.... .
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: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.
What do you think of the following verses?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...
Malachi 3:6 said:For I am the LORD, I change not...
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?Hebrews 13:8 said:Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
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:Cool. Moses. But wasn't his God Abraham's God? Who are the rest of these MEN?
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:...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?
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:Judaism is full of lovely examples of science, that washing your hands before you eat will make you clean...
Only if you're a Hebrew!Rocket Surgeon said:I guess you could say the difference was mercy, (on Abraham's part)...
And in that sense it is obsolete.Rocket Surgeon said:Religion was the begining of a formal scientific system in terms that were accessible to common man. It evolved.
In the words of Stephen Jay Gould (who, as a matter of fact, contended that religion and science do not conflict):Rocket Surgeon said:Sweetheart, Evolution is a THEORY. You may want to revist your misconceptions about some other things.
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.
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.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.
A trivial error.Rocket Surgeon said:OH, what was my error that merited your [sic]?
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?Rocket Surgeon said:Well you're on the road still...did you believe the universe was six thousand years old?
You may as well enter the All-England Summarize Proust Competition.WillKill4Food said:To Saint Augustine, temptation and curiosity are sins; our thoughts need only be directed at the glorification of a non-existent entity.
Old Testament/God New Testament/Son of GodWillKill4Food said:What do you think of the following verses?
Can God make a Stone so heavy he can't lift it?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?
Thou shall not kill a Hebrew? Is that the sixth commandment?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.
Even in a world where God does exist!WillKill4Food said:In a world where gods do not exist, those who kill over their religion are delusional maniacs, not righteous men.
Only for weak minded sheep. There are many scholars who questioned God and His nature.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.
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: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.
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 sleeping with other men will make you unclean,
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:...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!
The allegory doesn't discriminate on the uncircumsized...anyone exposed to the story can learn mercy.WillKill4Food said:Only if you're a Hebrew!
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:And in that sense it is obsolete.
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.
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: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?
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?
Personally I believe. Who will prove the unified/theory of everything first? Science has hit the wall recently and gotten lazy.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?
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.
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:You may as well enter the All-England Summarize Proust Competition.
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:Old Testament/God New Testament/Son of God
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:Can God make a Stone so heavy he can't lift it?
Well, actually:Rocket Surgeon said:Thou shall not kill a Hebrew? Is that the sixth commandment?
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".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.
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:Even in a world where God does exist!
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:Only for weak minded sheep.
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: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.
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:Well, that's certainly true from a certain point of view. If you engage in sodomy...remember these are people without indoor plumbing!
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:Yes, yes, did you forget my point about it all being "Kindergarden Science"?
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:Not to mention men who would corrupt the message for their own purpose. Satan quoted scripture to tempt Jesus.
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:The allegory doesn't discriminate on the uncircumsized...anyone exposed to the story can learn mercy.
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:There are truths to be discovered still.
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:So you accept the Theory of Evolution as an argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument from authority...a consensus existing among legitimate experts.
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 used to consider Kan Ham an expert too...
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: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!
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:Personally I believe.
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:Is String Theory a scientific theory?
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:The point being religion was early science, and encouraged those pursuits. Was it a perfect model? None by man is right?
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?Rocket Surgeon said:I think you're still locked into the belief, (like those around you) that the Bible is supposed to be fact.
WillKill4Food said:(Of course, the Bible is full of contradictions, even more of a reason to dismiss it.)
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 said:I hear this all the time, yet no one has been able to prove it to me contextually.
One of Christianity's premiere apologists, I've read him extensively. But these are not contextual contradictions.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;
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.
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.Pale Horse said:One of Christianity's premiere apologists, I've read him extensively. But these are not contextual contradictions.
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."Pale Horse said:Somewhere?
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.)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).
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.Pale Horse said:Which now requires me to ask (understandably), how much C.S. Lewis have you read?
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: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.
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:One quote was from the Old, one from the New. That ^ doesn't explain anything.
I guess if you could, you'd be God eh? Funny him not operating on your terms.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.
You're splitting hairs over interpretations and what has been set in motion.WillKill4Food said:The Bible's authors must have failed to see it too, given that they simply assumed He cannot change.
How did he change?WillKill4Food said:So, tell me Rocket, how could He change?
What did God do that was immoral?WillKill4Food said:And how could a perfect deity ever be immoral?
It's easier to understand and believe.WillKill4Food said:Does it not make more sense that He, like Zeus, never existed at all?
Could it mean anyone else?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".
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:Tell that to the Hebrews.
Sura 57, Christians are mentioned in kindly terms. SuraWillKill4Food said:And I maintain that there are verses in the Koran (will quote in necessary) that support terrorist activity.
...and Jonah was swallowed by a whale! Hermeneutics.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.
What do I mean?WillKill4Food said:It changes everything. Parables don't have religious value in the sense that you mean
It does...so?WillKill4Food said:Don't pretend that "unclean" only means "dirty." It also means "naughty and sinful."
...and Jesus took that stone out of their hands didn't he?WillKill4Food said:People didn't get stoned to death for getting poop on their nether regions; they got stoned to death for disobeying God.
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:No, but you miss the point: this "kindergarten science" is intended to be the word of God, not the word of Man.
You have to know your audience.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?
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'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.
Mercy towards a greater understanding of the value of human life?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?
Biblical ExegesisWillKill4Food said:God didn't save Isaac from a falling boulder or some natural disaster. He saved him from a death that He ordered.
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:Once more, there are truths in every religion; that doesn't make them true in other respects.
A long and winding road...but as I have always contended those ideas that are "wrong" evolve.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.
For every Jim Baker I guess there are Hwang Woo-suks...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.
Your religion, not all.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.
Rocket Surgeon said:What did God do that was immoral?
Justice?Montana Smith said:Well, there was that little matter of the flood.
I believe that children are our future...WillKill4Food said:You believe what? Wotan, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, Yahweh?
In many ways, whether he likes it or not, yes.WillKill4Food said:...is He your "Lord and Savior"?
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:Are you a Jeffersonian Christian, which is to say, not a "Christian" at all?
No, something more insidious! Generating money...and the love of money is the root of, what?WillKill4Food said:I assume that the people who came up with it are not in the business of spinning fairy tales
Science!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.
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.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?
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: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.
If He changes, He doesn't operate on His own terms (or somebody done lied).Rocket Surgeon said:I guess if you could, you'd be God eh? Funny him not operating on your terms.
Unless I am mistaken, you told me He changed... That was your explanation for the inconsistency.Rocket Surgeon said:How did he change?
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:What did God do that was immoral?
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:Could it mean anyone else?
Hardly! Those verses I quoted re change were extremely straightforward, were they not?Rocket Surgeon said:You're splitting hairs over interpretations and what has been set in motion.
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: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.
Indeed, but why did God sit idly in the sky for 48,000 years of human evolution?Rocket Surgeon said:...and Jesus took that stone out of their hands didn't he?
Yes, really... Rocket Surgeon: "In the case of the Bible, it must be kept in mind that God is its author..."Rocket Surgeon said:Really?
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: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.
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:Your religion, not all.
Justice was drowning to death every living thing on Earth, not just hedonistic adults, but babies and kittens, too?Rocket Surgeon said:Justice?
True, with qualification:Rocket Surgeon said:He found great value in scripture, so in a similar sense, I am.
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.
Some more noble: generating knowledge. I'd guess most scientists don't make nearly as much as your common priest.Rocket Surgeon said:No, something more insidious! Generating money
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.Pale Horse said:It's scary to think that we live in a world that would equate sovereign justice with moral relativism....
WillKill4Food said:You're known for your oblique commentaries, but I don't quite know how to apply this here.Pale Horse said:It's scary to think that we live in a world that would equate sovereign justice with moral relativism....
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.
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?Pale Horse said:The thinking above, (Not limited to your thoughts) that the flood is an immoral act as opposed to a just act.
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?Pale Horse said:...a model conversation.
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?
Pale Horse said:The thinking above, (Not limited to your thoughts) that the flood is an immoral act as opposed to a just act.
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.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.
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 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:I have always thought that what was in the minds of those killed was immaterial to their fate.
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.Montana Smith said:Indy believed he and Marion could survive if they closed their eyes.