Remaining Jewish and Christian Relics

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I guess you have far too much baggage to see it for what it is...it's much easier to take it out of context.
To Saint Augustine, temptation and curiosity are sins; our thoughts need only be directed at the glorification of a non-existent entity.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Apparently the God you were exposed to doesn't! But is that God's fault or your parents? If God doesn't exist...
What do you think of the following verses?
Malachi 3:6 said:
For I am the LORD, I change not...
Hebrews 13:8 said:
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
And how could an omnipotent deity be moral one day and wrong the next, when he doesn't experience time in the same fashion as us mortals?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Cool. Moses. But wasn't his God Abraham's God? Who are the rest of these MEN?
Moses is the lawgiver of the Hebrews; you could argue that Abraham's God is actually Adam's or Seth's. You cannot escape that Moses and other Hebrew leaders valued only the life of their kinsmen. Mohammed stands out as a better example of a murderous prophet (see the slaughter of the Qurayza), but Islam is also a more flawed (or, at least, less evolved) religion. In a world where gods do not exist, those who kill over their religion are delusional maniacs, not righteous men.
Rocket Surgeon said:
...and how do we know of this story? Because of a religion? Because they felt it important enough to write it down? The religious value?
They felt it important enough to drive home the idea that God is all-knowing and one cannot question his authority, setting in motion the pattern we see throughout history where the authority of the strong or divinely inspired is not to be questioned. Assume for a minute that God does not exist: now we have a story about a man submitting to voices in his head and only stopping at the last minute to spare the life of his son.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Judaism is full of lovely examples of science, that washing your hands before you eat will make you clean...
And sleeping with other men will make you unclean, and eating shellfish makes you unclean, and be sure not to wear both wool and linen! Also, you'll get stoned to death if you're a disrespectful child or a drunken son, and woe unto thee if you're suspected of witchcraft!
Rocket Surgeon said:
I guess you could say the difference was mercy, (on Abraham's part)...
Only if you're a Hebrew!
Rocket Surgeon said:
Religion was the begining of a formal scientific system in terms that were accessible to common man. It evolved.
And in that sense it is obsolete.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sweetheart, Evolution is a THEORY. You may want to revist your misconceptions about some other things.
In the words of Stephen Jay Gould (who, as a matter of fact, contended that religion and science do not conflict):
Evolution as Fact and Theory said:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
U.S. National Academy of Science said:
Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong
HJ Muller said:
...I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.
Neil Campbell said:
The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
Most people who refer to evolution as "only a theory" misunderstand the scientific meaning for "theory" versus the colloquial. Evolution has not been a "hypothesis" for a long time.
Rocket Surgeon said:
OH, what was my error that merited your [sic]?
A trivial error.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well you're on the road still...did you believe the universe was six thousand years old?
For a very short time. I was taught, as Ken Ham teaches, that the Word of God necessarily conflicts with the lies of man, which include science. It requires a kind of doublethink to be an A-student for so many years while still believing something other than what you write on your science tests. I knew that the facts were out there but believed that my faith would be undermined should I dare venture away from the esoteric knowledge afforded to us Christians by ancient texts. If I have the faith to believe that God impregnated a virgin girl to raise a perfect man to die for my sins before then returning triumphant over death, why would I lack the faith to believe in other fantastic events from the same book?

As far as "legitimate experts" go, I'm sure Father Malachi knew far more than I do when it comes to linguistic and Biblical history, but why am I to believe that he is more likely to know the mind of God? My original statement was more directed at the Pope and the prophets than modern priests, because people like Malachi are experts on what others have said. (Though most pastors here in Appalachia like to tell you about what God has told them personally on Sunday mornings.) Why are we beholden to trust what those others (the Apostles and the authors of all "holy" books) have said in the first place?

Really, I think this conversation is destined to go nowhere so long as you only question what I have said and put forth no hypothesis of your own. Are you saying that God exists, but not the Biblical version of Him? Or are you saying that God exists, and it is the Biblical version of Him, but you wish to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe in?
 
Last edited:
WillKill4Food said:
To Saint Augustine, temptation and curiosity are sins; our thoughts need only be directed at the glorification of a non-existent entity.
You may as well enter the All-England Summarize Proust Competition.

WillKill4Food said:
What do you think of the following verses?
Old Testament/God New Testament/Son of God

WillKill4Food said:
And how could an omnipotent deity be moral one day and wrong the next, when he doesn't experience time in the same fashion as us mortals?
Can God make a Stone so heavy he can't lift it?:rolleyes:

WillKill4Food said:
Moses is the lawgiver of the Hebrews; you could argue that Abraham's God is actually Adam's or Seth's. You cannot escape that Moses and other Hebrew leaders valued only the life of their kinsmen.
Thou shall not kill a Hebrew? Is that the sixth commandment?

WillKill4Food said:
In a world where gods do not exist, those who kill over their religion are delusional maniacs, not righteous men.
Even in a world where God does exist!

WillKill4Food said:
They felt it important enough to drive home the idea that God is all-knowing and one cannot question his authority, setting in motion the pattern we see throughout history where the authority of the strong or divinely inspired is not to be questioned.
Only for weak minded sheep. There are many scholars who questioned God and His nature.


WillKill4Food said:
Assume for a minute that God does not exist: now we have a story about a man submitting to voices in his head and only stopping at the last minute to spare the life of his son.
Ok, I'll indulge you. But it changes nothing. It may simply be Abraham never intended to kill his son, but established a mythology to teach sheep, I mean pagans...um, people not to kill their own.

WillKill4Food said:
And sleeping with other men will make you unclean,
Well, that's certainly true from a certain point of view. If you engage in sodomy...remember these are people without indoor plumbing! Poop was the cause of a LOT of problems back then...and still is for that matter! They weren't the most sanitary specimens back then.

WillKill4Food said:
...and eating shellfish makes you unclean, and be sure not to wear both wool and linen! Also, you'll get stoned to death if you're a disrespectful child or a drunken son, and woe unto thee if you're suspected of witchcraft!
Yes, yes, did you forget my point about it all being "Kindergarden Science"? Not to mention men who would corrupt the message for their own purpose. Satan quoted scripture to tempt Jesus.

WillKill4Food said:
Only if you're a Hebrew!
The allegory doesn't discriminate on the uncircumsized...anyone exposed to the story can learn mercy.

WillKill4Food said:
And in that sense it is obsolete.
You have to reexamine some things Will. You've gone from one extreme to the other. There are truths to be discovered still.

WillKill4Food said:
...Most people who refer to evolution as "only a theory" misunderstand the scientific meaning for "theory" versus the colloquial. Evolution has not been a "hypothesis" for a long time.

So you accept the Theory of Evolution as an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument from authority...a consensus existing among legitimate experts.

You used to consider Kan Ham an expert too...

WillKill4Food said:
As far as "legitimate experts" go, I'm sure Father Malachi knew far more than I do when it comes to linguistic and Biblical history, but why am I to believe that he is more likely to know the mind of God?
I could ask the same of science and Stephen Gould. "More likely" he would be better qualified to judge the mind of God than you. But like any man or scientist he is subject to corruption.

WillKill4Food said:
My original statement was more directed at the Pope and the prophets than modern priests, because people like Malachi are experts on what others have said. (Though most pastors here in Appalachia like to tell you about what God has told them personally on Sunday mornings.) Why are we beholden to trust what those others (the Apostles and the authors of all "holy" books) have said in the first place?

You're not beholden. You have free will. As I wrote, all these great prophets are fallible and religion has evolved as a result. Like science!

Science? Whose your daddy? That right baby! Religion!:)

WillKill4Food said:
Really, I think this conversation is destined to go nowhere so long as you only question what I have said and put forth no hypothesis of your own. Are you saying that God exists, but not the Biblical version of Him? Or are you saying that God exists, and it is the Biblical version of Him, but you wish to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe in?
Personally I believe. Who will prove the unified/theory of everything first? Science has hit the wall recently and gotten lazy.

Is String Theory a scientific theory?

The point being religion was early science, and encouraged those pursuits. Was it a perfect model? None by man is right?

I think you're still locked into the belief, (like those around you) that the Bible is supposed to be fact. The Bible is one long article of faith...about Spirituality and meditations on the practices of the day.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well, that's certainly true from a certain point of view. If you engage in sodomy...remember these are people without indoor plumbing! Poop was the cause of a LOT of problems back then...and still is for that matter! They weren't the most sanitary specimens back then.

Having recently escaped from the restroom in the back passage of the 'Shia LaBeouf Lounge' I find this post.

It's no wonder the monks of Britain took to washing their hands before dining. Some bits of religion don't evolve. The truth just leaks into the public domain.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
You may as well enter the All-England Summarize Proust Competition.
Ahem! That is more or less what Augustine said; if my interpretation is so wrong, feel free to correct it and show me how I've ignored nuance.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Old Testament/God New Testament/Son of God
One quote was from the Old, one from the New. That ^ doesn't explain anything. (Of course, the Bible is full of contradictions, even more of a reason to dismiss it.)
Rocket Surgeon said:
Can God make a Stone so heavy he can't lift it?:rolleyes:
I meant omniscient earlier instead of omnipotent, but all those O-words sort of go together when describing deities. What I fail to see is how a being who sees all time as if it were one instant could possibly see a need to change over time when, as it turns out, He doesn't experience time in the sense that we do at all. The Bible's authors must have failed to see it too, given that they simply assumed He cannot change. So, tell me Rocket, how could He change? And how could a perfect deity ever be immoral? Does it not make more sense that He, like Zeus, never existed at all?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Thou shall not kill a Hebrew? Is that the sixth commandment?
Well, actually:
If one slays a single Israelite, he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says, Thou Shalt not murder. If one murders willfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword . . . Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen.
Keep in mind that warfare was still justified to the Hebrews, and all of those references to "thy neighbor" very well could mean "your fellow Jew".
Rocket Surgeon said:
Even in a world where God does exist!
Tell that to the Hebrews. And I maintain that there are verses in the Koran (will quote in necessary) that support terrorist activity. No external perversion of the faith required: fanatics can just take the book at face value and find enough perversion therein.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Only for weak minded sheep.
I suppose Job was a weak minded sheep, then, and his story is in the Bible to teach us to be weak minded sheep.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Ok, I'll indulge you. But it changes nothing. It may simply be Abraham never intended to kill his son, but established a mythology to teach sheep, I mean pagans...um, people not to kill their own.
It changes everything. Parables don't have religious value in the sense that you mean; the Poetic Eddas and Greek mythology are just as full of marginally moral stories.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well, that's certainly true from a certain point of view. If you engage in sodomy...remember these are people without indoor plumbing!
Don't pretend that "unclean" only means "dirty." It also means "naughty and sinful." People didn't get stoned to death for getting poop on their nether regions; they got stoned to death for disobeying God.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Yes, yes, did you forget my point about it all being "Kindergarden Science"?
No, but you miss the point: this "kindergarten science" is intended to be the word of God, not the word of Man. If God is going to give me a set of rules, why wouldn't He give me a more detailed list and explain what's what? Surely God's knowledge of the universe He created is not on the level of kindergarten science?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Not to mention men who would corrupt the message for their own purpose. Satan quoted scripture to tempt Jesus.
I'm glad you brought in Jesus. Was it moral for the ancient Hebrews to slaughter animals in order to free themselves of their worldly sins? What kind of God requires you to kill innocent animals in order to be forgiven? If you reject to former practice, you must reject the sacrifice of Christ as well.
Rocket Surgeon said:
The allegory doesn't discriminate on the uncircumsized...anyone exposed to the story can learn mercy.
I still have a problem with the mercy thing, though. If I told you to kill your son, and then at the last moment I said "Okay, naw, you don't have to," what mercy would I be showing? God didn't save Isaac from a falling boulder or some natural disaster. He saved him from a death that He ordered.
Rocket Surgeon said:
There are truths to be discovered still.
Once more, there are truths in every religion; that doesn't make them true in other respects. I can appreciate many Bible stories as true morality tales, but to take them literally--which is required on at least some level in order to be a Christian in the "born-again" sense--demands a suspension of belief in favor of ancient ideas that are often demonstrably false.
Rocket Surgeon said:
So you accept the Theory of Evolution as an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument from authority...a consensus existing among legitimate experts.
My definition of legitimacy is far different from yours. I am not required to take anything on faith. There's no Holy of Holies that I am not allowed access to. And whereas prophets offer no evidence for their claims, scientists (true scientists, at least) only build their claims using evidence.
Rocket Surgeon said:
You used to consider Kan Ham an expert too...
No, I considered my pastor an expert, technically. By the time I learned about Ken Ham and his Creationist craziness, I had already progressed to the level of agnostic. I bought one of his books when I was at a Bible bookstore with my parents (I was expected to buy something), and I couldn't get halfway through it because it was so illogical.
Rocket Surgeon said:
You're not beholden. You have free will. As I wrote, all these great prophets are fallible and religion has evolved as a result. Like science!
But science acknowledges that it is a man-made attempt to discover what is out there. Religion claims divine authority, and it makes no sense for divinely inspired rules to change over time at the whims of a deity for whom all time is the present.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Personally I believe.
You believe what? Wotan, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, Yahweh? Obviously the answer is "in Jesus Christ," but is He your "Lord and Savior"? Are you a Jeffersonian Christian, which is to say, not a "Christian" at all?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Is String Theory a scientific theory?
I assume that the people who came up with it are not in the business of spinning fairy tales, but I don't know enough of it to criticize it on any of those levels. I have read about it in the past, and what I read seemed founded in evidence, but parts of it do sound rather fantastic. However, none of it sounds reminiscent of any cult, and that's always a good start.
Rocket Surgeon said:
The point being religion was early science, and encouraged those pursuits. Was it a perfect model? None by man is right?
If religion is by man, then why would you believe in the Gospels? Why would you believe in any of it? What separates your religion from that of the Norse, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hindus, the Muslims? In what sense are religion's metaphysical claims true, and why are we to believe them so?
Rocket Surgeon said:
I think you're still locked into the belief, (like those around you) that the Bible is supposed to be fact.
That is the belief that its writers held, and the same goes for the papal line and, I'd imagine, most Christians. If the Bible is not supposed to be fact, then in what sense do you "believe" in it, any more so than you might believe in The Sound and the Fury or Moby Dick? If the Bible is merely literature, what use is it outside of historical pursuits? How does literature get me to Heaven or make me come closer to knowing the mind of God?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
(Of course, the Bible is full of contradictions, even more of a reason to dismiss it.)

I hear this all the time, yet no one has been able to prove it to me contextually.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Pale Horse said:
I hear this all the time, yet no one has been able to prove it to me contextually.
Many of those listed on atheist websites are not necessarily contradictions; it's easy to think that those who compiled such lists were a tad overzealous. I'm not going to list them here, but there are a number of chronological contradictions in Genesis, and the Gospels include many similar discrepancies. (There are many minor contradictions, such as whether any man can be "righteous.") And of course the census described in Luke that necessitated the return to Bethlehem never actually happened. C.S. Lewis is a good place to start; I read somewhere that he shifted away from Biblical literalism and the belief that the Bible was 100% the Word of God because he saw contradictions that he could not deny.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
  • chronological contradictions in Genesis,
  • the Gospels include many similar discrepancies"
  • many minor contradictions, such as whether any man can be "righteous.
  • the census described in Luke that necessitated the return to Bethlehem never actually happened.

C.S. Lewis is a good place to start;
One of Christianity's premiere apologists, I've read him extensively. But these are not contextual contradictions.

I read somewhere...

Somewhere?

...that he shifted away from Biblical literalism and the belief that the Bible was 100% the Word of God because he saw contradictions that he could not deny.

Which now requires me to ask (understandably), how much C.S. Lewis have you read?
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Pale Horse said:
One of Christianity's premiere apologists, I've read him extensively. But these are not contextual contradictions.
Ah, my apologies. I assumed you meant instances that remained contradictory even when put in context (because a chronological error is an error even in context), while the supposed contradiction about whether a man could be "righteous" is not necessarily a contradiction given that the word has multiple meanings.
What kind of contradiction are you looking for? Something such as James 1:13, which states that God has never tempted any man even though there are instances of such temptation listed in the Bible?
Pale Horse said:
Somewhere?
I don't recall the source, but it was not a Lewis biography. I think it was mentioned in a critique of Christian fundamentalism, i.e. "Creationists are being foolish, because even C.S. Lewis didn't take the Bible to be 100% factual."
The shift may have been early in his life, or, rather, early in his Christian life, given that he became a convert later than most as an adult. I don't know what point in his career it was, or even if it was true: that's why I qualified it with "I read somewhere." (However, I don't have any reason to doubt the claim's authenticity.) It's possible he cited this as one of his reasons for becoming an atheist as a teen, or perhaps later when he acknowledged that some of the Bible's mythological stories were inspired by pagan myths (take note of Reflections On the Psalms).

Edit: This fundamentalist Christian website ridicules Lewis for doubting the historical accuracy of the Bible:
Jesus-is-Savior.com said:
Lewis believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175).
I'll try to check those quotes for accuracy. (I'm not exactly sure what book "The Inklings, p 175" refers to. I wasn't aware that his and Tolkien's little group ever collectively wrote a book.)
Pale Horse said:
Which now requires me to ask (understandably), how much C.S. Lewis have you read?
Not a ton. Some of his logic escapes me, especially the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" false dilemma. Most of his writing that I am familiar with (other than The Screwtape Letters and Narnia) concerns topics other than his reasons for believing, such as commentaries on the interaction between faith and politics, and the like. I've never read The Great Divorce or Mere Christianity, but I have read excerpts from them on the web.
 
Last edited:
WillKill4Food said:
Ahem! That is more or less what Augustine said; if my interpretation is so wrong, feel free to correct it and show me how I've ignored nuance.
Well I wrote:"St. Augustine...might mave disagreed, (on religion and assumption that is). " Pointing out that his "religion" was carefully considered, a simple counter to your "religion relies on assumption." To which you cherry picked his meditations on idle thoughts...ect.

WillKill4Food said:
One quote was from the Old, one from the New. That ^ doesn't explain anything.
You asked me what I thought of your snippets. Now if you want to turn my point about religion being the father of science into a protracted debate over Hermeneutics, I think you're right. This is going to go nowhere.


WillKill4Food said:
What I fail to see is how a being who sees all time as if it were one instant could possibly see a need to change over time when, as it turns out, He doesn't experience time in the sense that we do at all.
I guess if you could, you'd be God eh? Funny him not operating on your terms.

WillKill4Food said:
The Bible's authors must have failed to see it too, given that they simply assumed He cannot change.
You're splitting hairs over interpretations and what has been set in motion.

WillKill4Food said:
So, tell me Rocket, how could He change?
How did he change?

WillKill4Food said:
And how could a perfect deity ever be immoral?
What did God do that was immoral?

WillKill4Food said:
Does it not make more sense that He, like Zeus, never existed at all?
It's easier to understand and believe.

WillKill4Food said:
Well, actually: Keep in mind that warfare was still justified to the Hebrews, and all of those references to "thy neighbor" very well could mean "your fellow Jew".
Could it mean anyone else?

WillKill4Food said:
Tell that to the Hebrews.
The were a sinful and arrogant people. They were delivered from Egypt and yet they made a golden calf...the stories don't give all the details. I mean, is Harrison in the gym getting ready for Indy V?

WillKill4Food said:
And I maintain that there are verses in the Koran (will quote in necessary) that support terrorist activity.
Sura 57, Christians are mentioned in kindly terms. Sura

Sura 9 talks about the campaign to Tebuk It declares the antagonism of Islam to all other religions. All but Muslims are excluded from Mecca and the rites of pilgrimage. Idolaters are threatened with slaughter and slavery. War is declared against Jews and Christians until they are humbled and pay tribute.

Many things are qualified...


WillKill4Food said:
I suppose Job was a weak minded sheep, then, and his story is in the Bible to teach us to be weak minded sheep.
...and Jonah was swallowed by a whale! Hermeneutics.

WillKill4Food said:
It changes everything. Parables don't have religious value in the sense that you mean
What do I mean?

WillKill4Food said:
Don't pretend that "unclean" only means "dirty." It also means "naughty and sinful."
It does...so?

WillKill4Food said:
People didn't get stoned to death for getting poop on their nether regions; they got stoned to death for disobeying God.
...and Jesus took that stone out of their hands didn't he?


WillKill4Food said:
No, but you miss the point: this "kindergarten science" is intended to be the word of God, not the word of Man.
Really? I know that Jesus's words are printed in different colors from all the other text. Why would they do that? Because Gods words werre corrupted? Maybe?

WillKill4Food said:
If God is going to give me a set of rules, why wouldn't He give me a more detailed list and explain what's what? Surely God's knowledge of the universe He created is not on the level of kindergarten science?
You have to know your audience.

WillKill4Food said:
I'm glad you brought in Jesus. Was it moral for the ancient Hebrews to slaughter animals in order to free themselves of their worldly sins? What kind of God requires you to kill innocent animals in order to be forgiven? If you reject to former practice, you must reject the sacrifice of Christ as well.
Jesus took the us all to the next level, and substituted himself as the sacrifice. We go to church as a community now and wine is the blood, bread is the flesh. Evolution.


WillKill4Food said:
I still have a problem with the mercy thing, though. If I told you to kill your son, and then at the last moment I said "Okay, naw, you don't have to," what mercy would I be showing?
Mercy towards a greater understanding of the value of human life?

...got to go, respond to the rest later.:hat:

WillKill4Food said:
God didn't save Isaac from a falling boulder or some natural disaster. He saved him from a death that He ordered.
Biblical Exegesis

WillKill4Food said:
Once more, there are truths in every religion; that doesn't make them true in other respects.
Once again, noted in my citation of the address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The summarized Proust version: Truth cannot contradict truth.

WillKill4Food said:
I can appreciate many Bible stories as true morality tales, but to take them literally--which is required on at least some level in order to be a Christian in the "born-again" sense--demands a suspension of belief in favor of ancient ideas that are often demonstrably false.
A long and winding road...but as I have always contended those ideas that are "wrong" evolve.

WillKill4Food said:
My definition of legitimacy is far different from yours. I am not required to take anything on faith. There's no Holy of Holies that I am not allowed access to. And whereas prophets offer no evidence for their claims, scientists (true scientists, at least) only build their claims using evidence.
For every Jim Baker I guess there are Hwang Woo-suks...


WillKill4Food said:
But science acknowledges that it is a man-made attempt to discover what is out there. Religion claims divine authority, and it makes no sense for divinely inspired rules to change over time at the whims of a deity for whom all time is the present.
Your religion, not all.

A Protestant theologian, S. Werenfels, once wrote: Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque, Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua, which may be paraphrased in English as: Men open this book, their favourite creed in mind; Each seeks his own, and each his own does find.



You believe what? Wotan, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, Yahweh? Obviously the answer is "in Jesus Christ," but is He your "Lord and Savior"? Are you a Jeffersonian Christian, which is to say, not a "Christian" at all?I assume that the people who came up with it are not in the business of spinning fairy tales, but I don't know enough of it to criticize it on any of those levels. I have read about it in the past, and what I read seemed founded in evidence, but parts of it do sound rather fantastic. However, none of it sounds reminiscent of any cult, and that's always a good start.If religion is by man, then why would you believe in the Gospels? Why would you believe in any of it? What separates your religion from that of the Norse, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hindus, the Muslims? In what sense are religion's metaphysical claims true, and why are we to believe them so?That is the belief that its writers held, and the same goes for the papal line and, I'd imagine, most Christians. If the Bible is not supposed to be fact, then in what sense do you "believe" in it, any more so than you might believe in The Sound and the Fury or Moby Dick? If the Bible is merely literature, what use is it outside of historical pursuits? How does literature get me to Heaven or make me come closer to knowing the mind of God?[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
What did God do that was immoral?

Well, there was that little matter of the flood.

The saving factor was that man apparently assigned the end of an ice age to divine intervention.

A case of poor science?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
(Moderator actions on the Raven Forum aside...)

It's scary to think that we live in a world that would equate sovereign justice with moral relativism....
 
Montana Smith said:
Well, there was that little matter of the flood.
Justice?

My internet connection failed, (God must want me to go back to fixing my pumbing...POOP!).


Damn it I lost a lot!

WillKill4Food said:
You believe what? Wotan, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, Yahweh?
I believe that children are our future...

WillKill4Food said:
...is He your "Lord and Savior"?
In many ways, whether he likes it or not, yes.



WillKill4Food said:
Are you a Jeffersonian Christian, which is to say, not a "Christian" at all?
I love to go to rare book stores and ask for a Jefferson Bible. He found great value in scripture, so in a similar sense, I am.

WillKill4Food said:
I assume that the people who came up with it are not in the business of spinning fairy tales
No, something more insidious! Generating money...and the love of money is the root of, what?


WillKill4Food said:
... but I don't know enough of it to criticize it on any of those levels. I have read about it in the past, and what I read seemed founded in evidence, but parts of it do sound rather fantastic.
Science!

WillKill4Food said:
If religion is by man, then why would you believe in the Gospels? Why would you believe in any of it? What separates your religion from that of the Norse, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Hindus, the Muslims? In what sense are religion's metaphysical claims true, and why are we to believe them so?That is the belief that its writers held, and the same goes for the papal line and, I'd imagine, most Christians. If the Bible is not supposed to be fact, then in what sense do you "believe" in it, any more so than you might believe in The Sound and the Fury or Moby Dick? If the Bible is merely literature, what use is it outside of historical pursuits? How does literature get me to Heaven or make me come closer to knowing the mind of God?
A sentence, like a word, may have several possible significations, but it has only one sense or meaning intended by the author. Here, again, the signification denotes the possible meaning of the sentence, while the sense is the meaning which the sentence here and now conveys. In the case of the Bible, it must be kept in mind that God is its author, and that God, the Sovereign Lord of all things, can manifest truth not merely by the use of words, but also by disposing outward things in such a way that one is the figure of the other.

The language of the Bible is truly a human language, and therefore always endowed with a literal sense, whether proper or figurative.

We have our limitations, but then we evolve don't we?
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Pointing out that his "religion" was carefully considered, a simple counter to your "religion relies on assumption." To which you cherry picked his meditations on idle thoughts...ect.
He assumed the existence of God, not just any God, but the God of the Bible. There's no reason to believe that the ancient authors of the Bible had any access to truth hidden to the authors of the world's other myths.
Rocket Surgeon said:
I guess if you could, you'd be God eh? Funny him not operating on your terms.
If He changes, He doesn't operate on His own terms (or somebody done lied).
Rocket Surgeon said:
How did he change?
Unless I am mistaken, you told me He changed... That was your explanation for the inconsistency.
Rocket Surgeon said:
What did God do that was immoral?
The flood, and the blood, etc. I'm not going to detail it again. (Although, you did back down from that discussion of divine punishment, earlier.)
Rocket Surgeon said:
Could it mean anyone else?
It could, but there's every indication that it did not, especially given Maimonides' interpretation. In a later post you point out that, regardless of whether a verse can upon reading yield several possible meanings, the author intended only one.
Rocket Surgeon said:
You're splitting hairs over interpretations and what has been set in motion.
Hardly! Those verses I quoted re change were extremely straightforward, were they not?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sura 9 talks about the campaign to Tebuk It declares the antagonism of Islam to all other religions. All but Muslims are excluded from Mecca and the rites of pilgrimage. Idolaters are threatened with slaughter and slavery. War is declared against Jews and Christians until they are humbled and pay tribute.
Violence, violence, violence. There are many beautiful verses of moral truth to be found in the Koran (I used to have one on my facebook page in that little box that got deleted the last time they re-set the profile page; it's been too long for me to remember what it was), but there are also many verses of hate. My pointing this out is unnecessary, I suppose, since you probably don't believe the Koran is divinely inspired, but much the same can be said for the Bible, or, at least, the Old Testament.
Rocket Surgeon said:
...and Jesus took that stone out of their hands didn't he?
Indeed, but why did God sit idly in the sky for 48,000 years of human evolution?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Yes, really... Rocket Surgeon: "In the case of the Bible, it must be kept in mind that God is its author..."
Rocket Surgeon said:
Jesus took the us all to the next level, and substituted himself as the sacrifice. We go to church as a community now and wine is the blood, bread is the flesh. Evolution.
Believe it or not, I am fully aware of the church's reasoning. I just don't buy it. Why would God take so long to work out his plan for salvation? Why would God need to evolve? What does God need with a starship?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Your religion, not all.
No, not Einstein's religion or any form of pantheism, but all supernatural religions that rely on supposedly divine texts require some manifestation of divine authority.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Justice was drowning to death every living thing on Earth, not just hedonistic adults, but babies and kittens, too?
Rocket Surgeon said:
He found great value in scripture, so in a similar sense, I am.
True, with qualification:
Thomas Jefferson said:
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
Rocket Surgeon said:
No, something more insidious! Generating money
Some more noble: generating knowledge. I'd guess most scientists don't make nearly as much as your common priest.

Anyway, you've still still managed to dodge the question. Do you believe that Christ was the Son of God (more than Jefferson's "a man") and rose again following the crucifixion to spare you eternal damnation? Do you believe that there was anything supernatural about Christ? Do you believe that the Old Testament has anything to it outside of literary merits, and do you believe God was responsible for advising the Hebrews in their Hebrew science?

At this point, I've forgotten what the original point of contention was.
Pale Horse said:
It's scary to think that we live in a world that would equate sovereign justice with moral relativism....
You're known for your oblique commentaries, but I don't quite know how to apply this here. And I hope that Rocket and I do not require moderating; I think we've been pretty tame, especially relative to some of the taboo conversations I've seen people have here.
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
Pale Horse said:
It's scary to think that we live in a world that would equate sovereign justice with moral relativism....
You're known for your oblique commentaries, but I don't quite know how to apply this here.

The thinking above, (Not limited to your thoughts) that the flood is an immoral act as opposed to a just act.

And I hope that Rocket and I do not require moderating; I think we've been pretty tame, especially relative to some of the taboo conversations I've seen people have here.

I wish every conversation on this forum were like this. About every subject. I think it's a model conversation. Much to be learned here on both sides, about so much. Civility, religion, reason, respect, etc...
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Pale Horse said:
The thinking above, (Not limited to your thoughts) that the flood is an immoral act as opposed to a just act.
It asks so many questions. For one, are we to take the story at face value, that the entire earth was covered in water after forty days of rain and one man, named Noah, built a vessel capable of withstanding all of God's and the ocean's fury and brought his family aboard, along with a great many animal specimens, with the exact number of each species' lucky representatives being dependent on their stations within God's seemingly-arbitrary hierarchy of cleanliness? Or are we to see it at a more localized event but still the result of supernatural wrath? Or a mythologized account of a localized event during a very natural flood of the Tigris or Euphrates? (I think there are scholars who suggest that this is the case.) Or are we to see it as a mythological parable (dependent on Babylonian tradition) that is to teach us a message of grace?
When I was a Christian, I was taught that the story of Noah's salvation via the Ark parallels the story of our salvation via Christ. To the secularist, this poses a significant moral conundrum: why did all of the antediluvian peoples (and, more importantly, their children) deserve death (and thus eternal separation from God) when none of them, to my knowledge, had spoken to God? The same applies to Hell in traditional Christianity [i.e. the belief that Jesus is the only way to Heaven]: what are we to make of the hypothetical Buddhist monks who spend their entire lives attempting to do good but are consigned to spend eternity in Hell because they had the unfortunate luck of having been born outside of Christendom? If there is no Hell, then what does Christ afford us salvation from, and how does Noah's story enrich the liberal interpretation attested to by those who do not believe that sinners perish?
Pale Horse said:
...a model conversation.
While that's appreciated, I don't think I've lived up to that. I'm no longer sure what Rocket and I are arguing about. I concede that religion has value, but I think it works only on the same level as literature, and I do not know why these ancient men wise in their own time but still ignorant of so much of the how the world works ought to trusted on matters of metaphysics. Rocket's Father Martin Ph.D. is certainly an authority on language and history, but does his (most likely biased) interpretation of ancient musings make him an expert on God's existence given that his only knowledge of such matters comes from the writings of ignorant, flawed men whose beliefs were cobbled from various primitive superstitions?

More "evidence" for God's evolution, stolen from another thread:
Rocket Surgeon said:
Well, God changed his mind didn't he? He EVOLVED from a vengefull God to a loving God. He even sent us his son, right?
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
The thinking above, (Not limited to your thoughts) that the flood is an immoral act as opposed to a just act.

It's scary to think that memories of a natural event were assigned to the work of a God asking to be loved. As the myth goes the flood was general. God didn't pick and choose who would die and who would survive. That sets a wonderful example for autocrats claiming divine right of rule.

It was the same expression of God as in ROTLA: the brutal killing kind. Just because he was the creator, does that justify his love? Should a child love their abusive father purely because he created them?

God supposedly gave man free will - knowing full well what man would choose. Therefore, he willingly created an inferior product. A toy to play with. It is evident that the Bible is a combination of different religions, attempting to co-opt varying ideas into one system. The man as toy is very Greek in nature, as the gods meddled and played their games with humans.

And if the flood was meant to purify the earth, then God should also know that it would fail, and that he would need to enact a good cleansing flood on a regular basis.

The God of the Old Testament, and as expressed in ROTLA, has kinship with Hitler. Indy wasn't fighting for God, but for pride and the matter of preventing the weapon of a paranormal autocrat falling into the hands of a human dictator.
 
Last edited:

WillKill4Food

New member
Montana Smith said:
It was the same expression of God as in ROTLA: the brutal killing kind. ... The God of the Old Testament, and as expressed in ROTLA, has kinship with Hitler.
You know that I agree with you in all other respects, but I have never really thought of the Raiders Yahweh as being all that cruel.* Of course, this is probably because I always think of those lightning-struck soldiers unlucky enough to be victims of Belloq's scheme as being evil Nazis instead of merely German conscripts.

*In contrast to the OT depiction of a god that is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children," as Christopher Hitchens puts it.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
You know that I agree with you in all other respects, but I have never really thought of the Raiders Yahweh as being all that cruel.* Of course, this is probably because I always think of those lightning-struck soldiers unlucky enough to be victims of Belloq's scheme as being evil Nazis instead of merely German conscripts.

I have always thought that what was in the minds of those killed was immaterial to their fate. Indy believed he and Marion could survive if they closed their eyes. This was what Indy believed of the God in question: he believed, or suspected, that the power behind the Ark was cruel and random.

Plotwise it was a perfect way to selectively despatch the villains while the opposition was bound to a pole.

Lucas and Spielberg were employing 'God' as many have employed him through history: to serve their purposes according to their interpretation of the old fairy tales.

In our world these tales have no power, but the power of superstition over man to encourage him to commit acts.

In Indy's world the artifacts represented in the tales possess a real and dangerous power. They're a material focal point for the chase. Their source is immaterial and, possibly until KOTCS, open to interpretation. Any remaining Jewish and Christian relics would have to have some powerful myth attached to them to enter Indy's world as quest objects. They would necessarily need to have a life and death motive hanging over them, as with the Ark and the Grail (and even the Sankara Stones, whose loss doomed a village to destruction).
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Montana Smith said:
I have always thought that what was in the minds of those killed was immaterial to their fate.
I always tied the burning of the Nazis in with the Ark's burning the swastika logo off the crate, but, as you're so fond of pointing out, the German soldiers in RotLA did not necessarily have swastikas branded on their minds.
Montana Smith said:
Indy believed he and Marion could survive if they closed their eyes.
Because gazing upon the holy spirit would be sacrilege. (I've thought the "Dangers of the Ark" scene could have improved the film.) I certainly don't think that merely looking inside the Ark should warrant such harsh punishment, but I don't think Indy would have thought God to be "cruel and random" had the Imam's scene remained in the final cut.
 
Top