hell" , buddhist's you only get enlightenment if you worship, taoism's
When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied

makes it you follow the dominant culture. "ugliness,beauty,good" are all cultural opinions.

Hinduism and the "Vedas"


etc...

all the religions seem to suggest something like : if you dont follow this religion then you either will suffer or not get something

isnt that more of a threat/blackmail?

o and have any of you read The God Delusion? good book.

Isaiah is a prophetic book and has figurative language in it.

...... Now it is not fair to use Hebrew poetry and prophecy which uses a lot of poetic liscence
.... These are all spiritual things you are talking about. (my edit)



They're being poetic.

It was a vision.

So... Can someone point me to a non-figurative, non-prophetic, non-spiritual, non-Hebrew-poetry, non-vision part of the bible? As these would be 'fair' for me to evaluate critically, and 'fair' for you to claim that they make statements about the world?

If I read something for understanding I also read it critically, to assess its consistency and how it agrees with my experience. Is that unreasonable?


It's not unreasonable, but one has to be open to more than just one, limited interpretation. You seem to have a preference for an interpretation that damaged the credibility of the Scripture. Is there a reason for this other than convenience?


Also, I do not go crawling through the bible with a microscope to find fault, unless someone has already gone crawling through the bible with a microscope to find something that is meant to disprove scientific theories. I have no problem with people believing mystical contradictions in a text, only when they try and say it supersedes physical evidence.


Assuming, of course, that that someone got the correct interpretation. I assert that they didn't, if that's where you got your conclusions from.


Yes, but don't you think that causes problems for trying to work out what a vision means? Which parts are figurative, or just plain false?


I think the context is perfectly valid here. Satan wanted to tempt Jesus by offering him Lordship over all the kingdoms of the Earth. He did this by showing them to Jesus. To assume that he could do so from the top of a mountain is illogical. How might one supernatural being show all the nations of the Earth to another?

Through a vision.


There's been a lot of quoting, and context can be lost. However if someone says "The Lord holds up the World on nothing." is proof that the bible was making radical new and more accurate picture of the world, then if I quote from the same book I am told it is 'a poetic book' and cannot be taken at face value, how does that make sense?

I would say that the phrase 'The Lord holds up the World on nothing' is perfectly consistent with reality as well as poetry. What's the problem?

So... Can someone point me to a non-figurative, non-prophetic, non-spiritual, non-Hebrew-poetry, non-vision part of the bible? As these would be 'fair' for me to evaluate critically, and 'fair' for you to claim that they make statements about the world?

How else, other than using imagery and prophecy, would you write a text teaching about all the complexities of reality whose initial target audience is a Bronze Age culture?

What you ask is illogical and silly. No offense.

Edit: I'm assuming here that you aren't talking about the straight history parts, correct me if I'm wrong.

So... Can someone point me to a non-figurative, non-prophetic, non-spiritual, non-Hebrew-poetry, non-vision part of the bible? As these would be 'fair' for me to evaluate critically, and 'fair' for you to claim that they make statements about the world?

Numbers 31.

The Tanach was not originally Greek was it, it was Hebrew.

and what word does the Tanach use for "Rod"?

Which God is good?


BANJO!

Unlike his evil brother...

http://wiki.rpg.net/images/f/fb/MPost11388-motivator1931520ik1.jpg

Look at the NASA pictures of Earth from a far it does not look like a sphere, but a circle. Now I am not saying the Earth is a disc and not a sphere, but if God is above the Earth to him it would look like a circle.


Only if he is limited to two-or-three dimensional perception.

Doesn't really mesh with 'omniscience'.


Now it is not fair to use Hebrew poetry and prophecy which uses a lot of poetic liscence. Furthermore the Bible says the mountain Jesus stood on was an unusually high mountain. Mount Everest is high but it is not unusual. Jesus could have been easily taken by Satan (who is a spirit)to a mountain in the spiritual world and Jesus could have been seeing a vision. These are all spiritual things you are talking about.

Some things are obviously not intended to be taken seriously.

Like the mountain so high you can see the whole world.

Like the crucifixion.

It's not unreasonable, but one has to be open to more than just one, limited interpretation. You seem to have a preference for an interpretation that damaged the credibility of the Scripture. Is there a reason for this other than convenience?


No, pursuit of truth. If something is making claims about the world, I will compare it to the world, and look at its inner consistency as a source. Does it contradict itself? If there are multiple interpretations, are there multiple truths? Does the quality of having many different interpretations strike you as a good thing for piece of evidence with which to make claims about the world?


Assuming, of course, that that someone got the correct interpretation. I assert that they didn't, if that's where you got your conclusions from.


This is getting a little confused, as I was originally replying to someone else's assertions, and claimed their assertions based on the bible (i.e. their interpretation) was incorrect. Do you agree with me?



I think the context is perfectly valid here. Satan wanted to tempt Jesus by offering him Lordship over all the kingdoms of the Earth. He did this by showing them to Jesus. To assume that he could do so from the top of a mountain is illogical. How might one supernatural being show all the nations of the Earth to another?

Through a vision.


Well, I don't know any supernatural creatures, so I'm not sure I can make claims for their capabilities. It's a possibility, but not necessarily the case.


I would say that the phrase 'The Lord holds up the World on nothing' is perfectly consistent with reality as well as poetry. What's the problem?

The problem is that you can pick and choose which parts are both poetic and consistent, and I can pick and choose which parts are poetic an inconsistent with reality. This doesn't prove anything. Nana Kwame Adu-Gyamfi was claiming that the consistent part showed the bible was forward-thinking in its description of Earth. My reply was that the same book was also inconsistent to reality and therefore was not forward-thinking in the way he claimed.

I don't think going through the bible and noting which parts agree with the current scientific paradigm is proof of anything, and definitely not proof of the veracity of the bible's contents, because paradigms change.

No, pursuit of truth. If something is making claims about the world, I will compare it to the world, and look at its inner consistency as a source. Does it contradict itself? If there are multiple interpretations, are there multiple truths? Does the quality of having many different interpretations strike you as a good thing for piece of evidence with which to make claims about the world?


I would say step 1 is determining what, exactly, is being claimed. When Scripture says that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, we have to make a judgment. What's being said? Is it saying Jesus looked down from a mountain at a big disc that contained the Earth? Is it a vision?

The problem is that if your starting point is a worldview that tells you the Bible is false, then naturally you have no way of knowing which interpretation applies, since if you believe it's all false anyway then it doesn't even matter. If, on the other hand, the Bible is true then the interpretation must be consistent with reality. Since we know the world isn't a disc then the only way for anyone to see all the kingdoms of the Earth is either through a vision or on a map.

But here's an even more important issue: If we're looking for spiritual guidance, then even that much doesn't matter. What's important is the message that Jesus was tempted by Satan and resisted it. That, at the end of the day, is why ultimately a debate over scientific veracity in the Scripture is pointless unless it's approached by two people who share the same starting worldview, one way or the other.


This is getting a little confused, as I was originally replying to someone else's assertions, and claimed their assertions based on the bible (i.e. their interpretation) was incorrect. Do you agree with me?


Let's just say he and I probably approach the spiritual side of the Bible from very different perspectives. He's an Evangelical and I'm a Mormon.


Well, I don't know any supernatural creatures, so I'm not sure I can make claims for their capabilities. It's a possibility, but not necessarily the case.


Which is basically as far as we can go with this, for the reasons I noted above.


The problem is that you can pick and choose which parts are both poetic and consistent, and I can pick and choose which parts are poetic an inconsistent with reality. This doesn't prove anything. Nana Kwame Adu-Gyamfi was claiming that the consistent part showed the bible was forward-thinking in its description of Earth. My reply was that the same book was also inconsistent to reality and therefore was not forward-thinking in the way he claimed.


It's precisely because the Bible uses so much symbolic imagery that things that seem to describe scientific reality are more matters of interesting trivia than something that can be usefully debated.


I don't think going through the bible and noting which parts agree with the current scientific paradigm is proof of anything, and definitely not proof of the veracity of the bible's contents, because paradigms change.

That is absolutely correct.

How else, other than using imagery and prophecy, would you write a text teaching about all the complexities of reality whose initial target audience is a Bronze Age culture?

What you ask is illogical and silly. No offense.

Edit: I'm assuming here that you aren't talking about the straight history parts, correct me if I'm wrong.

The nature of the bible, as you say, is such that it is divorced from today's reality. What was relevant to bronze age cultures should not be used to make empirical claims on the modern world. It may have made sense to a bronze age person that the world was a few thousand years old, today it doesn't. This raises the central issue of interpretation again: How do you know what to discard, and why was it true before but false now (if the bible is the word of God). My contention is that if you keep having to change the way you reference a source in order to make it agree with reality, your source is not reliable.

Well, I am including everything, but I take your point that portions of the bible have been corroborated by other sources, although I am not an expert on those other sources. If there are multiple sources agreeing then I have no problem with saying they are more likely to be true. The problem is people rarely quote the straight historical stuff to prove a point, its normally all the rest. If all I have to go on poetry and visions, and I find other poetry and visions that are inconsistent, then I think that is a fair way of saying that you cannot take them as evidence.


None taken, I'm enjoying debating!;)

Because when I read Scripture I read it for understanding, not crawling through it with a microscope looking for excuses to find fault.


Wow. That's a mighty high horse.

Those are the two choices, eh? Either you are deliberately trying to rip the Bible a new asshole, or you're reading it 'right' and being convinced?

There's no possibility you could be looking at it honestly, and STILL finding conflicts?

See - here's where it really grips my shit. I've been told that the Bible is the complete inerrant word of god... by people that haven't ever finished reading it.

Preconception much? It sounds to me like the REAL preconception here, is running into the book already 'knowing' it's true, and overlooking any problems because they don't fit your world view.

But, don't feel bad. Up until I was about 14, I just accepted it, too. Then I actually read it.

Remember the Devil is the Father of lies there is no truth in him.

I thought you were earlier describing him in the Hebrew terms, as the 'accuser' - the witness for the prosecution in god's court?

Isaiah is a prophetic book and has figurative language in it.

So, 'prophecy' doesn't have to be 'true'?

I would say step 1 is determining what, exactly, is being claimed. When Scripture says that Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, we have to make a judgment. What's being said? Is it saying Jesus looked down from a mountain at a big disc that contained the Earth? Is it a vision?

The problem is that if your starting point is a worldview that tells you the Bible is false, then naturally you have no way of knowing which interpretation applies, since if you believe it's all false anyway then it doesn't even matter. If, on the other hand, the Bible is true then the interpretation must be consistent with reality. Since we know the world isn't a disc then the only way for anyone to see all the kingdoms of the Earth is either through a vision or on a map.


My worldview was informed by the current scientific paradigm, not an uninformed opinion of the bible. But if yours is 'the bible is true', I'm not sure that's much better.

I take your point about your worldview informing how you interpret, I just think that if you have to keep re-interpreting to keep up (flat world to globe for example) it begs the question about how good your interpretation is, and if it won't be subject to further revision and change. In my experience, most Christians do not agree with constantly re-interpreting and admitting they may have been wrong about something in the past.

But here's an even more important issue: If we're looking for spiritual guidance, then even that much doesn't matter. What's important is the message that Jesus was tempted by Satan and resisted it. That, at the end of the day, is why ultimately a debate over scientific veracity in the Scripture is pointless unless it's approached by two people who share the same starting worldview, one way or the other.


True it is difficult to criticise spiritual revelation unless you want a moral debate, but I am arguing from the perspective that if the Bible appears to make false claims about the world, or is inconsistent in some way with itself or the physical world, that does not bode well for the reliability of the spiritual content.

Let's just say he and I probably approach the spiritual side of the Bible from very different perspectives. He's an Evangelical and I'm a Mormon.


Fair enough.

It's precisely because the Bible uses so much symbolic imagery that things that seem to describe scientific reality are more matters of interesting trivia than something that can be usefully debated.

I completely agree

That is absolutely correct.
Yay! Agreement is good :D

Look at the NASA pictures of Earth from a far it does not look like a sphere, but a circle.

No, it looks like a sphere. Curvature and all that. It's even more apparent in a 3-dimensional medium.

Oh I'm sorry I did not quote Dawkins correctly it has been a long time since I saw this clip but he said as follows, " If you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology you will find a signature of some sort of designer. And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the Universe." I'm sorry in that instance they were talking about the creation of cells not the Creation of the Universe. But I was just as suprised as you were when I heard Dawkins "the son of Darwin" say that.

There's this thing called "context", something that the people who made that abortion of a film had a habit of removing. And they're getting their asses kicked for that, as well as the numerous copyright violations, fraud, et cetera. And since when is Dawkins "the son of Darwin"? His contributions to evolutionary theory aren't that big. Had it not been for The God Delusion, he'd pretty much be a nobody.

I'm sorry I mixed up my languages, in Hebrew, Ahmose means "brother of Moses."

Which would be just great, if Ahmose was a King of one of the Asiatic tribes or city statelets. Only Ahmose was an Egyptian, whom we know was descended from a long Egyptian royal line, which is why he has an Egyptian name, a name in keeping with the naming conventions of the royal line. His mother had the name Ah-Hetep (iaH-Htp), which makes no sense in Hebrew at all (Egyptian: "Iah is Satisfied", Iah being the lunar disc and god), but makes perfect sense in Egyptian.

His actual brother was called Kamose (kAms), and is known to us. Kamose's mummy was found in a cache in the 19th century. Both Ahmose and Kamose bear the same family traits, as do their ancestors. No mysteries here. No Hebrew prophets.

This is all solid research, and there is consensus amongst all experts in the field on the above points. The books below will back me up here.

*Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Ian Shaw et al, OUP
*The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt, Aidan Dodson & Dyan Hilton, Thames & Hudson.

How and why would an Egyptian Pharaoh of undisputed Egyptian royal blood for generations, whose name is totally in keeping with the tradition of that royal line, who fought against an Asiatic enemy (as his brother, his father, and even his mother all did) have a Hebrew name linking him to a person who is completely unattested in any Egyptian record? The answer is, he didn't.

Edit - Which also makes the stela meaningless as evidence of the Exodus.

Which God is good?


BANJO!

Unlike his evil brother...

http://wiki.rpg.net/images/f/fb/MPost11388-motivator1931520ik1.jpg

Bah. You've been taken over by the anti-Giggles rhetoric.

To Giggles the Clown, God of Slapstick!

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html

the good god is the one no one can even begin to concieve of anything about, other then that it gives good hugs, picks someone every thousand years or so to be channelled by, whether they like it or not, which is what the founders of EVERY major belief were, and otherwise pretty much leaves just as much up to ourselves as it would otherwise be, even if there wasn't one.

the god so inconceivably 'wierd', that such concepts as singular and multiple become meaningless in the context of it.

the god, in short, that is under no obligation to bear the slightest resemblence to what anyone anywhere thinks they know about it, even those it did choose to be channelled by.

the god you will more likely meet meditating by yourself out in the woods, then in any church, temple or holy book.

perhapse the only god that can be called a god, though lots of other, mostly harmless, invisible, friendly spirit creatures, beings, awairnessess, also give great hugs, and are NOT in any real or imagined conflict with it.

=^^=
.../\...

No, they don't.

But you can PRETEND that some stuff is prophecy, and then go with that.

Read Isaiah 53 and tell me that is not a prophesy of a man becoming a guilt offering for us.

Jesus did not fulfill every requirement of Messiah, as anyone who had made an honest approach would know.

An honest approach would require working through ALL the Hebrew scripture, and finding all the verses that are actually prophecies of Messiah.

A dishonest approach is assuming that Jesus WAS Messiah, and then going back through the Tanakh looking for stuff that looks like he fulfilled it.

I've met maybe a half dozen Christians in my life, that had taken an honest approach. (And a lot more people that were Christians UNTIL they took an honest approach).

What prophecies did he not fulfill? And remember the Bible says he will come again.

But Moses isn't a Hebrew name.

Why would Moses' brother have a Hebrew name, when Moses has an Egyptian one?

You are right. Moses is the hellenized version of the Hebrew name Moshe which means to draw out.

What prophecies did he not fulfill? And remember the Bible says he will come again.

Isaiah 2:3-4

"...For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore."

Only if he is limited to two-or-three dimensional perception.

Doesn't really mesh with 'omniscience'.



Some things are obviously not intended to be taken seriously.

Like the mountain so high you can see the whole world.

Like the crucifixion.

Now you really are not making sense. First of all the Bible not only says there were witnesses to the Crucifixion, but almost all the New Testament scriptures are based around the event. The Devil did show the whole world to Jesus, but in a vision these things are to be taken seriously.

I got busy yesterday, and this thread got ahead of me a bit. I'll try to catch up. ;)

Ohh, except Alice in Wonderland was a chess game - or was that Through the Looking Glass, one of them anyway.

Irrelevant point I suppose.
That was Through the Looking Glass, but it doesn't matter. The point stands that every book that was ever written says what it says.

That is exactly the point Satan's case against us is extremely strong, but when Jesus died on the cross he paid for sin so now we need only plead his blood and follow his teachings. The whole point is that when you are tempted the Bible says you must resist the wiles of the Devil. In other words you should not let yourself fall in to the trap Satan has set for you.
That seems like a somewhat tortured spiritual cosmology. Quite a bit of trouble for everyone to go through, first setting up a condition (post crucifixion/resurrection), then telling everyone they've already benefitted from it, then saying that maybe they haven't or might lose the benefit, then setting up an enemy/accuser/villain to organize causing people to lose the benefit, and then telling everyone to beware of that guy in order to be able to claim the benefit when they die. I'm sorry, but I don't see the point, really.

Yes it does because essentially if you call yourself a Christian but your theology is different than the book on which your faith is based than you are not a Christian.
And that is another problem I have with the whole concept. The Bible is such a disputed book, I just cannot see how anyone can claim that their reading of it is the right one and that other people's readings of it are "differing" from the book, and use that to draw lines about who is or isn't a Christian.

A total lack of holy texts is one of my favorite features of my religion. It avoids all such trouble.

No, it looks like a sphere. Curvature and all that. It's even more apparent in a 3-dimensional medium.

That is your opinion. But to me and perhaps the Biblical authors (using poetic liscense) it seemed like a circle. These prophecies are written in poetic form. I mean look at the song America the Beautiful. "Purple mountain majesties." Does that mean America has purple mountains, no but it appears that way from a distance and perhaps even more so to a poet.

Isaiah 2:3-4

"...For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between the nations,
And rebuke many people;
They shall beat their swords into plowshares,
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
Neither shall they learn war anymore."

I find it interesting how you omitted parts from this Scripture. In the beginning of the chapter it says in the last days these things will happen.

I got busy yesterday, and this thread got ahead of me a bit. I'll try to catch up. ;)


That was Through the Looking Glass, but it doesn't matter. The point stands that every book that was ever written says what it says.


That seems like a somewhat tortured spiritual cosmology. Quite a bit of trouble for everyone to go through, first setting up a condition (post crucifixion/resurrection), then telling everyone they've already benefitted from it, then saying that maybe they haven't or might lose the benefit, then setting up an enemy/accuser/villain to organize causing people to lose the benefit, and then telling everyone to beware of that guy in order to be able to claim the benefit when they die. I'm sorry, but I don't see the point, really.


And that is another problem I have with the whole concept. The Bible is such a disputed book, I just cannot see how anyone can claim that their reading of it is the right one and that other people's readings of it are "differing" from the book, and use that to draw lines about who is or isn't a Christian.

A total lack of holy texts is one of my favorite features of my religion. It avoids all such trouble.

Think of it this way what if a father who really loved his children gave them the greatest gift anyone could give anyone. But there is someone who secretly does not like the man or his children who with cunning persuasion decides to cheat you out of the gift by saying it is no good do not take it. You have the choice to except the gift or to turn it away. Also the basic teachings of the Christian Bible can not be denied. Read about what Jesus and his Apostles tell us to do. Their teachings could not be taken any other way.

You are right. Moses is the hellenized version of the Hebrew name Moshe which means to draw out.
Hellenized version of a Hebrew name? Really? I'd be interested to see your source for that fact, because, as two other posters have already mentioned, and as I've heard from numerous Egyptologists and Bible historians, it generally accepted as Egyptian. Nothing to do with the Hellenes.

Read Isaiah 53 and tell me that is not a prophesy of a man becoming a guilt offering for us.

No problem. It's clearly an accounting of the punishnment of Israel for their departure from Jehovah's word.

You'd have to really WANT that to be a prophecy of Messiah, to try to make it so.

Think of it this way what if a father who really loved his children gave them the greatest gift anyone could give anyone. But there is someone who secretly does not like the man or his children who with cunning persuasion decides to cheat you out of the gift by saying it is no good do not take it. You have the choice to except the gift or to turn it away.
Yes, and? If it's my choice, what do I need with all that accuser jazz? I either take it or I don't, and the chips fall where they may. So what do we need Satan for, as long as people have free will?

Also the basic teachings of the Christian Bible can not be denied. Read about what Jesus and his Apostles tell us to do. Their teachings could not be taken any other way.
Other than what way? Your way? Some other way favored by some other person who calls themselves Christian?

What prophecies did he not fulfill? And remember the Bible says he will come again.

Jehovah God did not save Jesus, as Habakkuk 3:13 suggests.

Jesus did not Build the Third Temple

Jesus did not gather all of the Jews to Israel.

Jesus did not usher in a world peace

Jesus did not spread a universal knowledge of Jehovah god.

Jesus was not a prophet.

Jesus was not of the patrilineal line of David.

Jesus did not lead the world to be observant of Torah.

Messiah will be a national revelation to all Israel. Jesus wasn't.

Messiah is mortal (the idea of a tri-partite god is actually anathema to Mosaic law, as is the idea of a god-man - but both ideas are very consistent with Egyptian and Greek religion)

Messiah doesn't require conversion. Messiah will bring the law of Israel to all man - 'converted' or not. Christianity requires conversion.


'Coming again' is a cop-out. The Messianic prophecies do not talk of a resurrected Messiah. 'The Secodn Coming' is an excuse, to allow for the fact that even his FOLLOWERS knew Jesus failed to meet the requriements of Messiah.

You are right. Moses is the hellenized version of the Hebrew name Moshe which means to draw out.

No it isn't.

Moses would be an Egyptian name that means 'child' or 'born of', roughly. Hences 'Ra-mses' - 'born of Ra' or 'rebirth of Ra'.

Now you really are not making sense. First of all the Bible not only says there were witnesses to the Crucifixion, but almost all the New Testament scriptures are based around the event. The Devil did show the whole world to Jesus, but in a vision these things are to be taken seriously.

Like the crucifixion. All the supposed 'witnesses' tot he crucifixion are part of th metaphore.

Show me an independent CONTEMPORARY source that corroborates the Gospels.

That is your opinion.

So what... God doesn't udnerstand concepts like perspective? He can't comprehend a sphere?

Hellenized version of a Hebrew name? Really? I'd be interested to see your source for that fact, because, as two other posters have already mentioned, and as I've heard from numerous Egyptologists and Bible historians, it generally accepted as Egyptian. Nothing to do with the Hellenes.

If the Hebrew account is correct, Moses' name would make no sense. His 'mother' (an Egyptian) giving him a name that means 'to draw out' (An active phrase - rather than 'to be drawn out - which is passive), wouldn't add up with him being 'drawn from' the rushes/river.

On the other hand, in Egyptian, it means 'child' or 'born of' - which actually makes more sense. The Hebrew text pretending that Moses' name is Hebrew is not only illogical, but also reflective of either a poor awareness of Egyptian, or an attempt to 'fudge' the name.

No problem. It's clearly an accounting of the punishnment of Israel for their departure from Jehovah's word.

You'd have to really WANT that to be a prophecy of Messiah, to try to make it so.

It is not clearly an accounting of the punishment of Israel for their departure from God's word. It is talking about a man who will suffer for the sins of Israel. Read the passage you could not believe it was anything but a prophesy of one who will come at bare the sins of many. You'd have to really not want that to be a prophecy of the Messiah.

Ayn Rand is a good goddess.

I find it interesting how you omitted parts from this Scripture. In the beginning of the chapter it says in the last days these things will happen.

And since we're still here, Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

On a side note, I'm disappointed how many times bible verses are quoted as "proof" when all attempts at proving the bible to be accurate involve circular reasoning.

God saved Jesus twice. First when he warned Joseph to go to Egypt to save the child. Then he rescued Jesus from the grave after he paid the ultimate price for us.

Herod built the Third Temple, are you saying he was the Messiah? Certainly not, the Temple was Jesus body. He even said I will destroy this Temple and raise it in three days referring to his body.

Jesus did usher in a universal knowledge of God. Through the message of Jesus Christ, the Gentiles learned about the Hebrew God in what we know today as Christianity.

Jesus was a prophet. He was hailed as a wise man by Josephus. And some Jews (but not all) call Jesus a prophet. Even Muhammad called Jesus a prophet.

The Messiah was not to gain his blood patrineally, he was to gain it from his mother as reference in Genesis by the statement "Seed of a Woman".

In Jesus' day many Jews hailed him to be the Messiah. In fact the first Christians were Jews.

Jesus also opened the world up to the Torah. The problem is the Torah can no longer be fully observed because there is no strictly Jewish state like ancient Israel and the Temple and the priesthood are no longer around.

The Book of Micah says the Messiah will have origins from of old, so in other words he will be immortal. The concept of a tri-partite God is not foreign to the original Judaism. In the Tanach it is continually stated that God has a spirit and a visible image as seen by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Daniel and Ezekiel. The Trinity is in no way blasphemous to the Jewish religion if you understood it. Genesis says that God made man in his own image. A man is also a tri-partite being, he has a mind, a spirit, and a body, these three are not the same but are one person. The Father is the equivalent to the Human mind, like the human mind the Father tells the other parts what to do. The Holy Spirit is obviously the equivalent to the Human spirit which comforts us and encourages us and one another. The Son is the equivalent to the human body, he is the visible image of God. The Book of Hebrews says Jesus is the image of the living God. Isaiah 9:6 says " For to us a child is born, to us a child is given. The government will be upon his shoulders. And he shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Wait a child who is born called God. In Genesis God came to Abraham in the form of flesh and not only that but he ate with him as well. Furthermore, God again in the flesh restled with Jacob. Nothing is impossible for God so to say God could not become flesh in itself is blasphemous.

God especially in Judaism desires conversion. He even said his name was Jealous and people who did not follow his commands and followed other faiths were put to death. To this day God still desires conversion, and wants his people to follow his commands.

We believe Jesus will return a second time and bring peace to the world . This concept is not foreign to ancient Jewish doctrine. The book of Daniel says God will establish his kingdom during the time of the Roman Empire and Jesus who lived during that time said he came to bring the Kingdom of God. In the Book of Zechariah it says that after Jerusalem is through mourning for the one it pierced, the Lord will come once again to reign on Earth. Other places in the Tanach speaks of God reaching down his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant of the righteous.

Like the crucifixion. All the supposed 'witnesses' tot he crucifixion are part of th metaphore.

Show me an independent CONTEMPORARY source that corroborates the Gospels.

How is it a metaphor he died on the cross how could you take that any differently?

And since we're still here, Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

No one said the Messiah would first appear at the end of days, but that at the end of days the events described above will happen at the end of days.

No it isn't.

Moses would be an Egyptian name that means 'child' or 'born of', roughly. Hences 'Ra-mses' - 'born of Ra' or 'rebirth of Ra'.

Yes does mean to draw out in Henrew. That is common knowledge among those who understand Hebrew. However, some names mean different things in different languages. For instance like the name Ahmose we discussed earlier means "Son of the Moon" in Egyptian and "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew.

I always find it tragically pointless to engage in a debate between an Atheist and a Christian over Biblical text and ancient languages, especially when neither is an expert, nor was alive when it was written to be able to say ANYTHING about it with absolute certainty.

I always find it tragically pointless to engage in a debate between an Atheist and a Christian over Biblical text and ancient languages, especially when neither is an expert, nor was alive when it was written to be able to say ANYTHING about it with absolute certainty.

Considering the entire argument usually boils down to:
"God doesn't exist and you're silly!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Yuh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
And so forth...

Just think...if everybody on NS dedicated the time spent arguing religion to, say, finding a cure for cancer, we probably would have...a big mess and the real cancer researchers would've gone home saying that humanity clearly got what it deserved.

Considering the entire argument usually boils down to:
"God doesn't exist and you're silly!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Yuh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
And so forth...

Just think...if everybody on NS dedicated the time spent arguing religion to, say, finding a cure for cancer, we probably would have...a big mess and the real cancer researchers would've gone home saying that humanity clearly got what it deserved.

"THIS is the cure for cancer!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Yuh-uh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
*ad hominem*
*ad hominem*

*researchers leave in disgust*

"THIS is the cure for cancer!"
"Nuh-uh!"
"Yuh-uh!"
"Nuh-uh!"
*ad hominem*
*ad hominem*

*researchers leave in disgust*

You forgot the obligatory accusations from various political groups that various other political groups created cancer to stamp out capitalism/communism/blacks/muslims/jews/(insert political/economic/racial/religious group here).
And the cries of 'Strawman!'

You forgot the obligatory accusations from various political groups that various other political groups created cancer to stamp out capitalism/communism/blacks/muslims/jews/(insert political/economic/racial/religious group here).
And the cries of 'Strawman!'

I was aiming to be brief. If I really wanted to capture the feel of NSG in cancer research, I'd have to throw some drive-by exclamation of "bourgeois" and "technology is evil (but guns are ok)" here and there throughout the post.

Whichever god that is "The Good God" is a good god of course :tongue:

Jesus was a prophet. He was hailed as a wise man by Josephus. And some Jews (but not all) call Jesus a prophet. Even Muhammad called Jesus a prophet.


The main quote attributed to Josephus claiming that is widely disputed. Most experts consider it to be fake.

God saved Jesus twice. First when he warned Joseph to go to Egypt to save the child. Then he rescued Jesus from the grave after he paid the ultimate price for us.


I think you're misunderstanding.

If Jesus died, he wasn't saved. Jews are waiting for a MORTAL messiah.


Herod built the Third Temple, are you saying he was the Messiah?


No, but you might be. I'm just telling you what the requirements of Messiah are.


Certainly not, the Temple was Jesus body. He even said I will destroy this Temple and raise it in three days referring to his body.


The Temple was not a body, it's a temple.

Anyone who claims his body is THE Temple of Messianic prophecy, is a liar.


Jesus did usher in a universal knowledge of God.


The word 'universal'.

I do not think it means what you think it means.


Jesus was a prophet. He was hailed as a wise man by Josephus. And some Jews (but not all) call Jesus a prophet. Even Muhammad called Jesus a prophet.


You might want to read Tanakh. If Jesus WAS a prophet, then he was a false prophet, because he challenged observance of Jews, changed the teachings of Torah, and preached a different law.

To be honest - as a Christian, you'd be better off arguing he WASN'T a prophet, because at least that just makes him an idolator and a heretic.


The Messiah was not to gain his blood patrineally, he was to gain it from his mother as reference in Genesis by the statement "Seed of a Woman".


That's not a prophecy of Messiah - although revisionists have tried to pretend it is.

Messiah will be of the line of David.

(And, of course, Jesus can't be Messiah even through his mother, because the blood is passed patrilineally, and she is ALSO of the cursed bloodline of Jeconiah, the children of whom can NEVER sit on the throne of David).


In Jesus' day many Jews hailed him to be the Messiah. In fact the first Christians were Jews.


According to who?


Jesus also opened the world up to the Torah. The problem is the Torah can no longer be fully observed because there is no strictly Jewish state like ancient Israel and the Temple and the priesthood are no longer around.


Which is how we know Messiah hasn't arrived yet.

You make my own arguments for me, how cute.


The Book of Micah says the Messiah will have origins from of old, so in other words he will be immortal.


Or descended from a traditional family.

Or maybe, you read it wrong - 'his goings forth' are known 'of old' - that is: what he will do is fulfillment of ancient prophecy.


The concept of a tri-partite God is not foreign to the original Judaism. In the Tanach it is continually stated that God has a spirit and a visible image as seen by Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Daniel and Ezekiel. The Trinity is in no way blasphemous to the Jewish religion if you understood it.


The concept of a tri-partite god is not only foreign to Judaism, it is actually anathema.


Genesis says that God made man in his own image. A man is also a tri-partite being, he has a mind, a spirit, and a body...


A better understanding would be: soul, spirit, heart and flesh.

Which isn't tri-partite, nor does it invoke separate entities.


God especially in Judaism desires conversion. He even said his name was Jealous and people who did not follow his commands and followed other faiths were put to death. To this day God still desires conversion, and wants his people to follow his commands.


Let us assume your story is true. How do you read "people who... followed other faiths were put to death" in such a way that it reconciles with "God... desires conversion"?


We believe Jesus will return a second time


You do.

That's one of the main things that disqualifies him from being Messiah.


...and bring peace to the world . This concept is not foreign to ancient Jewish doctrine. The book of Daniel says God will establish his kingdom during the time of the Roman Empire and Jesus who lived during that time said he came to bring the Kingdom of God.

Daniel said that, did he? Roman Empire, he said?

The main quote attributed to Josephus claiming that is widely disputed. Most experts consider it to be fake.

That's for several reasons, but the strongest is that there are two different versions of Josephus' writings - and only one of them has the additional passages.

The fact that the relevent passages don't 'fit' with the surrounding text also suggests they were added later. In the 'unedited' version, the text flows logically, which further suggests that the 'additional' text is redaction, not that the other text has bits missing.

How is it a metaphor he died on the cross how could you take that any differently?

Why are you asking me? You seriously didn't even QUESTION whether that section could be metaphor?

Especially when the Greek scripture uses 'dying' as a metaphor on so many other occassions.

Yes does mean to draw out in Henrew. That is common knowledge among those who understand Hebrew. However, some names mean different things in different languages. For instance like the name Ahmose we discussed earlier means "Son of the Moon" in Egyptian and "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew.

I'm not saying that Moshe doesn't mean 'to draw out' - I'm arguing that (If there really was a Moses figure) his name wasn't Moshe(s).

An Egyptian woman wasn't going to give her son a Hebrew name, even one that means 'pulled from the reeds'. Especially not if he is going to be connected to the Pharaonic line.

And - as pointed out, 'Moshe' isn't passive, it's active - so his name DOESN'T mean 'pulled from the reeds, or river'... it means 'to pull', 'to draw out'.

So - either the man had an Egyptian name (which would have been 'mss'), or the Hebrew text is making up a name for someone, and applying it regardless of real identity (in which case, 'Moshe' works, but is actually a reference to 'drawing Israel out of Egypt').

I always find it tragically pointless to engage in a debate between an Atheist and a Christian over Biblical text


That's your weakness, not mine.


...and ancient languages, especially when neither is an expert,


You might not be.


..nor was alive when it was written to be able to say ANYTHING about it with absolute certainty.

And yet, I've noticed a lot of the religious people in this thread feel confident to do EXACTLY that. Even you, my hypocritical friend.

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

The Celtic gods. And also, as someone already mentioned, the Silmarillion.

The Celtic gods. And also, as someone already mentioned, the Silmarillion.

WHAT, middle-earth never existed!?!

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

Grandfather Nurgle.

Grandfather Nurgle.

Hmmmm. Originally I was a rather devout follower of Khorne, but now feel myself drawn that way too...perhaps because I'm become an enormous ugly fat old blob myself....

Grandfather Nurgle.

The new codex ruined Chaos (sighs).

That's for several reasons, but the strongest is that there are two different versions of Josephus' writings - and only one of them has the additional passages.

The fact that the relevent passages don't 'fit' with the surrounding text also suggests they were added later. In the 'unedited' version, the text flows logically, which further suggests that the 'additional' text is redaction, not that the other text has bits missing.

Thanks for bulking out the details, I think people will listen to you more than me :fluffle:

WHAT, middle-earth never existed!?!

Which means what? You think you can dismiss a theology just because the texts are fiction?

Think about it.

Thanks for bulking out the details, I think people will listen to you more than me :fluffle:

Would that that were so, but there are none so blind...

:)

Read Isaiah 53 and tell me that is not a prophesy of a man becoming a guilt offering for us.
That is not a prophesy of a man becoming a guilt offering for us.

That is not a prophesy of a man becoming a guilt offering for us.

Damn. I wish I'd thought to do that.

The new codex ruined Chaos (sighs).

I've yet to read it. Certainly its not as good as the old hardback they brought out years back...."realms of chaos" I think it was called.

Played a 40k game there with the new rule book - not bad.

I've yet to read it. Certainly its not as good as the old hardback they brought out years back...."realms of chaos" I think it was called.

Played a 40k game there with the new rule book - not bad.

With the new LOS rules, do they still not count little bits that stick out from the miniature? (In the older 40K book or Fantasy book I don't remember which, they had a rule where if you can see the model you can shoot it, but that you shouldn't count bits of clothing or detail that stick out as we wouldn't want to penalize someone for having an awesome miniature.)

meh, any hypothetical God doesn't deserve our devotion after all the crap the Almighty has pulled

With the new LOS rules, do they still not count little bits that stick out from the miniature? (In the older 40K book or Fantasy book I don't remember which, they had a rule where if you can see the model you can shoot it, but that you shouldn't count bits of clothing or detail that stick out as we wouldn't want to penalize someone for having an awesome miniature.)


That didn't come up...

I left interpretation to the other dude, as I trust the fucker and I don't have a copy meself yet.

A quick glance at the headlines on any given day should provide ample evidence that the god that exists in our reality is not a perfectly good god. Omnibenevolence is not an attribute we can logically give to god.

A quick glance at the headlines on any given day should provide ample evidence that the god that exists in our reality is not a perfectly good god. Omnibenevolence is not an attribute we can logically give to god.

if you mean the god of Desire then i suppose maybe it does exist, the consequences of Desire are certainly evident

I've actually always liked the Greek Gods, I suppose the Norse Gods are similar - I prefer Gods with as many emotions and faults as my own.

My favourite creation story, though, is the Silmarillion, the song of creation is beautifully described, especially the discord of Melkor, a symphony.
I love the Greek gods. Mostly because they have gods for such things as "The God of Sea Scunge and latching Barnacles" and even have a god of Cheese, i think

A quick glance at the headlines on any given day should provide ample evidence that the god that exists in our reality is not a perfectly good god. Omnibenevolence is not an attribute we can logically give to god.

Thank god for irrationality! We are set free, and can believe self-contradictory nonsense, and even appear superior and patronising while doing it by appealing to mysticism.:hail:

Thank god for irrationality! We are set free, and can believe self-contradictory nonsense, and even appear superior and patronising while doing it by appealing to mysticism.:hail:

You don't need to appeal to mysticism. You can frame such behaviour in many terms of reference. Replace the word mysticism with 'economic theory' and you have a Randroid. Replace it with 'class struggle' and you have an Andaras-bot. Replace it with 'science' and you get materialists.

You don't need to appeal to mysticism. You can frame such behaviour in many terms of reference. Replace the word mysticism with 'economic theory' and you have a Randroid. Replace it with 'class struggle' and you have an Andaras-bot. Replace it with 'science' and you get materialists.

I disagree, I don't think you get self-contradictory nonsense spouted by science ... It tends to pride itself on consistency. Also, I'm not sure science = materialism.

I don't think Marxism was self-contradictory nonsense either, it just didn't work in practice because it made some errors based on optimism about human nature and global revolution (not an expert, feel free to correct me)

Economics does rely on mysticism if you ask me; no-one knows the whole picture, and no-one seems able to predict it.

Randroid?!

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?
The best one is the concept that "I" am not separate from either "God" or the universe.

I disagree, I don't think you get self-contradictory nonsense spouted by science ... It tends to pride itself on consistency. Also, I'm not sure science = materialism.

I don't think Marxism was self-contradictory nonsense either, it just didn't work in practice because it made some errors based on optimism about human nature and global revolution (not an expert, feel free to correct me)

Economics does rely on mysticism if you ask me; no-one knows the whole picture, and no-one seems able to predict it.

Randroid?!
self-contradictory nonsense is spouted by people, and people can do that in any field of endeavor, including science. As long as scientists are human, they will be able to spout self-contradictory nonsense about science. Hell, they can do it while trying to order their fucking lunch from the same menu they order from every single goddamned day. Really there is no limit, because "smart" and "stupid" are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Also, I'm guessing that "Randroid" refers to Ayn Rand fans who shout quotes from her as if she had any relevance to social or political theory, but who usually have only read one of her books.

You don't need to appeal to mysticism. You can frame such behaviour in many terms of reference. Replace the word mysticism with 'economic theory' and you have a Randroid. Replace it with 'class struggle' and you have an Andaras-bot. Replace it with 'science' and you get materialists.

I love the word Randroid.

I think props need to be given to the man Downstairs...lol...

the thing that confuses me about Christianity is that the father the son the spirit are all one and the same! sounds like some is suffering from multiple personality disorder...
a God good is one that presents himself/herself to their worshipers.

The best one is the concept that "I" am not separate from either "God" or the universe.

Woohoo, I'm with you on that one.

the thing that confuses me about Christianity is that the father the son the spirit are all one and the same! sounds like some is suffering from multiple personality disorder...
a God good is one that presents himself/herself to their worshipers.

That confuses me too. That's why I'm glad to be in a church that doesn't follow that!

Nanatsu no Tsuki is good....most of the time... :hail: :hail: :hail:

the thing that confuses me about Christianity is that the father the son the spirit are all one and the same! sounds like some is suffering from multiple personality disorder...
a God good is one that presents himself/herself to their worshipers.

religion isn't supposed to make sense, that's why people call it "faith" since it goes against all logic. ;)

I've yet to read it. Certainly its not as good as the old hardback they brought out years back...."realms of chaos" I think it was called.

Played a 40k game there with the new rule book - not bad.

People complain because the new book doesn't have the ludicrous amounts of wargear that the previous book did, nor does it have special rulesets for the various original Heresy-era Legions. Personally, I'm fine with the new book, Chaos needed toning down after their last book. Of course, the old Realms of Chaos and Slaves to Chaos books were great and I still have mine.

With the new LOS rules, do they still not count little bits that stick out from the miniature? (In the older 40K book or Fantasy book I don't remember which, they had a rule where if you can see the model you can shoot it, but that you shouldn't count bits of clothing or detail that stick out as we wouldn't want to penalize someone for having an awesome miniature.)

You have to see the main body of the model. It'd be silly to be able to kill a guy because his banner is sticking over the wall.

self-contradictory nonsense is spouted by people, and people can do that in any field of endeavor, including science. As long as scientists are human, they will be able to spout self-contradictory nonsense about science. Hell, they can do it while trying to order their fucking lunch from the same menu they order from every single goddamned day. Really there is no limit, because "smart" and "stupid" are not mutually exclusive conditions.

True, but in the context of the argument, they wouldn't be able to back up their claims with 'science', because the doctrine of science eschews contradiction. If they appealed to something self-contradictory and mystical, it wouldn't be science, so they would not be making a scientific assertion.

I'm saying a principle of religion is to appeal to mysticism, or the ineffable etc, in order to answer questions about apparent inconsistency. And there's no real comeback on the same terms because of the nature of the argument.

You have to see the main body of the model. It'd be silly to be able to kill a guy because his banner is sticking over the wall.

Ok that's exactly what I had hoped.

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone cracked a Nietzsche joke about 'the only good God being a dead God' yet?

yes they have ... in the front page ...

haha i find that concept interesting to say the least....but how do we know wheter god/ the gods are / is dead or not ???

True, but in the context of the argument, they wouldn't be able to back up their claims with 'science', because the doctrine of science eschews contradiction. If they appealed to something self-contradictory and mystical, it wouldn't be science, so they would not be making a scientific assertion.

I've had scientists make the assertion that all things in this universe are material, i.e. concepts such as soul and thought are mere biochemical processes, etc. They stress the logic and elegance of the idea. I usually point out that logic and elegance are not material things, therefore they couldn't exist.

Dogmatism is an affliction of all human endeavours. Science has been carefully constructed to minimise such dogmatism, but it does so imperfectly, like all human creations.

I'm saying a principle of religion is to appeal to mysticism, or the ineffable etc, in order to answer questions about apparent inconsistency. And there's no real comeback on the same terms because of the nature of the argument.

I would say that that is more of a tactic by the people who wish you to follow their religion, rather than a principle of religion itself.

I always find it mildly annoying and yet amusing that every single thread that deals with God, no matter what the actual topic, always devolves into a discussion about His not existing.

If you don't believe in God, why bother with a thread about Him?

I always find it mildly annoying and yet amusing that every single thread that deals with God, no matter what the actual topic, always devolves into a discussion about His not existing.

If you don't believe in God, why bother with a thread about Him?

Yeah them bloody heathens trying to convert us! How dare they! :D

True, but in the context of the argument, they wouldn't be able to back up their claims with 'science', because the doctrine of science eschews contradiction. If they appealed to something self-contradictory and mystical, it wouldn't be science, so they would not be making a scientific assertion.

I'm saying a principle of religion is to appeal to mysticism, or the ineffable etc, in order to answer questions about apparent inconsistency. And there's no real comeback on the same terms because of the nature of the argument.
True except for two details: (1) mystical =/= self-contradiction; and (2) appealing to mysticism to dodge questions about inconsistency is not a "principle of religion."

If you read serious studies and accounts of mysticism and mystics, you can readily see that the kinds of personal experiences mysticism deals with, although they cannot be tested by scientific methods, are still perfectly capable of fitting in with logical thought, which would mean that they are not inherently self-contradictory, since self-contradiction is an example of illogic.

When mysticism is illogical, it is because the person talking about it is illogical, not because the topic itself is illogical. The same poor thinker who spouts nonsense and calls it religious belief could very likely also spout nonsense when discussing science and think he's making good arguments, too.

When a person spouts self-contradictory nonsense in the name of religion and, when challenged, falls back on mysticism as his/her foundation or excuse or whatever, try comparing their concept of mysticism to the rest of the world's in the fields of theology and comparative religion/religious history. In most cases, you will see the same faulty reasoning and lack of correct facts in their understanding of mysticism that you saw in the argument you were challenging in the first place. In such a case, the fault is in the thinker, not the subject being thought about. To test this, you can ask them questions about science, world events and logic, too, and see what that gets you.

Having said all that, I would also point out that non-religious thinkers often fall into their own logical error -- namely, thinking that religion's inability to work along a scientific model or pattern is a fault or inconsistency in religion.

Tell me, would you say that a blender doesn't work because you tried to use it to press a shirt and it just mangled it? No, because pressing your shirt is the job of an iron, not a blender. If you tried to use a blender to press your shirt, then you were misusing the blender, and the destruction of the shirt is your fault, not the blender's.

Similarly, if religion is not supposed to do the same job that science does, then saying religion is faulty because it doesn't work like science is illogical. If you want to judge whether a religion has internal consistency or not, you should not judge it by comparing it to science. Instead you should first find out what the religion is supposed to do, and then judge whether and how well it does it. You judge science according to what science is supposed to do and religion according to what religion is supposed to do, just like you judge a blender by how will it blends or purees stuff, and you judge an iron by how well it flattens and unwrinkles stuff.

Now, once you have determined thus whether a given religion is or is not logically consistent, then you are in a position to determine whether the person arguing for it is him/herself being logically consistent or inconsistent in what they say about it.

Finally, because mysticism and the ineffable are still logical constructs, there most certainly are "real comeback[s] on the same terms." You can fight logical construct against logical construct, but you do need to do so within the field of religion/religious philosophy, rather than science. In other words, you have to do in "on the same terms." People have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. Ask any Talmudic scholar or Buddhist monk, for instance. Debating points of logic within their own religious doctrines and philosophies is nearly all those people do.

yes they have ... in the front page ...

haha i find that concept interesting to say the least....but how do we know wheter god/ the gods are / is dead or not ???
By how they rot. And by their resumes. For instance, Osiris and Baldur are both on record as being dead, having died "on the job," as it were.

I've had scientists make the assertion that all things in this universe are material, i.e. concepts such as soul and thought are mere biochemical processes, etc. They stress the logic and elegance of the idea. I usually point out that logic and elegance are not material things, therefore they couldn't exist.

Dogmatism is an affliction of all human endeavours. Science has been carefully constructed to minimise such dogmatism, but it does so imperfectly, like all human creations.



I would say that that is more of a tactic by the people who wish you to follow their religion, rather than a principle of religion itself.
Very nicely said. :)

Also, I like to point out that logic, in and of itself, is not proof that an idea is sound or unsound. Logic is merely a method of testing the structure of an idea. It tells us nothing about the truth of an idea. The best lies are logical in their construction, and even paranoid schizophrenics can invent perfectly logical explanations for their delusions, but that doesn't mean that liars are telling the truth or that crazy people really are receiving messages from communists on Venus via a certain news anchorman's necktie patterns.

Very nicely said. :)

Also, I like to point out that logic, in and of itself, is not proof that an idea is sound or unsound. Logic is merely a method of testing the structure of an idea. It tells us nothing about the truth of an idea. The best lies are logical in their construction, and even paranoid schizophrenics can invent perfectly logical explanations for their delusions, but that doesn't mean that liars are telling the truth or that crazy people really are receiving messages from communists on Venus via a certain news anchorman's necktie patterns.

Ah, thankyou. :)

I think it was in this very thread, that I was having that very argument, a little while back - logic is not true or untrue, it's just the tool.

You judge science according to what science is supposed to do and religion according to what religion is supposed to do, just like you judge a blender by how will it blends or purees stuff, and you judge an iron by how well it flattens and unwrinkles stuff.


I think that's a little unfair, to be honest.

Logic isn't just a tool of science, so to ask for religion to be logically coherent from first principles isn't really that unfair. BUt, that's really about as far as science enters into religious territory.

Sure, it can question or verify the 'facts' that religion is based on - and I think that's where science is often seen as being a problem. If science says 'no, the world isn't 6000 years old', then it is seen as intruding on the realms of religion. If it says 'we're not all descended froma pair of naked dimwits with a fruit fetish', then it's seen as intruding on the realms of religion.

But - that's not really science's fault.

The problem arises because we have thousands of years of religion claiming the territory that, perhaps, it shouldn't. The 'how' and the 'what' (which can arguably be explained better by a more physical philosophy), rather than the 'why'.

The problem is - the blender companies are trying to break into a market that's still largely controlled by the old Iron companies... and a lot of people have decided to stick with irons no matter what - even for making milkshakes, because it was good enough for their parents.

The fault is definitely in the thinking. But, in the defence of the non-religious, we're largely STILL fighting a paradigm that is refusing to change. How are we supposed to treat creationism in the science classroom?

I think that's a little unfair, to be honest.

Logic isn't just a tool of science, so to ask for religion to be logically coherent from first principles isn't really that unfair. BUt, that's really about as far as science enters into religious territory.
My point is that if the first principles you apply are scientific ones -- such as the demand for proof of the existence of god(s) or proof that the characters in the Bible really existed and really did what the stories say they did, i.e. demanding testable/provable factuality -- then you are approaching religion just as wrongly as those people who claim that such factuality does exist in their religion and that's what makes it a good religion (even if it was totally factually accurate, that wouldn't necessarily make it a good religion).

Also, properly speaking, science doesn't enter into religious territory at all. It is the people who argue that religion is not true who tend to try to overlay the territories of science and religion.

Sure, it can question or verify the 'facts' that religion is based on - and I think that's where science is often seen as being a problem. If science says 'no, the world isn't 6000 years old', then it is seen as intruding on the realms of religion. If it says 'we're not all descended froma pair of naked dimwits with a fruit fetish', then it's seen as intruding on the realms of religion.
It is my personal view and argument that science is only seen as a problem by religious people who do not really understand what religion is for.

And, of course, the hostility of remarks like the fetishistic dimwit wisecrack may have more to do with angry responses from religious people than anything science might actually say. Presentation matters, you know. Smartass. :tongue:

But - that's not really science's fault.
I never said anything was science's fault. But I have said that plenty of things are the fault of human beings. And I've also said that people can make faulty arguments based on science just as easily as they can based on religion.

The problem arises because we have thousands of years of religion claiming the territory that, perhaps, it shouldn't. The 'how' and the 'what' (which can arguably be explained better by a more physical philosophy), rather than the 'why'.
I would argue that, in fact, the problem arises because we have people seeking to either keep or take control of certain strata of social influence, status and power and not relinquish their place to another group. The conflict between religious people and secularist people is not between religion and science. Rather, in my opinion, it is a battle for social dominance. It is a kind of ego trip, in other words, and, thus, arguing over the relative features and merits of science or religion will have no effect on it at all because, really, the opponents are actually talking about themselves, not god and the universe.

The problem is - the blender companies are trying to break into a market that's still largely controlled by the old Iron companies... and a lot of people have decided to stick with irons no matter what - even for making milkshakes, because it was good enough for their parents.
I thought you just said (above) that science does not enter into religious territory. Now you're saying the new group (do you mean science?) is trying to supersede the old one (religion?). Hm, self-contradictory much? :tongue: You can't have it both ways, GnI. Either science and religion are completely different constructs that fill different niches in human life, or they are competitors for the same niche in human life. Which do you think it is? I am of the completely different constructs camp, and if I'm right, then the above argument is nonsense because, no matter how you look at it, there has never been a time when irons were used to make milkshakes.

You might say that, back in the day, religion stood in for science, but I would argue that, in fact, religious institutions merely funded scientific or pre/proto-scientific research during times when there were no other institutions to do that. That is not the same thing as standing in for what science does now. And in their day, the churches tried to skew the results they had paid for in very much the same way -- and, in my opinion, for the exact same reasons -- that modern corporations and the Bush administration try to skew the results of scientific research today. It brings us back to my above-suggested ego-driven power struggle.

The fault is definitely in the thinking. But, in the defence of the non-religious, we're largely STILL fighting a paradigm that is refusing to change. How are we supposed to treat creationism in the science classroom?
With the disdain it deserves. Religion has no more place in the science class room than science has in religious rituals. But demarking and protecting one's territory does not require one to invade the opponent's territory and attack them in their homes. Or have you learned nothing from George Bush?

In other words, to argue that religion is not science does not require one to denounce religion or declare it false or delusional, etc. It merely requires one to attack the illogical of a specific group of people, in this case the creationists.

Umm... we have some bad news for the christians...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/holy_ghost.png

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

The counter question to this is: Why does a god need to exists? There are plenty of human beings in this world that get along fine without having to fill in blanks in knowledge with infinitely bigger blanks.

Anyways, as far as "best" god, the only god I could see possibly existing is a deist one. He/She/They created existence and then left it to its own devices, either because he was bored and wanted some drama or a bigger god told him to. Not the kind of god I would worship (and it'd be very unlikely he'd appreciate the effort anyway) but that god has merit up until the point where you realize its irrelevant whether it was god or randomness that created existence.

All the other concepts of god are just contradictory. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. Hell, omniscience to itself is mutually exclusive. But then, if god is missing either of those properties, he's not worth the effort of praying to :hail:.

My point is that if the first principles you apply are scientific ones -- such as the demand for proof of the existence of god(s) or proof that the characters in the Bible really existed and really did what the stories say they did, i.e. demanding testable/provable factuality -- then you are approaching religion just as wrongly as those people who claim that such factuality does exist in their religion and that's what makes it a good religion (even if it was totally factually accurate, that wouldn't necessarily make it a good religion).

Also, properly speaking, science doesn't enter into religious territory at all. It is the people who argue that religion is not true who tend to try to overlay the territories of science and religion.


It is my personal view and argument that science is only seen as a problem by religious people who do not really understand what religion is for.

And, of course, the hostility of remarks like the fetishistic dimwit wisecrack may have more to do with angry responses from religious people than anything science might actually say. Presentation matters, you know. Smartass. :tongue:


I never said anything was science's fault. But I have said that plenty of things are the fault of human beings. And I've also said that people can make faulty arguments based on science just as easily as they can based on religion.


I would argue that, in fact, the problem arises because we have people seeking to either keep or take control of certain strata of social influence, status and power and not relinquish their place to another group. The conflict between religious people and secularist people is not between religion and science. Rather, in my opinion, it is a battle for social dominance. It is a kind of ego trip, in other words, and, thus, arguing over the relative features and merits of science or religion will have no effect on it at all because, really, the opponents are actually talking about themselves, not god and the universe.


I thought you just said (above) that science does not enter into religious territory. Now you're saying the new group (do you mean science?) is trying to supersede the old one (religion?). Hm, self-contradictory much? :tongue: You can't have it both ways, GnI. Either science and religion are completely different constructs that fill different niches in human life, or they are competitors for the same niche in human life. Which do you think it is? I am of the completely different constructs camp, and if I'm right, then the above argument is nonsense because, no matter how you look at it, there has never been a time when irons were used to make milkshakes.

You might say that, back in the day, religion stood in for science, but I would argue that, in fact, religious institutions merely funded scientific or pre/proto-scientific research during times when there were no other institutions to do that. That is not the same thing as standing in for what science does now. And in their day, the churches tried to skew the results they had paid for in very much the same way -- and, in my opinion, for the exact same reasons -- that modern corporations and the Bush administration try to skew the results of scientific research today. It brings us back to my above-suggested ego-driven power struggle.


With the disdain it deserves. Religion has no more place in the science class room than science has in religious rituals. But demarking and protecting one's territory does not require one to invade the opponent's territory and attack them in their homes. Or have you learned nothing from George Bush?

In other words, to argue that religion is not science does not require one to denounce religion or declare it false or delusional, etc. It merely requires one to attack the illogical of a specific group of people, in this case the creationists.

The basic point was - science isn't actually intruding on religion. At elast - not on where religion OUGHT to be.

The conflict arises because religion is taught as though it is the cure for ALL ills. It's a better explanationof the origin of the world, the origin of species... the hows and whys. One of the churches just down the road from us teaches the kids that 'god put's the leaves on the trees in the spring'. That's the kind of micromanagement of EVERYTHING that science is conflicting with.

It isn't really that science is trying to invade religious territory - it's more that religion (organised religion, especially) has intruded into every aspect of existence, and is fighting tooth and nail to hold on - even in places it had absolutely NO business (perhaps ESPECIALLY, there?).

And that's not going to end soon, bbcause there will always be people for whom 'ah, but there's so much we don't understand' just isn't enough. Those people fill gaps with gods - even when the gaps are only in their own understanding.

The basic point was - science isn't actually intruding on religion. At elast - not on where religion OUGHT to be.

The conflict arises because religion is taught as though it is the cure for ALL ills. It's a better explanationof the origin of the world, the origin of species... the hows and whys. One of the churches just down the road from us teaches the kids that 'god put's the leaves on the trees in the spring'. That's the kind of micromanagement of EVERYTHING that science is conflicting with.
Excuse me, but is it your contention that ALL religious people of ALL religions teach religion "as though it is the cure for ALL ills"? If not, then you need to revise the above statement, but if that is what you are trying to say, then you are flat-out and obviously wrong.

The fact is that you have only a minority portion of all religious people trying to sell religion as a universal panacea the way you describe. That being the case, how does it follow that religion is inherently bad because of the actions of a minority of religious people?

Tell me, if a vocal minority went about claiming that carrots were the cure for all ills, would you declare carrots bad for society and human beings? Or would you say that those particular people were spouting BS? What if a vocal and politically connected minority tried to push unprotected promiscuous sex as the cure for all ills and wanted their beliefs against condoms taught in every health ed class in every American school (or wherever they may be)? Would you swear off sex and go on forums talking about how bad sex is for people? Or would you just warn against the excesses of those people and try to get them out of the sex education business?

So why do you ignore the hundreds of millions of religious people in the world who never try to force their views on others or substitute their religious beliefs in place of science and history when talking about how religion is "taught"? Why do you blame religion itself for the actions of a minority of religious people?

It isn't really that science is trying to invade religious territory - it's more that religion (organised religion, especially) has intruded into every aspect of existence, and is fighting tooth and nail to hold on - even in places it had absolutely NO business (perhaps ESPECIALLY, there?).
I contest the "religion has intruded into every aspect of existence" claim. I believe there are still plenty of areas of life where you don't get bombarded with religion and/or where other people's religions have zero effect on you. This isn't Elizabethan England, after all. You don't have to give proof of church membership to get a job or own a house or join a guild or union, like you did there back then.

Frankly, although I find most religious expression outside of a person's own church/temple/mosque and/or private home to be annoying and uncool, I personally would say that, in my opinion, there are only three aspects of existence -- I'm talking about in the US -- into which religion has intruded inappropriately. They are science education, healthcare and politics. Now granted, these are very important areas, but they do not constitute "every aspect of existence."

And that's not going to end soon, bbcause there will always be people for whom 'ah, but there's so much we don't understand' just isn't enough. Those people fill gaps with gods - even when the gaps are only in their own understanding.
So? What do you care what other people use to fill in the gaps in their minds? Hell, I suppose they have to use something to stop up the holes, and apparently religion is stickier than science (for when the holes are big enough).

Or are you now saying that you suffer a problem if other people even just think differently than you?

Would you not be satisfied to succeed in preventing the aforementioned minority from taking over science classes? Are you now saying that the mere existence of religion is a problem that must be eliminated before you can feel at peace? Because if you are saying that, then, to me, you don't sound any different from the religious extremists you decry.

The counter question to this is: Why does a god need to exists? There are plenty of human beings in this world that get along fine without having to fill in blanks in knowledge with infinitely bigger blanks.

Anyways, as far as "best" god, the only god I could see possibly existing is a deist one. He/She/They created existence and then left it to its own devices, either because he was bored and wanted some drama or a bigger god told him to. Not the kind of god I would worship (and it'd be very unlikely he'd appreciate the effort anyway) but that god has merit up until the point where you realize its irrelevant whether it was god or randomness that created existence.

All the other concepts of god are just contradictory. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. Hell, omniscience to itself is mutually exclusive. But then, if god is missing either of those properties, he's not worth the effort of praying to :hail:.
That does not constitute "all the other concepts of god."

I really get amazed at the intellectual laziness of people these days. So many folks just spout vague generalizations without the slightest thought, it seems. They pick something about a particular religion they don't like and just airily assume it represents all of religion or all concepts of god. Others pick on the actions of a minority group but act as if they are the actions of all religious people. Yet if someone else were to make similar generalizations about atheists or secularists, I wonder how much they'd stamp and fume.

Excuse me, but is it your contention that ALL religious people of ALL religions teach religion "as though it is the cure for ALL ills"?


No.


If not, then you need to revise the above statement, but if that is what you are trying to say, then you are flat-out and obviously wrong.

The fact is that you have only a minority portion of all religious people trying to sell religion as a universal panacea the way you describe. That being the case, how does it follow that religion is inherently bad because of the actions of a minority of religious people?


It doesn't. We're discussing the conflict between science and religion. This is a 'sets' problem - where the 'science' set overlaps the 'religion' set, in the greater 'reality' set.

Our parameters are already drawn up in the debate.


Tell me, if a vocal minority went about claiming that carrots were the cure for all ills, would you declare carrots bad for society and human beings?


No.


Or would you say that those particular people were spouting BS?


Yes. Probably.

Unless they had some pretty convincing evidence.


What if a vocal and politically connected minority tried to push unprotected promiscuous sex as the cure for all ills and wanted their beliefs against condoms taught in every health ed class in every American school (or wherever they may be)?


Such things have been taught.


Would you swear off sex and go on forums talking about how bad sex is for people?


No.


Or would you just warn against the excesses of those people and try to get them out of the sex education business?


Yes.


So why do you ignore the hundreds of millions of religious people in the world who never try to force their views on others or substitute their religious beliefs in place of science and history when talking about how religion is "taught"?


Because they aren't what we're talking about.


Why do you blame religion itself for the actions of a minority of religious people?


I don't.


I contest the "religion has intruded into every aspect of existence" claim. I believe there are still plenty of areas of life where you don't get bombarded with religion and/or where other people's religions have zero effect on you. This isn't Elizabethan England, after all. You don't have to give proof of church membership to get a job or own a house or join a guild or union, like you did there back then.


Clearly, you don't live where I live.


Frankly, although I find most religious expression outside of a person's own church/temple/mosque and/or private home to be annoying and uncool, I personally would say that, in my opinion, there are only three aspects of existence -- I'm talking about in the US -- into which religion has intruded inappropriately. They are science education, healthcare and politics. Now granted, these are very important areas, but they do not constitute "every aspect of existence."


Clearly, you don't live where I live.


So? What do you care what other people use to fill in the gaps in their minds?


I don't.


Hell, I suppose they have to use something to stop up the holes, and apparently religion is stickier than science (for when the holes are big enough).

Or are you now saying that you suffer a problem if other people even just think differently than you?


No.


Would you not be satisfied to succeed in preventing the aforementioned minority from taking over science classes?


Yes.


Are you now saying that the mere existence of religion is a problem that must be eliminated before you can feel at peace?


No.


Because if you are saying that, then, to me, you don't sound any different from the religious extremists you decry.

Okay. It's your army of strawmen.

I didn't say I thought religion was bad. I didn't say it should be abolished. I don't care what people believe. ALL I care about is where someone else's 'freedom of religion' becomes a problem for ME, and others.

Personally, I love Religion. I think it's great. I actively encourage it for others, if they feel they need it. But, I don't need it - and I don't want it to screw with my life. And, I'd really like to see that courtesy extended to others.

No.



It doesn't. We're discussing the conflict between science and religion. This is a 'sets' problem - where the 'science' set overlaps the 'religion' set, in the greater 'reality' set.

Our parameters are already drawn up in the debate.

<snip>



Okay. It's your army of strawmen.

I didn't say I thought religion was bad. I didn't say it should be abolished. I don't care what people believe. ALL I care about is where someone else's 'freedom of religion' becomes a problem for ME, and others.

Personally, I love Religion. I think it's great. I actively encourage it for others, if they feel they need it. But, I don't need it - and I don't want it to screw with my life. And, I'd really like to see that courtesy extended to others.
I raised no strawmen.

What I did was show you how your vague generalizations create the impression of bigoted or unclear thinking on your part. I did not say that you had argued thus. I ASKED you if you were arguing thus and showed you how the words you used created that impression. I gave you the opportunity to clarify your meaning.

Rather than just clarify, you defended your use of fuzzy and generalized language with some bullshit about "sets." I refer you back to my other post about intellectual laziness. Why don't you try saying what you mean rather than talking yourself into a thicket and then trying to backtrack out of it using mathematical models? For instance, since you really didn't mean to imply that all religious people are trying to march you into a theocracy, why don't you say precisely which religious people you DO think are trying to do that, instead of just talking about "religion" in general?

Also, I do not live where you live, clearly, and equally clearly, you don't live where I live. Maybe you should consider moving.

religion isn't supposed to make sense, that's why people call it "faith" since it goes against all logic. ;)

I guess you'll have to take that up with everyone from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to Oxford-educated CS Lewis. They all stress the part that reason plays in religion. And the first two listed are considered two of the greatest minds to ever grace humankind, by the religious and non-religious alike.

You can have "faith" that your wife has remained faithful your entire marriage, based on the "logic" built around what you know about her moral compass and past behavior. Faith is, and should be, based in reason.

I raised no strawmen.


Well, straight off the top of my head: "Why do you blame religion itself for the actions of a minority of religious people?" would probably put paid to that one.


What I did was show you how your vague generalizations create the impression of bigoted or unclear thinking on your part. I did not say that you had argued thus. I ASKED you if you were arguing thus and showed you how the words you used created that impression. I gave you the opportunity to clarify your meaning.


I think we both know you did more than you suggest. If you were just asking me to clarify, your carrots and condoms were unnecessary, and irrelevent. Not to mention, unnecessarily confrontational, if you were just giving me a chance to clarify.


Rather than just clarify, you defended your use of fuzzy and generalized language with some bullshit about "sets."


I wasn't being fuzzy or generalised, I was replying in context. My explanation wasn't 'bullshit'.

You presented a paradigm where science and religion are overlapping. I take your phrasing in that post, to suggest that science is entering into the domain of religion unnecessarily - just as religion might, into the realm of sciences. So - I pointed out that (and I really thought the context you'd established was going to be taken as read), for the most part, science isn't intruding at all... it's claiming territory that shouldn't have been held by religion in the first place.


I refer you back to my other post about intellectual laziness. Why don't you try saying what you mean rather than talking yourself into a thicket and then trying to backtrack out of it using mathematical models?


I didn't talk myself into a thicket, or backtrack.

Where science and religion aren't competing, there is no problem. Clearly, then - surely we must be talking about the specific areas where religion and science are confronting one another.


For instance, since you really didn't mean to imply that all religious people are trying to march you into a theocracy, why don't you say precisely which religious people you DO think are trying to do that, instead of just talking about "religion" in general?


I didn't generalise. I didn't say "ALL religion(s)" - I talked about the paradigm under which scientists (like myself) are labouring in conflict with religion. If you take 'religion' in THAT sentence to be a generalisation, I really don't know what I can do about it. I can't be too specific because there is no one religion that is always to blame (although, in the US, we do have one much bigger competitor than the rest), but I certainly didn't say that everyone and everything religious are problems. That would be nonsensical - especially since the 'religious' proportion of the scientific population is about the same as the 'religious' proportion of the GENERAL population.

I can't see how I can explain it more clearly than by discussing it IN context.


Also, I do not live where you live, clearly, and equally clearly, you don't live where I live. Maybe you should consider moving.

I have. I can't afford to relocate at this point, so I have to endure such things as the fact that my (lack of) religion could cost me my job, here.

I guess you'll have to take that up with everyone from Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to Oxford-educated CS Lewis. They all stress the part that reason plays in religion. And the first two listed are considered two of the greatest minds to ever grace humankind, by the religious and non-religious alike.

You can have "faith" that your wife has remained faithful your entire marriage, based on the "logic" built around what you know about her moral compass and past behavior. Faith is, and should be, based in reason.

You mean C. S. "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" Lewis? It doesn't take an Oxford education to poke holes in something that silly.

To remain in topic, I must say:

Which God is a good God?
The god of Rocknroll !!!!

God of Rock,
who art in Loudspeakers,
amplified by Thy guitar,
Thy band come,
Thy be done
your letter on earth as your music is in Heaven.

Give bass this day our daily drum,
and forgive us our pop
as we forgive those who funk against us.
And lead us not into reggeton
but deliver us from rap.

... YEEEEAAAAHHHH !!!

Well, straight off the top of my head: "Why do you blame religion itself for the actions of a minority of religious people?" would probably put paid to that one.



I think we both know you did more than you suggest. <snip>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, my manners are atrocious. They are a burden to me. I weep over them during long winter's nights. Whatever.

So you don't like the way I talk/write. So you don't enjoy the absurdities I use to show the flaws in your statements. So you can't get past the writer's style to think about the point she was trying to make. So you read personal digs into every sentence I post (as if it's impossible for me to be sarcastic about the topic under discussion, so I can only be copping a sarcastic attitude against you personally (which I am doing now, btw -- see, I do know the difference)). I'll add all that to my list of things to regret on my deathbed.

Look, I'm not going to play the "you said" game with you. What each of us said is in the thread for all to see. You say it means one thing. I say it means another. You say my question, which you quote, is a strawman. I say it isn't, but rather it is a reference to your use of the blanket word "religion" instead of more specific terms. You say you never said all religions do X or Y. I say your use of the blanket word "religion" created the impression that you did think that. Now we've both laid out our views. Let it be up to other readers at this point to decide which of us is on or off the mark.

I see no point in gnawing on this any further just between us. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, my manners are atrocious. They are a burden to me. I weep over them during long winter's nights. Whatever.


I wouldn't have said that. I don't think manners enter into it. I've had 'ad hominem' problems from people on this forum before, but none - to my recollection - with you.

I'm not offended. And I've not set out to offend you - so hopefully there's no problems with 'hurt feelings', here.


So you don't like the way I talk/write. So you don't enjoy the absurdities I use to show the flaws in your statements. So you can't get past the writer's style to think about the point she was trying to make. So you read personal digs into every sentence I post (as if it's impossible for me to be sarcastic about the topic under discussion, so I can only be copping a sarcastic attitude against you personally (which I am doing now, btw -- see, I do know the difference)). I'll add all that to my list of things to regret on my deathbed.


I didn't say I don't like the way you write or talk. I actually find the fiesty version of you quite charming.

That's kind of beside the point, though. I'm not attacking anything about how you've said anything. I think you veered on the side of straw people. I think you overcompensated in the "grr! arghh!" department, but I'm big and dumb enough to not be too precious about that kind of thing.

If you say you didn't, then - okay - you didn't.


Look, I'm not going to play the "you said" game with you. What each of us said is in the thread for all to see. You say it means one thing. I say it means another. You say my question, which you quote, is a strawman. I say it isn't, but rather it is a reference to your use of the blanket word "religion" instead of more specific terms. You say you never said all religions do X or Y. I say your use of the blanket word "religion" created the impression that you did think that. Now we've both laid out our views. Let it be up to other readers at this point to decide which of us is on or off the mark.


I didn't use a blanket word. I used a not-too-specific phrasing in the not-too-specific context we had been discussing for a couple of posts.

If my meaning confused you, I apologise.


I see no point in gnawing on this any further just between us. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.

I didn't realise that was the point.

Ohhhh I have many, many question, but lets start with this one.

What does this mean?

'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.'

Sure! What's your question about it? Like, how do Jews or Christians or Muslims interpret it? I happen to belong to a mainstream Protestant denomination and so using different forms of Biblical criticism, I think the concensus is not a literal interpretation of creation ( this is exactly how it happened), but that humanity is made to be in relationship with God and one another in specific ways, defined by the rest of the Biblical story. This creation story originates in part from the time of the Hebrew people living in exile in Babylon. The Babylonians had creation stories where humanity was created accidently from the blood and corpses of warring gods. Instead, the Hebrews tell their theology through story form, asserting that humanity is not the accidental spawn of whimsical gods, but exists as a good creation of a loving God who desires relationship. To be created in the image of this God means to be created, crafted, MADE to love back and reflect that love with one another and creation.

Interesting I used to want to be a pastor and that still may be in my future but I have in mind to be a professor or teacher even in biblical history you learn alot studying history and reading the bible from its original Hebrew,Greek, and Aramaic text and understanding. It can really strengthen your faith.

That's great you are still "discerning your call" as we say here in seminary! :) I agree that serious study of Biblical critism and languages puts these texts in perspective and I wish people faithful to them as well as their outside critics would take more time to research their origins. I definitely do not believe they are just "dead" texts with no power for new revelation, but cultures of today are so far distant from when they were written, they deserve study and interpretation.

Firstly, I'm going to preface this with the fact that I'm not a Christian (as my other post in the thread will show), but I do find the bible highly interesting as a philosophical and historical text.

I am genuinely curious how it is treated in seminary. I'm guessing a lot of this will depend on the denomination but how are contradictions within the bible resolved or discussed, or are they not? Are certain translations (eg King James' Version) or certain parts (e.g. New over Old testament) given precedence? Or is it about bringing out the holistic, underlying, message rather than a literal interpretation of individual parts of the text?

Awesome questions!!! First, like I've said in my other posts, I belong to a mainstream Protestant denomination (Lutheranism, ELCA), and so we tend to very much disagree in terms of interpretation with Biblical literalists. We are required to learn both Koine Greek and Hebrew, the languages in which Scripture is written. That way we can see for ourselves what it says and compare it to the various other English translations and what language scholars think about it. Their are other types of Biblical criticism as well, where we take into account the culture and historical period that produced the different texts. As Christians we still believe that Scripture is living, that the Holy Spirit continues to speak in new ways through the writings, but that we can't ignore in what context it was originally written. For example, it is vitally important to know that the book of Isaiah was not written by one person but over many years by at least four people and various other editors, both before, during, and after the exile of the Hebrew people.

It is clear that, for us, the Old Testament is completely important, central to our faith as part of the story of who we are and who we belong to, a testament to what God has done for all of God's people. For Christians, the climax of this long story of God living and working with the people is in the person of Jesus. In that respect, Christians are defined by the New Testament, but to relegate the Old Testament to the back of our minds would mean to cut off a limb vital to sustaining life, in this case, our faith. In fact, it is a Christian heresy to deny God's law and the Old Testament.

As far as contradictions go...of course there are contradictions! :) Each text was written in response to different issues, during different centuries, and even by different schools of thought within the same faith. For example the book of Job was written as a polemic against the book of Proverbs. I think this is less difficult for Lutherans to deal with because by our very history as a denomination loving theology and study, we embrace paradox. There are other things we AREN'T good at at all such as a poor history of working for social justice. (a generalization).

Of course we learn a lot of other things in seminary of a much more practical nature like how to serve people as a pastor. How to lead worship, give sermons, and minister to people in all kinds of situations.

I hope all of this is helpful and I am very glad that you are interested in this. I have many friends who are athiest or agnostic who seem to understand Christianity by what they see on TV or hear on the radio. I think this is a superficial respresentation of a religion that is 2000 years old and a direct descendent of a faith several millenia older than that.

That is not true. The first is only a summary of what will happen in the next chapter. This is common place in the Bible. I have studied those chapters, I suggest you do the same don't take my word for it look at it yourself.

Actually they are two separate myth traditions, first oral stories, and eventually after MANY years, were finally written down. The first creation story where God creates a dome to separate the waters and institutes the Sabbath is a version of the old oral tradition written later while the Hebrews were in exile in Babylon. The writers have obviously added later elements of the Hebrew faith into the older story, called redaction, and common in all ancient texts. It wasn't meant to explain a literal hypothesis of "how the world was created" but as a witness to who the people are, why they worship the way they do, and who their God is. The second creation story is obviously much older because God is a little more "anthropomorphic" playing in the "cosmic sandbox" so to speak. Just as when culture shifts and we imagine God in different ways, like how most Christians imagine clouds, pearly gate, and a bright light, the early Hebrews saw God as a little more "human-like" molding a person into being with hands, and walking through the garden.

Are we talking Gods here, or are we talking about the Human crafted images/descriptions of Gods?

I wouldn't expect the latter to be flawless.

I wouldn't expect the former to be be fully understandable to a finite, mortal mind.

I think much of what we associate with God is a product of ourselves- our own fears, hopes, anxieties, and visions of justice projected onto the infinite.

This doesn't mean there is no God, simply that God as we tend to picture God is not God.

The whole concept of prayer, for example. What is it, really? An attempt to tell a supremely omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent being that you have a better idea as to how your little corner of the universe ought to be run?

Massaging the Divine Ego?

Or did we Humans simply invent the concept because begging, pleading, and cajoling seems to work sometimes with powerful Humans, so we extended it to the All Powerful- and then convinced ourselves it was God's idea?


Christianity crashes into philosophical rocks. If none of us are good enough for heaven, why does God want us there in the first place? And if he wants us there, isn't that evidence that we are in fact good enough? Christianity as a whole is like a school teacher telling the class that no children, anywhere, are smart enough to pass the class, but since he really, truly wants them, he'll just flunk the one honor student (who happens to be his son) and then change all the grades.

Not to single Christianity out- every other western religion crashes into rocks of its own. Judaism developed a nice dodge- the rocks are all so terribly complicated that only some long dead rabbis can understand them, so don't question the rocks, because they ain't really rocks.

Islam has an easier dodge. Don't mention the rocks, or else.

There are some eastern philosophies that use a different tack. The Tao Te Ching never, not once, tries to tell you what God is actually like. Lots of wisdom, lots of this is Good and that is Bad, but no specific "Thus Spake..."

And then you get the western religions saying "well, in that case, Taoism isn't truly a religion" and thus the wheels spin. Apparently, if it doesn't attempt to define what should be all means remain undefinable, its not a religion!




Oh boy! If there is one thing Lutherans ARE good at, it's definitely the issue of justification. We were ready to die for it in the 16th century! Ok, so essentially the question is from the Christian perspective, what is our relationship with God? You bring up good points as to how different religions interpret this issue. However, I think maybe you are using an incorrect analogy for the Christian belief. I think a better one is of God, a parent, who wishes to dwell in loving relationship with God's people. Like a parent, this isn't an "equal relationship" in the sense that parents let their kids do whatever they want. Instead rules are there to define the relationship, give it shape and meaning. We aren't puppets, loving God against our will, and yet God still desires this relationship. So what happens? Things get in the way. We break the rules, pursue things first instead of God and the well-being of our brothers and sisters. Rather than kick us out of the house, God actually gets into the mud with us, humbles himself to actually live with us and experience death with us. Essentially, if we can't come to God, even when we most desire it, than God will come to us and nothing, not even death can stand in the way. I think it's pretty profound.

Oh boy! If there is one thing Lutherans ARE good at, it's definitely the issue of justification. We were ready to die for it in the 16th century! Ok, so essentially the question is from the Christian perspective, what is our relationship with God? You bring up good points as to how different religions interpret this issue. However, I think maybe you are using an incorrect analogy for the Christian belief. I think a better one is of God, a parent, who wishes to dwell in loving relationship with God's people. Like a parent, this isn't an "equal relationship" in the sense that parents let their kids do whatever they want. Instead rules are there to define the relationship, give it shape and meaning. We aren't puppets, loving God against our will, and yet God still desires this relationship. So what happens? Things get in the way. We break the rules, pursue things first instead of God and the well-being of our brothers and sisters. Rather than kick us out of the house, God actually gets into the mud with us, humbles himself to actually live with us and experience death with us. Essentially, if we can't come to God, even when we most desire it, than God will come to us and nothing, not even death can stand in the way. I think it's pretty profound.
welcome to nsg!

*puts out little cookies with a glass of milk*

I like the gods of the ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Maya, Aztecs, Inca......

I don't beleive in God/s as relgions see it/them/him/her. I beleive in a higher plane of existance, that when we die our 'soul' or whatever you want to call it will live on, maybe in the form of reincarnation but not necessarily. I hate the fact that major religions, like Christanity and Islam, are used as weapons to attack people who do not agree with their views. Religion is directly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, and I refuse to beleive in any God that would allow that to happen.

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

The one that lets you sleep with a clear consience at night, and encourages you to contribute to the betterment of all.

Personally I think the Catholic religion to be the one I like most because I am one. Although I am not saying any of the others are not real I just choose to be Catholic. I've always kind of thought that maybe it would be possible that all the gods from all the different religions co-exist. Another opinion is that whichever religion you are your fate after death would follow that religions trail.

Personally I think the Catholic religion to be the one I like most because I am one. Although I am not saying any of the others are not real I just choose to be Catholic. I've always kind of thought that maybe it would be possible that all the gods from all the different religions co-exist. Another opinion is that whichever religion you are your fate after death would follow that religions trail.
think about it:

if there is only one god then ALL gods are that one god.

they just look at him differently.

That's true in different cultures with different climates it would make sense if the one god appeared to everyone differently to have the most power effect on them.

That's true in different cultures with different climates it would make sense if the one god appeared to everyone differently to have the most power effect on them.
exactly.

as evidenced by how ineffective evangelism is in places like indian and china. the need a different vision of god.

if there is only one god then ALL gods are that one god.

Including Melkor and Sauron?

That's true in different cultures with different climates it would make sense if the one god appeared to everyone differently to have the most power effect on them.
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
Might be worth a look.

The one that lets you sleep with a clear consience at night, and encourages you to contribute to the betterment of all.

Good answer! Are you a Sikh?:D

Including Melkor and Sauron?
yes.

supposing that you mean "the naughty gods of polytheistic religions" and havent confused literature with theology.

Ashmoria, your "masks of god" type cosmology makes sense as a concept, but I would like to emphasize the "if" part of your "if there's just one god" preamble.

Indeed, IF there is just one god -- and IF he/she/it is as omnipotent as people say -- then there is nothing to stop him/her/it from manifesting in any form and as many forms as needed or desired. Many polytheistic religions posit just such a cosmology.

On the other hand, IF there is not just one god, the other poster's idea of all these different gods co-existing makes perfect sense. Why can't the universe support more than one god of storms or war or love or government or fertility, etc, etc? After all, the universe supports millions of people all doing the same jobs. Why should running the cosmos be any different? Many other polytheistic religions posit this alternative (rather more bureaucratic) kind of cosmology.

It seems to me that one of the big sticking points (after the insurmountable "it's unnecessary" argument) for people who reject religion as a way of thinking is the omnipotence/omniscience thing. I can understand this, because omnipotence/omniscience makes sense if the god in question is an abstract concept kind of entity -- a sort of universal consciousness that exists everywhere at all times (the deist/pantheist model perhaps). But in a god that is claimed to be personal and interactive with human life on a one-on-one individual basis, the vastness of such traits as omnipotence/omniscience become a problem. Why can't or won't such a god just arrange things for the benefit of his/her/its worshippers? Why does such a god claim personal interest in individual lives but stand back and let bad things happen to those same lives? Etc.

But for those polytheists who hold the view that many different gods can co-exist independently this is less of an issue. This is because such gods are generally not believed to be omniscient or omnipotent. They are in charge of what they are in charge of -- whatever phenomena or people or places they are attached to -- and that's pretty much it. I think it's easier to believe that a human can have a personal relationship with a god who is more like a human than it is like the infinite expanses of time and space.

I bring this up because I find that a lot of people tend to fall into the pattern of assuming that "religion" looks at the world in a certain way, and that way conforms to the current most popular monotheisms. Many people tend to forget that there are other religious views shared by millions of people around the world. There are options to how religion can interact with modern society, and it kind of annoys me a little when those options are ignored (maybe because I belong to one of those optional camps).

EDIT: I didn't mean to imply that you were ignoring the other views. I'm just throwing that comment out in general reference to many religious debates nowadays.

Ashmoria, your "masks of god" type cosmology makes sense as a concept, but I would like to emphasize the "if" part of your "if there's just one god" preamble.

Indeed, IF there is just one god -- and IF he/she/it is as omnipotent as people say -- then there is nothing to stop him/her/it from manifesting in any form and as many forms as needed or desired. Many polytheistic religions posit just such a cosmology.


since i was coming at it from a sort of an agnostic point of view, let me continue it.

if we cannot really know "god" we cant know if there is only one or it its many beings. if the many beings are seperate or if they somehow work together.

you cant know as a polytheists if the various gods you interact with are many beings or one. miamoria as a monotheist cant know if the reason that "god" is so confusing in the bible is really because there is not ONE god.

all we can know is how we best interact with the divine and what works best for us. what makes the most sense to us.

and, it seems to me, if GOD (whatever that truly means) cant be bothered to spell it out for us--who he is and what he wants from us--it cant really matter to him what we believe.

since i was coming at it from a sort of an agnostic point of view, let me continue it.

if we cannot really know "god" we cant know if there is only one or it its many beings. if the many beings are seperate or if they somehow work together.

you cant know as a polytheists if the various gods you interact with are many beings or one. miamoria as a monotheist cant know if the reason that "god" is so confusing in the bible is really because there is not ONE god.

all we can know is how we best interact with the divine and what works best for us. what makes the most sense to us.

and, it seems to me, if GOD (whatever that truly means) cant be bothered to spell it out for us--who he is and what he wants from us--it cant really matter to him what we believe.
What makes you think we can't know "god"?

See, all of your "ifs" are based on the assumptions about the nature of deity that are held by modern monotheisms. It is not a given that the nature of deity has to be unknowable or ineffable.

That being the case, then, the degree to which we cannot know "god" is the same as the degree to which we cannot know anything because of the inherent limitations of our own senses and consciousness. So, if I cannot know a god, it is in the exact same way I could never really know what goes on in your mind, even if we'd known each other intimately for years (say, if we were twin sisters). But that unknowability is because of MY limitations. It is not necessarily an inherent quality of the thing I am trying to know.

So, just because I may not be able to know "god," that does not necessarily mean that "god" is unknowable.

Now, in practical terms, despite the fact that our own limitations mean that we will always go through life in a haze of the unknown, that does not stop us from going through life. We cannot know if the people around us are what they appear to be, but we still assume they are at whatever time and for whatever purposes we need. We treat them as if they are what our senses say they are, and even if our entire concept of life is an illusion (like the Matrix), we still manage to be more or less satisfied with the (illusory) results we get from our (illusory) actions and (illusory) relationships.

Why can't it be the exact same with the gods? Why shouldn't it be? All I have to go on is my own experience to say that "Ashmoria is real and she is this or that." Even if all of experience is an illusion generated by a finite consciousness, it is still considered enough for me to act on without being thought of as being unrealistic. So, why shouldn't I be able to say the same thing about gods? If I have experience of you and on the basis of that I can say that I know you, why can't I say I know my gods based on my experience of them?

NOTE: When I say "I know them," I mean it the exact same way I would say I know you -- or any person who actually is in my life. Along the lines of, "Oh, yeah, I know her." Does that imply some kind of intimately shared profound level of consciousness? No. It implies that I have some experience of the person/god/whatever. It does not imply that I know everything about them.

EDIT: Oh, and in reference to this:

and, it seems to me, if GOD (whatever that truly means) cant be bothered to spell it out for us--who he is and what he wants from us--it cant really matter to him what we believe.
I would generally agree with this, but perhaps that is because I do not need my gods to be omni-anything nor personally interested in me. The gods I deal with present themselves in certain forms and, for the sake of dealing with them, I am perfectly happy to accept and work with those concepts -- in the same way that I deal with various professionals and officials in whatever capacities they present to me when I walk into their offices, without me needing to question what they might be like at home on their own time. And I don't think they (gods and people) really care whether I really care if their presented images are complete representations of their lives/personalities or not, so long as I deal with them properly in the context of the job for which I contacted them. After all, who they are when I'm not asking them to do stuff for me is really none of my business.

it is the agnostic point of view that you cannot know god.

it seems to me to be very true when considering beings that cannot be scientifically verified.

it is the agnostic point of view that you cannot know god.

it seems to me to be very true when considering beings that cannot be scientifically verified.
Well, I'm not an agnostic then. I tend to accept the proviso that our ability to know is limited, but within those limitations, I have no trouble saying that we can know things -- including god(s). I just don't expect knowledge to be perfect. Hell, even scientific verification does not guarantee that knowledge is complete, accurate or perfect, but who cares? Functional for a given purpose is good enough.

Well, I'm not an agnostic then. I tend to accept the proviso that our ability to know is limited, but within those limitations, I have no trouble saying that we can know things -- including god(s). I just don't expect knowledge to be perfect. Hell, even scientific verification does not guarantee that knowledge is complete, accurate or perfect, but who cares? Functional for a given purpose is good enough.
well fine but since you can only know what you know about "god" and you know there are things you dont know...how is that different from what i said? for all you know the gods you interact with are "jesus" goofing with you. or an aspect of the hindu godset.

well fine but since you can only know what you know about "god" and you know there are things you dont know...how is that different from what i said? for all you know the gods you interact with are "jesus" goofing with you. or an aspect of the hindu godset.
By that token, for all I know, I'm a 65-year-old man who has been in a coma since 1973, and my entire life has been the most boring and annoying coma-dream ever, except for the sex parts (at least most of them), none of which ever actually happened.

The difference is this: My "I can assume enough knowledge to get through a day without getting paralyzed by circumstances and doubt" approach allows me to point out that you, with your focus on agnosticism, have missed the point.

I never said your agnostic approach was wrong or not valid or anything like that. What I've said most recently is that I do not share it, and I attempted to show by comparison what my view is and how it is different from yours. I do not assume that either is more correct than the other. I understand that you are saying that admitting there are things I don't know is tantamount to saying "god is unknowable," but I have already stated why I don't think that is so.

And what I said originally was that -- regardless of whether one is agnostic or not -- the "masks of god" view that assumes one god behind many manifestations is not the only point of view available to religious people. << THAT was my point.

EDIT: Here's a question for you: Are you this agnostic about the physical people in your life too?

All we can know is how we best interact with the divine and what works best for us. what makes the most sense to us.

This I agree with.



and, it seems to me, if GOD (whatever that truly means) cant be bothered to spell it out for us--who he is and what he wants from us--it cant really matter to him what we believe.


This, well not so much. I prefer to see it that God is endlessly communicaticing Gods wishess to us, but considering the vast array of humanity and mindsets has given each of us differant ways to understand.

...
It seems to me that one of the big sticking points (after the insurmountable "it's unnecessary" argument) for people who reject religion as a way of thinking is the omnipotence/omniscience thing. I can understand this, because omnipotence/omniscience makes sense if the god in question is an abstract concept kind of entity -- a sort of universal consciousness that exists everywhere at all times (the deist/pantheist model perhaps). But in a god that is claimed to be personal and interactive with human life on a one-on-one individual basis, the vastness of such traits as omnipotence/omniscience become a problem. Why can't or won't such a god just arrange things for the benefit of his/her/its worshippers? Why does such a god claim personal interest in individual lives but stand back and let bad things happen to those same lives? Etc....

Omnipotence and omniscience don't even work well with a universal consciousness god. We can posit that such a god has, by its ubiquitous nature, the ability to see everywhere. However, such a god may still be limited in time, i.e. unable to see the future with exactitude. If we are to believe in free will, then we would also have to believe that god cannot see the future with perfect accuracy.

it is the agnostic point of view that you cannot know god.

it seems to me to be very true when considering beings that cannot be scientifically verified.

It is the experience of the mystic that one can know god directly, though incompletely. However, as someone who dabbles in both science and mysticism, I would agree that such an experience can not be known from a scientifc point of view. That does not mean that it unknowable. Many people know how to ride a bicycle without even understanding the scientific principles involved.

I know bloody well that melkor and sauron are fictional. But jehovah is also fictional, so he could be the same "god" as one of them.

If we are to believe in free will, then we would also have to believe that god cannot see the future with perfect accuracy.

This I'm not sure on, I just don't see how God's foreknowledge is a bar to freewill.



It is the experience of the mystic that one can know god directly, though incompletely. However, as someone who dabbles in both science and mysticism, I would agree that such an experience can not be known from a scientifc point of view. That does not mean that it unknowable. Many people know how to ride a bicycle without even understanding the scientific principles involved.

This though I agree with 100%.

This I'm not sure on, I just don't see how God's foreknowledge is a bar to freewill.

It's quite simple:

God knows and sees everything perfectly.
So he knows and sees the future perfectly.
Which means he knows your future perfectly.
Which means you can't do anything in your future except what god has seen.
Which means that your actions are predetermined.
Therefore, you have no free will.

Good in what way?

Eris is good fun (if you get along with her).
Ishtar is good wink-wink fun (just kidding, Ishtar worshippers, just kidding).
"God" is good for confusing people.
The pantheist god is a good place to live in.
The atheist god is good for people with small houses and people with other things to do.
And so on, and so on.

Whatever fits your needs.

I know bloody well that melkor and sauron are fictional. But jehovah is also fictional, so he could be the same "god" as one of them.
doesnt that make me all the more correct?

Omnipotence and omniscience don't even work well with a universal consciousness god. We can posit that such a god has, by its ubiquitous nature, the ability to see everywhere. However, such a god may still be limited in time, i.e. unable to see the future with exactitude. If we are to believe in free will, then we would also have to believe that god cannot see the future with perfect accuracy.
It's quite simple:

God knows and sees everything perfectly.
So he knows and sees the future perfectly.
Which means he knows your future perfectly.
Which means you can't do anything in your future except what god has seen.
Which means that your actions are predetermined.
Therefore, you have no free will.
Oh, I don't know.

First off, does "omnipotent" imply action, or merely ability? Does having the power to do everything automatically mean that you're going to do everything, every time?

I also do not see why a god's foreknowledge would have anything to do with OUR free will. We, after all, do not have that divine knowledge, so any decisions we make will be made without a sense of predetermination, i.e. we will be exercising free will from our own perspective, even if, from god's perspective, it was all predestined.

So, I guess the question is, what matters in regard to free will -- our experience of it, or the actual existence of chance in the universe?

It doesn't matter to me, personally, though. I do not venerate a god that claims omniscience and I do believe that humans control their own responses to life, though I also believe that life is cyclical, so free will is exercised within a context of repeating patterns in which what is, was, and will be again. Make of that what you like. :)

Anyway, many mystic beliefs hold that it is possible for any consciousness to transcend time and space and gain knowledge of the past, future, and distant present. In such a world view, what does that do to free will, if the person exercising it has the ability to know what the outcome will be in advance?

It is the experience of the mystic that one can know god directly, though incompletely. However, as someone who dabbles in both science and mysticism, I would agree that such an experience can not be known from a scientifc point of view. That does not mean that it unknowable. Many people know how to ride a bicycle without even understanding the scientific principles involved.
Thanks. This makes what I was trying to say much clearer -- I hope. :)

It's quite simple:

God knows and sees everything perfectly.
So he knows and sees the future perfectly.
Which means he knows your future perfectly.
Which means you can't do anything in your future except what god has seen.
Which means that your actions are predetermined.
Therefore, you have no free will.

The logic in this is flawed. It doesn't mean the problem doesn't go away but the problem is not at this level. Free will means you have the choice to choose. Naturally you can only choose to do one thing but you had that ability to choose. The sum of all actions in the universe results in a static space time universe (as Hawkings once said of it, the universe simply "is"). This the universe is like a book or a movie, with a beginning and and end and you can read the whole thing from the outside.

The fact that the universe "is" doesn't mean that free will does not exist.

The problem is when you then decide to "interfere" with the static universe. (This in turn starts making things very complex indeed.) Since you can observe the entire state of the model with every interference you either can interfere in such a way that you "stack the deck" so that your desired outcome is always reached (which does make "free will" sort of a farce) or you have to double blind your actions so that you deliberately choose not to see specifically how your actions are impacting the static universe as a whole.

(Or you do a combination of both and confuse everyone.)

Oh, I don't know.

First off, does "omnipotent" imply action, or merely ability? Does having the power to do everything automatically mean that you're going to do everything, every time?

I also do not see why a god's foreknowledge would have anything to do with OUR free will. We, after all, do not have that divine knowledge, so any decisions we make will be made without a sense of predetermination, i.e. we will be exercising free will from our own perspective, even if, from god's perspective, it was all predestined.

So, I guess the question is, what matters in regard to free will -- our experience of it, or the actual existence of chance in the universe?

It doesn't matter to me, personally, though. I do not venerate a god that claims omniscience and I do believe that humans control their own responses to life, though I also believe that life is cyclical, so free will is exercised within a context of repeating patterns in which what is, was, and will be again. Make of that what you like. :)

Anyway, many mystic beliefs hold that it is possible for any consciousness to transcend time and space and gain knowledge of the past, future, and distant present. In such a world view, what does that do to free will, if the person exercising it has the ability to know what the outcome will be in advance?


Thanks. This makes what I was trying to say much clearer -- I hope. :)

Yes, there is the idea of the god that is able to do everything, yet limits herself so that humans and other limited sentient beings can experience free will. So, god could be omnipotent in ability, but not in action. The obvious example is god refraining from daily miracles that prove his existence.

As for the illusion of free will versus the reality of it, I always just answer that by pointing out that everybody always acts as if they have free will. If it is an illusion, it is so pervasive that we can assume that we do have free will, for all practical purposes. So, if it true, then god must either refrain from knowing our future, or is incapable of knowing our future.

I would like to believe that god is learning with us, that we were created so that god could experience more. But that is merely something I amuse myself with. I have no evidence for it save my wish to play and wrestle with god.

Yes, there is the idea of the god that is able to do everything, yet limits herself so that humans and other limited sentient beings can experience free will. So, god could be omnipotent in ability, but not in action. The obvious example is god refraining from daily miracles that prove his existence.

As for the illusion of free will versus the reality of it, I always just answer that by pointing out that everybody always acts as if they have free will. If it is an illusion, it is so pervasive that we can assume that we do have free will, for all practical purposes. So, if it true, then god must either refrain from knowing our future, or is incapable of knowing our future.

I would like to believe that god is learning with us, that we were created so that god could experience more. But that is merely something I amuse myself with. I have no evidence for it save my wish to play and wrestle with god.
Meh, I don't care one way or the other. I have zero interest in these big cosmic creator gods, and I have a hard time imagining that they could possibly give a divine crap about me. The way I see it, their job is to run the universe, and they seem to be doing that just fine, and there is really nothing that I need that would require any change or intervention in what they are doing, so I don't bother them and I don't bother myself with them. And as for the God of Abraham, well, frankly, based soley on what his worshippers have said to me, I don't think I have any idea what he's about. According to them, he seems to want stuff from people and he seems to offer them stuff in return, but it's nothing I need or want, so I don't get involved with him. It seems like, between creating the world and ending it, he fills his time with resolving worries for people, only they are worries I don't suffer from, so I have no reason to appeal to him. Who knows, I or his worshippers might have it all wrong, but since he doesn't really talk to people -- at least not to me -- I tend to fall back on my assumption of mutual indifference with that god.

The only good god is a death god

doesnt that make me all the more correct?

No, it means we have to throw the pope's hat into a volcano.

Or something.

lol

or something

(added to meet the character requirements)

No, it means we have to throw the pope's hat into a volcano.

Or something.
*starts mixing vinegar and baking soda* I'll have that volcano ready in a minute. You get the hat. :D

It's quite simple:

God knows and sees everything perfectly.
So he knows and sees the future perfectly.
Which means he knows your future perfectly.
Which means you can't do anything in your future except what god has seen.
Which means that your actions are predetermined.
Therefore, you have no free will.

Yeah I get that, what I don't get is how you have no freewill just coz God knows what your actions will be.

If I wake my oldest boy up for school at 7:30, I know what his actions are going to be, does that mean that he is some how coereced, or that his 'will' is not 'free'?

Why do you equate foreknowldge with predetermination?

Which god is a good god?
Very simply, Knowledge.

Yeah I get that, what I don't get is how you have no freewill just coz God knows what your actions will be.

If I wake my oldest boy up for school at 7:30, I know what his actions are going to be, does that mean that he is some how coereced, or that his 'will' is not 'free'?

Why do you equate foreknowldge with predetermination?

Your foreknowledge of your child's activities is not comparable to an omniscient god's. There is the possibility you could be wrong. God isn't wrong.

For example, you can plan for him to brush his teeth after breakfast, but he may decide not to do it, or the toothbrush falls in the toilet, or some other unforeseen incident occurs. You can't know what might happen.

An omniscient being. on the other hand, would know exactly what will happen and how and when. An omniscient god, by definition, would know exactly what your son is going to do that morning, down to the subatomic level. If your son's actions were to deviate from god's knowledge of his future, that would mean that god's knowledge is imperfect. But since god is omniscient, his knowledge is perfect, by definition. So your son could not possibly deviate from god's vision of your son's future.

Your foreknowledge of your child's activities is not comparable to an omniscient god's. There is the possibility you could be wrong. God isn't wrong.

For example, you can plan for him to brush his teeth after breakfast, but he may decide not to do it, or the toothbrush falls in the toilet, or some other unforeseen incident occurs. You can't know what might happen.

An omniscient being. on the other hand, would know exactly what will happen and how and when. An omniscient god, by definition, would know exactly what your son is going to do that morning, down to the subatomic level. If your son's actions were to deviate from god's knowledge of his future, that would mean that god's knowledge is imperfect. But since god is omniscient, his knowledge is perfect, by definition. So your son could not possibly deviate from god's vision of your son's future.
So?

The question was, what does god's inside info have to do with MY free will?

I mean, it's not like god is cluing us into the details of our own futures, is it? So, since WE don't know the future, everything WE do is a result of OUR choices, made by OUR free will. Even if it only seems that way because we can't see tomorrow.

Maybe more than being like a parent telling a kid to do something and being confident that the kid will do it, it's more like this:

A person is watching you do something difficult and elaborate, like building an addition on your home all by yourself. And this person has watched many, many people do this kind of task. In fact, this person actually is the author of the definitive book on how to build additions on your home all by yourself, and therefore he knows that you are doing it wrong. And this person also knows, because they get cable news, that a big storm is coming that is going to destroy all your work just as you are about to hammer in the last finishing nail, because you built it wrong. Yet this person says nothing and just lets you proceed on your merry way, making all your decisions for yourself. And sure enough, the storm comes, and your addition is destroyed because you built it wrong, just as the other person knew it would all along, and he just laughs and says, "That was inevitable."

Now, tell me, did that person's foreknowledge of how your efforts would turn out negate your ability to make free choices about what you were doing? If so, how?

Note: I do not think that the other person knowing what the outcome of your efforts would be has anything at all to do with your ability to make choices. I do not believe that an outcome being inevitable negates free choice.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think your notion of free will requires our choices to be informed choices or else they're not free. So, if there is any party who has more information about future events than you do -- at least, if you are aware that such a person exists -- then that somehow negates your ability to make choices. But I fail to see how a choice made without full information is not a free choice.

So?

The question was, what does god's inside info have to do with MY free will?
...
Actually, now that I think of it, I think your notion of free will requires our choices to be informed choices or else they're not free. So, if there is any party who has more information about future events than you do -- at least, if you are aware that such a person exists -- then that somehow negates your ability to make choices. But I fail to see how a choice made without full information is not a free choice.

To me it boils down to a question as to whther or not the future is knowable. The master builder watching me put the addition on my house may have a clear knowledge of my design and construction flaws, but (s)he does not know how many blows it will take to drive home the next nail. His or her knowledge is imperfect and limited.

An omniscient god has perfect and unlimited knowledge. For a being to have perfect knowledge of the future, the future would have to be knowable, and the being would have to know it with exactitude. This means that this being would also have to have perfect knowledge of what I will be doing exactly thrity years in the future. Now, either I do things exactly as this being has envisioned, which implies that any free will I experienced was an illusion; or I deviate from such knowledge, in which case the omniscient being is not omniscient.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I just asked one question: Can I choose to do something other than what god has seen in my future?

To me it boils down to a question as to whther or not the future is knowable. The master builder watching me put the addition on my house may have a clear knowledge of my design and construction flaws, but (s)he does not know how many blows it will take to drive home the next nail. His or her knowledge is imperfect and limited.
How can you know the limits of his knowledge? How can you know that any more than you can know the future? You are operating on an assumption that certain rules and limitations apply to certain persons, yet I don't see any reason to assume that such rules and limitations exist at all.

An omniscient god has perfect and unlimited knowledge.
Literalmindedness is an irritating little bugbear. In the rhetorical ancedote I posted, the master builder WAS the omniscient and omnipotent god.

For a being to have perfect knowledge of the future, the future would have to be knowable, and the being would have to know it with exactitude. This means that this being would also have to have perfect knowledge of what I will be doing exactly thrity years in the future.
Yes.

Now, either I do things exactly as this being has envisioned, which implies that any free will I experienced was an illusion; or I deviate from such knowledge, in which case the omniscient being is not omniscient.
No, this does not follow.

What does the consequence/outcome of your choices after the fact have to do with your ability to make choices before the fact?

What does what another party (god) know have to do with what YOU know when it comes to you making decisions and choices?

If the future is knowable (and not just predictable), then that could imply that the future already exists in some manner. What does the existence of the future have to do with whether you know anything about it or not when making decisions that will carry you towards it?

Example without reference to any god: There is a massive sink hole several miles ahead of you on the highway you are driving on. Its existence is a fact and is therefore knowable. The sink hole is hidden by a dense fog. If you drive too fast through this fog, it is inevitable that you will crash into the sink hole because it engulphs the entire width of the highway. However, even though the sink hole is a knowable fact, you do NOT know that the sink hole is there because the fog hides it.

Now, despite the knowability of this future encounter with the sink hole, despite the inevitability of the outcome of any decision to drive too fast through this fog, since YOU do not know that the sink hole is there, are you or are you not free to decide whether to drive fast or slow through that fog? And will your decision to drive at whatever speed be a result of your exercise of free will, or not, regardless of whether the outcome of a crash is avoidable or not?

Perhaps it would be clearer if I just asked one question: Can I choose to do something other than what god has seen in my future?
Can you jump naked into a pool of water and choose not to get wet? Your future is your future, regardless of whether it is known in advance by a god or not.

The real question of free will is NOT whether a god has anything to do with it. The real question is whether the future already exists or not, and that question is independent of any conception of god(s).

If the future does not already exist but is created as a result of our actions, then free will obviously exists because none of our actions is pre-ordained -- we cannot know what results will occur to dictate our next actions. If such is the case, then the future is not knowable because it is not a fact, but it may be predictable if certain patterns repeat often enough -- like what goes up eventually comes down, and people who jump into pools of water get wet -- which would be a matter of predicting future performance based on past performance.

On the other hand, if the future does already exist, and every action, result and responding action is already ordained and set in stone and inevitable, then what is free will? In such a case, it would seem that free will is an illusion created by ignorance of future facts. We only think we are making choices because we cannot see the life track we are on. We think we are actively pursuing things in life, when in fact we are just passively receiving what life brings us and was going to bring us anyway, no matter what we think we can do to influence it.

Now, in the second case, there is a related question: Does it matter? What is important about free will in such a reality? Is it enough for it to be relevant only to our inner reality? In other words, is our experience of reality more important to us than whatever the true mechanism of reality is? (This, I think, is the question behind "The Matrix" fictional reality.)

And in both reality scenarios, there is another thing to consider: Neither one of them requires the existence of a god.

If free will is a means of experiencing reality, then its nature and very existence are dependent on the nature of reality itself. And reality exists even for atheists, so god becomes irrelevant to the whole free will issue. In othe words, resolving questions about the nature of god(s) will not resolve questions about the nature of free will, and vice versa.

So, if this is the case, then what does omniscience mean?

It would seem to me that, if the future does not already exist, then omniscience would be a divine-level of predictive ability. Like the master builder in my story, the omniscient god would be predicting the future based on the past, but he would be doing so with so much data about the past and so much understanding of the systems at work that his predictions are always accurate. (Or nearly always. There are mythic tales, including Christian ones, that have God being tricked or misled by the Devil. By the way, such myths also often characterize God and the Devil as friends or brothers.)

On the other hand, if the future does already exist (maybe because, being omnipotent, the god already made it), then omniscience is a present awareness of what already exists. In such a case, then all talk of knowing the future is meaningless in reference to the god because for the god, there is no future. There is only the present. Yet for us, who do not know everything that the god knows, there is a future, because we cannot see beyond the horizon of our conscious awareness, and everything that lies beyond that horizon, even though it currently exists, will not be experienced until we get closer to it, so we call it the future. In this case, god's "foreknowledge" is really just a broader perspective on the present than ours. In any event, it still leaves us with the question of does what the god know have any relevance to what we do?

How can you know the limits of his knowledge? How can you know that any more than you can know the future? You are operating on an assumption that certain rules and limitations apply to certain persons, yet I don't see any reason to assume that such rules and limitations exist at all.

Literalmindedness is an irritating little bugbear. In the rhetorical ancedote I posted, the master builder WAS the omniscient and omnipotent god.

I get the feeling that I either misunderstood you at one point, or you misunderstood me. If the master builder is omniscient, (s)he wouldn't need the cable news to know about the oncoming storm.

No, this does not follow.

What does the consequence/outcome of your choices after the fact have to do with your ability to make choices before the fact?

What does what another party (god) know have to do with what YOU know when it comes to you making decisions and choices?

If the future is knowable (and not just predictable), then that could imply that the future already exists in some manner. What does the existence of the future have to do with whether you know anything about it or not when making decisions that will carry you towards it?

Example without reference to any god: There is a massive sink hole several miles ahead of you on the highway you are driving on. Its existence is a fact and is therefore knowable. The sink hole is hidden by a dense fog. If you drive too fast through this fog, it is inevitable that you will crash into the sink hole because it engulphs the entire width of the highway. However, even though the sink hole is a knowable fact, you do NOT know that the sink hole is there because the fog hides it.

Now, despite the knowability of this future encounter with the sink hole, despite the inevitability of the outcome of any decision to drive too fast through this fog, since YOU do not know that the sink hole is there, are you or are you not free to decide whether to drive fast or slow through that fog? And will your decision to drive at whatever speed be a result of your exercise of free will, or not, regardless of whether the outcome of a crash is avoidable or not?

The future is partly knowable. If I drop my book, I know it will fall to the floor in the near future and I will lose my page once again. But it is not entirely knowable with our current technology, and may never be if Heisenberg was correct. People are sources of novelty. So are mutations. And so are accidents. I could speed through the fog, and due to a flat tire, avoid the sink hole.

Can you jump naked into a pool of water and choose not to get wet? Your future is your future, regardless of whether it is known in advance by a god or not.

The real question of free will is NOT whether a god has anything to do with it. The real question is whether the future already exists or not, and that question is independent of any conception of god(s).

God cannot know my future if it is not written yet, if it has yet to exist. The only way for god to know my future is if my future is both knowable and known.

If the future does not already exist but is created as a result of our actions, then free will obviously exists because none of our actions is pre-ordained -- we cannot know what results will occur to dictate our next actions. If such is the case, then the future is not knowable because it is not a fact, but it may be predictable if certain patterns repeat often enough -- like what goes up eventually comes down, and people who jump into pools of water get wet -- which would be a matter of predicting future performance based on past performance.

On the other hand, if the future does already exist, and every action, result and responding action is already ordained and set in stone and inevitable, then what is free will? In such a case, it would seem that free will is an illusion created by ignorance of future facts. We only think we are making choices because we cannot see the life track we are on. We think we are actively pursuing things in life, when in fact we are just passively receiving what life brings us and was going to bring us anyway, no matter what we think we can do to influence it.

Yes.


Now, in the second case, there is a related question: Does it matter? What is important about free will in such a reality? Is it enough for it to be relevant only to our inner reality? In other words, is our experience of reality more important to us than whatever the true mechanism of reality is? (This, I think, is the question behind "The Matrix" fictional reality.)

And in both reality scenarios, there is another thing to consider: Neither one of them requires the existence of a god.

I don't like the idea of a deterministic universe, and I would rather experience reality than experience my experience of it. And neither of them require a god, that's true.

If free will is a means of experiencing reality, then its nature and very existence are dependent on the nature of reality itself. And reality exists even for atheists, so god becomes irrelevant to the whole free will issue. In othe words, resolving questions about the nature of god(s) will not resolve questions about the nature of free will, and vice versa.

Is free will a means of experiencing reality? I thought of it more as a characteristic or attribute of reality. Something inherent in reality rather than a vehicle for experiencing it. I disagree that god is irrelevant to the free will issue. If we figure out that an omniscient god is logically incompatible with a random and chaotic universe, and we also resolve that we live in such a universe, then we would also, as intelligent theists, have to admit that god is not omniscient.

So, if this is the case, then what does omniscience mean?

It would seem to me that, if the future does not already exist, then omniscience would be a divine-level of predictive ability. Like the master builder in my story, the omniscient god would be predicting the future based on the past, but he would be doing so with so much data about the past and so much understanding of the systems at work that his predictions are always accurate. (Or nearly always. There are mythic tales, including Christian ones, that have God being tricked or misled by the Devil. By the way, such myths also often characterize God and the Devil as friends or brothers.)

On the other hand, if the future does already exist (maybe because, being omnipotent, the god already made it), then omniscience is a present awareness of what already exists. In such a case, then all talk of knowing the future is meaningless in reference to the god because for the god, there is no future. There is only the present. Yet for us, who do not know everything that the god knows, there is a future, because we cannot see beyond the horizon of our conscious awareness, and everything that lies beyond that horizon, even though it currently exists, will not be experienced until we get closer to it, so we call it the future. In this case, god's "foreknowledge" is really just a broader perspective on the present than ours. In any event, it still leaves us with the question of does what the god know have any relevance to what we do?

I don't mind having a god that is correct 999.99999999999% of the time, as that would still mean I have some control over my own destiny.

I get the feeling that I either misunderstood you at one point, or you misunderstood me. If the master builder is omniscient, (s)he wouldn't need the cable news to know about the oncoming storm.
Like I said, literalmindedness is an annoying little gremlin of a habit. You should try to reign it in a bit.

The future is partly knowable. If I drop my book, I know it will fall to the floor in the near future and I will lose my page once again. But it is not entirely knowable with our current technology, and may never be if Heisenberg was correct. People are sources of novelty. So are mutations. And so are accidents. I could speed through the fog, and due to a flat tire, avoid the sink hole.
Do you actually KNOW that if you drop your book, it will fall to the floor rather than float away? Or are you merely relying on a predictive assumption that it will do so, based on all the other times in the past that things have been dropped and fallen until they hit the ground? In other words, do you know the future, or are you predicting future performance based on past performance?

Now obviously, it is safe to rely on gravity, but do you really KNOW that it works the way we think it does? Do you have absolute certainty that there is no circumstance under which it would not work thus? What about if you were in a very high aircraft or under an extreme weather condition? Such conditions have been known to fuck with how things fall through the air. Are you absolutely certain that there are no other circumstances in which that might happen? Is your knowledge of the natural world that complete?

I put it to you that, in fact, you do not KNOW what will happen if you drop your book. You merely assume what will happen. It is a safe assumption, because the chances that something else will happen are neglible. But that is not the same as KNOWING what will happen.

Besides which, I have often dropped books without losing my page. The book lands in such a way that it remains open to the page I was reading. So, the chances that your "knowledge" about that part of the scenario would prove to be wrong are much higher than the chances that it would never hit the ground. In addition, have you never had it happen that you think you have avoided something, only to blunder into it in a different way? What makes you think the flat tire would itself be enough to keep you out of the sink hole, if you still don't know that it was there? I can easily envision you stopping to put on your spare tire, then driving another ten yards, and plummeting into the hole to the inevitable crash.

God cannot know my future if it is not written yet, if it has yet to exist. The only way for god to know my future is if my future is both knowable and known.
That's why I said omniscience would be predictive based on superior knowledge of the past. Remember when I said that?

Yes.



I don't like the idea of a deterministic universe, and I would rather experience reality than experience my experience of it. And neither of them require a god, that's true.
You can like whatever you like. It's not germane to my point. You'll notice that I treated both possible reality models equally. This is because I was not trying to promote one or the other, merely examining the question of whether a god matters to the issue of free will by imagining how god and free will might work viewed from both angles. My point was that the omniscience of a god does not matter to human free will, either way.

Is free will a means of experiencing reality? I thought of it more as a characteristic or attribute of reality.
I don't think of it that way, but perhaps it would have been better if I had said free will was a means of responding to reality.

Something inherent in reality rather than a vehicle for experiencing it.
How would that work? Do you think that reality only exists within human consciousness, or do you think everything that exists has free will? A tree is real. Does a tree have free will?

I disagree that god is irrelevant to the free will issue.
Yeah, I figured that out. :tongue:

If we figure out that an omniscient god is logically incompatible with a random and chaotic universe, and we also resolve that we live in such a universe, then we would also, as intelligent theists, have to admit that god is not omniscient.
First off, I have never held that god(s) is/are omniscient. I have merely argued that the concept of omniscience does not negate the concept of free will. I have been arguing the concept, not my own beliefs. Just reiterating for the record.

However, second, I decline to presume to know the limits of what is possible. I especially will not use my own logic as the ultimate measure of what is consistent with how the universe works. I will not pretend that my speculations about what might be are any indication of what actually is. Therefore I will not accept the suggestion that omniscience is necessarily inconsistent with a random and chaotic universe.

Third, I also do not accept as given the dichotomous choice between a random, chaotic universe (in which the future is not knowable) and a pre-ordained, planned one (in which the future is knowable). There are other options, one of which I alluded to earlier in this thread -- the cyclical universe, which is neither planned nor chaotic.

Further, and fourth, I am inclined not to accept the presupposition that a planned universe, if such exists, is inherently knowable, while a chaotic universe, if such exists, is inherently unknowable.

I don't mind having a god that is correct 999.99999999999% of the time, as that would still mean I have some control over my own destiny.
But how do you know that you have any control over it? Even supposing there is no such thing as a god of any kind, how do you know how the universe works and why you do the things you do and why you get the experiences you get in life? How do you know it is not all a preset program that is just running automatically and over which you have no control? Or how do you know you are not just playing out a cycle that has been repeated many times before and will be repeated many times to come?

Your foreknowledge of your child's activities is not comparable to an omniscient god's. There is the possibility you could be wrong. God isn't wrong.

For example, you can plan for him to brush his teeth after breakfast, but he may decide not to do it, or the toothbrush falls in the toilet, or some other unforeseen incident occurs. You can't know what might happen.

An omniscient being. on the other hand, would know exactly what will happen and how and when. An omniscient god, by definition, would know exactly what your son is going to do that morning, down to the subatomic level. If your son's actions were to deviate from god's knowledge of his future, that would mean that god's knowledge is imperfect. But since god is omniscient, his knowledge is perfect, by definition. So your son could not possibly deviate from god's vision of your son's future.

Yes of course my foreknowledge is not comparible to Gods, that is besides the point though, and slighty red herringish'.

The question is how does God's forenowledge mean that I have no free will?

Again an example. My sister in law, is a fat old beast, and I can garentee that when any snacks are around she will always manage to have the last one, the last cake, or choc, or bicuit whatever.
I know this after years of knowing her, after years of being in her company.

Yes of course she may suppriese me one day and not take the last snack, but I know with a high degree of certianty that she always will.

Does my knowledge of her mean that when she takes that last cake, that I have somehow coerced her into doing so, or has she freely chossen her actions, and my knowldege has no such effect?

Perhaps it would be clearer if I just asked one question: Can I choose to do something other than what god has seen in my future?


Ahhhh yes I get that, but doesn't that line of thinking assume that God experiances the same way as we do, in a linier manor?

Ah good God is a a God of justice, and for the record I am a Muslim.

I do believe that God/Allah or whatever you want to call him is transcendent of space and time, therefore he knows what will happen. And since he is all powerful, he is able to change the world the way he wants to.

Ahhhh yes I get that, but doesn't that line of thinking assume that God experiances the same way as we do, in a linier manor?

That's not relevant, most theists believe God is transcendent and not within our time frame. If God knows the future of our time frame, that must mean our time frame is linear and we are determined.

I don't know, it could be that we just experiance time as linear. If God does not then can it really be said that God knows our actions before we do?

Perhaps instead, God's foreknowledge comes to God as we act?

Anyhoo that is all still beyond the point. How does foreknowledge = predetermination?

Anyhoo that is all still beyond the point. How does foreknowledge = predetermination?
If a being had perfect knowledge of what was going to happen in the future, that would imply that the future was determined, as how could one know what was going to happen unless nothing else could happen?

I don't know, it could be that we just experiance time as linear. If God does not then can it really be said that God knows our actions before we do?


That's not what we're discussing, we are discussing whether we have free will if God knows the future, not whether God knows the future completely or not.


Anyhoo that is all still beyond the point. How does foreknowledge = predetermination?

Because one is impossible without the other.

Like I said, literalmindedness is an annoying little gremlin of a habit. You should try to reign it in a bit.


Do you actually KNOW that if you drop your book, it will fall to the floor rather than float away? Or are you merely relying on a predictive assumption that it will do so, based on all the other times in the past that things have been dropped and fallen until they hit the ground? In other words, do you know the future, or are you predicting future performance based on past performance?

Now obviously, it is safe to rely on gravity, but do you really KNOW that it works the way we think it does? Do you have absolute certainty that there is no circumstance under which it would not work thus? What about if you were in a very high aircraft or under an extreme weather condition? Such conditions have been known to fuck with how things fall through the air. Are you absolutely certain that there are no other circumstances in which that might happen? Is your knowledge of the natural world that complete?

I put it to you that, in fact, you do not KNOW what will happen if you drop your book. You merely assume what will happen. It is a safe assumption, because the chances that something else will happen are neglible. But that is not the same as KNOWING what will happen.

Besides which, I have often dropped books without losing my page. The book lands in such a way that it remains open to the page I was reading. So, the chances that your "knowledge" about that part of the scenario would prove to be wrong are much higher than the chances that it would never hit the ground. In addition, have you never had it happen that you think you have avoided something, only to blunder into it in a different way? What makes you think the flat tire would itself be enough to keep you out of the sink hole, if you still don't know that it was there? I can easily envision you stopping to put on your spare tire, then driving another ten yards, and plummeting into the hole to the inevitable crash.


That's why I said omniscience would be predictive based on superior knowledge of the past. Remember when I said that?


You can like whatever you like. It's not germane to my point. You'll notice that I treated both possible reality models equally. This is because I was not trying to promote one or the other, merely examining the question of whether a god matters to the issue of free will by imagining how god and free will might work viewed from both angles. My point was that the omniscience of a god does not matter to human free will, either way.


I don't think of it that way, but perhaps it would have been better if I had said free will was a means of responding to reality.


How would that work? Do you think that reality only exists within human consciousness, or do you think everything that exists has free will? A tree is real. Does a tree have free will?


Yeah, I figured that out. :tongue:


First off, I have never held that god(s) is/are omniscient. I have merely argued that the concept of omniscience does not negate the concept of free will. I have been arguing the concept, not my own beliefs. Just reiterating for the record.

However, second, I decline to presume to know the limits of what is possible. I especially will not use my own logic as the ultimate measure of what is consistent with how the universe works. I will not pretend that my speculations about what might be are any indication of what actually is. Therefore I will not accept the suggestion that omniscience is necessarily inconsistent with a random and chaotic universe.

Third, I also do not accept as given the dichotomous choice between a random, chaotic universe (in which the future is not knowable) and a pre-ordained, planned one (in which the future is knowable). There are other options, one of which I alluded to earlier in this thread -- the cyclical universe, which is neither planned nor chaotic.

Further, and fourth, I am inclined not to accept the presupposition that a planned universe, if such exists, is inherently knowable, while a chaotic universe, if such exists, is inherently unknowable.


But how do you know that you have any control over it? Even supposing there is no such thing as a god of any kind, how do you know how the universe works and why you do the things you do and why you get the experiences you get in life? How do you know it is not all a preset program that is just running automatically and over which you have no control? Or how do you know you are not just playing out a cycle that has been repeated many times before and will be repeated many times to come?

Sorry about my last post. I reread it later and realised how badly written it was. That's what I get for posting at work while thinking about my lover.

Okay, I see how you make a difference between knowledge and predictive ability. In that sense, you are correct, I have no knowledge that my book will fall and I will lose my page (I'm reading an old sci-fi novel that has a spine worn so badly that it won't hold a memory of the page I'm on), but I can predict with a reasonable amount of accuracy that such would be the case.

I don't think it would be omniscience if it was based on a predictive aspect. It would just be extremely good guesses. This may seem like a hair-splitting thingy, but to me it's an important qualitative distinction.

By the way, i'm defining omniscience as something other than really good guesswork. If I understood your distinction between knowing and predicting, then you could say that it is a god with perfect knowledge, rather than a god who makes extremely accurate, though possibly flawed, predictions based on extremely widespread, but not perfect, knowledge of the initial conditions. To me, omniscience, means knowing everything that is in reality. Past, present and future. And always being correct in that knowledge.

If omniscience is based on a transcendent being's ability to exist outside of time and space, and our future is predetermined, it's all simple and clear, right? God is basically just looking at the entire timescape from 'transcendect place'. But I also see it happening the other way. If we start with the idea that god is omniscient, we have to accept that even if a multiplicity of universes is potentially possible, god already has the knowledge of which one will be realised. And if any other potential reality is realised, the omniscience is flawed. So, god's omniscience does not cause a predetermined universe, but it creates a situation where only one universe is possible, and then we act out that universe so that god won't be wrong.

If god does not know which potential universe will be realised, but has a really good prediction as to which one will be realised, there is still a chance of novelty. We know the tree will grow to the sun, but the tree has enough free will (if we think of will in tree terms) to grow in ways that are spontaneous, organic and novel.

In my view, the universe seems to have knowable bits. We know that gravity will act in an attractive manner between two masses. We can then use this knowledge to make accurate predictions about the future. We are often correct, and often wrong. To me, this is evidence of actual novelty in our reality. If god wanted such an orderly universe, why did he make people so weird?

You ask me how I know we that we aren't living in a predetermined universe. I don't. I just have this overwhelming feeling that I exercise free will. I act in accordance with it, and everyone I meet seems to also be acting in accordance with a belief in free will. Even those who say they believe in a predetermined universe.

Yes of course my foreknowledge is not comparible to Gods, that is besides the point though, and slighty red herringish'.

The question is how does God's forenowledge mean that I have no free will?

Again an example. My sister in law, is a fat old beast, and I can garentee that when any snacks are around she will always manage to have the last one, the last cake, or choc, or bicuit whatever.
I know this after years of knowing her, after years of being in her company.

Yes of course she may suppriese me one day and not take the last snack, but I know with a high degree of certianty that she always will.

Does my knowledge of her mean that when she takes that last cake, that I have somehow coerced her into doing so, or has she freely chossen her actions, and my knowldege has no such effect?

Actually, god's perfect knowledge is central to the point and not a red herring at all. If god has exact and perfect knowledge of your future, then your future is known, which means it is knowable.

This goes beyond mere predictive ability, to certain knowledge. A god who can predict with astonishing accuracy leaves room, however slight, for chance and novelty. A god who has exact and precise knowledge of upcoming events does not.

Ahhhh yes I get that, but doesn't that line of thinking assume that God experiances the same way as we do, in a linier manor?

No. In fact, it assumes that god does not see time in a linear manner. It assumes a transcendent god that exists outside of space and time, or is somehow otherwise capable of viewing time outside of our paradigm.

Ah good God is a a God of justice, and for the record I am a Muslim.

I do believe that God/Allah or whatever you want to call him is transcendent of space and time, therefore he knows what will happen. And since he is all powerful, he is able to change the world the way he wants to.

Yes. Most Muslims believe in a predetermined universe as a consequence of god's omniscience and omnipotence.

That's not what we're discussing, we are discussing whether we have free will if God knows the future, not whether God knows the future completely or not.

Well you say that but I find it releveant.

The word 'foreknowledge' in this case may be a misnomer, as I have said it implies that God's view of time is also linear.

If this idea is wrong, if say for example God views time all at once, and it is only us that views time in a linear fashion, then 'Fore''Knowledge' is only 'fore' from our perspective.


Because one is impossible without the other.

How so? No really, please endevour to explain it to me, coz I just don't see it.

If a being had perfect knowledge of what was going to happen in the future, that would imply that the future was determined, as how could one know what was going to happen unless nothing else could happen?

That does not show any predetermination at all, it only shows foreknowldege.

If this idea is wrong, if say for example God views time all at once, and it is only us that views time in a linear fashion, then 'Fore''Knowledge' is only 'fore' from our perspective.


Well I never actually used that word.


How so? No really, please endevour to explain it to me, coz I just don't see it.

You can't know the future if the future isn't already determined. If God knows that I'm going to eat a sandwich for lunch, he can't possibly know (not predict) this if this event isn't already pre-determined.

That does not show any predetermination at all, it only shows foreknowldege.
How so?

If the same being who created the universe also knew of every event that was going to transpire in said universe, prior to the event taking place, it would be disingenuous to say that the being had not predetermined everything that was to transpire.

It kick-started the events which led to human choices, and knew in advance what those choices were. Predetermination.

It kick-started the events which led to human choices, and knew in advance what those choices were. Predetermination.

It's only "predetermination" if he set up all the parameters so that the outcome would be guarenteed. If he double blinded some of the parameters and only ran the kickstart once then there was no determination in it whatsoever, "pre" or otherwise.

There are many ways to view the concept of diety, I personaly find much fault in the Christian concept, hence I ain't no Christian.

Which concept is the best one?

Come on now, don't be shy, leave your gloves at the door!:D

Honestly, Christianity gets one of the worse raps in the United States.
While the Hebrew God was all for destroying ither nations in order to make way for its own the Christian God takes the fundemental goods of Judiasim and refines it. Although the imperial era used christianity as a way of justification its original intent was to improve the spiritual life of the person in practice. Of course one of the major improvements in christianity, the remission of sin, only works if somebody believes sin exists.
With an ever decreasing religous nation, the U.S.ofA., the Christian faith has been scorned due to ignorance on both sides of the table and the lack of forgiveness of the general public.
Other gods of other faiths have failed in attempts to actually show themselves wholly useful, not very many instill humanitarianism which is one of the fundemental functions of good religion. If you observe the world stage you will see that many of the socialist systems reflect christian values. So I say to you the best God there is is the Christian one.
However, if one brings up the argument that Christanity is narrow minded or in some way always striking down religions I must point out that the religous text in which many of the followers use points out to not be a stumbling block to your neighbor in almost any way, so in short any christian who disrespect anothers idol is going against the word of God and is thus performing the religion badly.

If according to the religious side, god was here first and created EVERYTHING, and not the big bang or whatever you'd like to call it, where did 'god' come from? Hmmmm?

This is a very simple answer and your argument is a strawmans argument. First the bible does not disregard anything about the big bang theory, in fact there is a Jewish tale of something very similar to the big bang theory, even evolution itself cannot be ruled out by the bible although Darwins translation of evolution is greatly flawed, that however is another topic entirely. As for where did God come from, he is an infinite immortal being and has no begining nor an end. By the way, because this is philosophy and not science this is totally possible conceptually.

Gahhh! I hate philosphical discussions on forums! Makes my head spin! :headbang:

I better get used to it I guess.