M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
And around and around we go.
- Status
E
emisher
Guest
You’re welcome.
Ok, you roped me into another round. A few comments:
Ok, you roped me into another round. A few comments:
Thats not exactly a fair representation of the evolution of the scientific method. Thales as far back as the 600’s BC was saying there was a naturalistic explanation of everything and there was no need to refer to myths, gods, the supernatural or anything else.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales
The Islamic scholars Ibn al-Haytham and Al Biruni were the first to use what we would recognise today as the scientific method and they were working back more than 1000 years ago.
When brillant minds of the religious like Bacon came along, they were building on a whole body of scientific method developed as far back as 1500 years earlier.
Absolutely they were buiilding on a foundation, but Wikipedia does say that Robert,
Grosseteste was “the principal figure” in bringing about “a more adequate method of scientific inquiry” by which “medieval scientists were able eventually to outstrip their ancient European and Muslim teachers” (Dales 1973:62). … His thinking influenced Roger Bacon, who spread Grosseteste’s ideas from Oxford to the University of Paris during a visit there in the 1240s. From the prestigious universities in Oxford and Paris, the new experimental science spread rapidly throughout the medieval universities: “And so it went to Galileo, William Gilbert, Francis Bacon, William Harvey, Descartes, Robert Hooke, Newton, Leibniz, and the world of the seventeenth century” (Crombie 1962:15). So it went to us also.
— Hugh G. Gauch, 2003.[105]
Ive been reading up on them. And from catholic.com/tracts.
That’s good.
I agree with that. But it’s also interesting that the knowledge contained in the Bible is entirely consistent with the knowledge of the people of the time in that place and culture. In fact, other socities were more advanced, knew more accurate astronomy and science, and didnt have the Bible.
It’s true there were more advanced cultures, that is in terms of worldly knowledge, but what is unique about the whole revelation to the Israelites is that there is a whole new concept of ethics here that is different. It will serve as the foundation for later revelation of Jesus. as well as other systems of law. That your position with God is determined by how you treat others. Not that the golden rule didn’t exist but now it is tied into your state before God so to speak.
We cannot know the state of his mind and soul at the moment of death, but lets turn this on it’s head and ask, if we presume he recanted, repented and made a worthy act of contrition, would you want him in heaven in your midst?
Yes, but only after his soul was scrubbed up really good in purgatory!
It makes sense to think and believe He does. However, to an outsider looking in, it’s pretty hard to accept that on the face of the evidence all around us.
I know.
If I can put it this way - if youre a biology major, and you ask your professor how does xyz work and the professor says, look, it just does, we have to accept it, would you think that is a credible answer? Of course not. Yet non believers are told by believers, when they ask ‘‘difficult’’ questions that God knows what He’s doing and there must be a reason for it, even if we cannot see the reason now. The answer, to an atheist, holds the same amount of credibility Im afraid.
True, but if you ask your prof, where did xyz come from, that is matter itself, he may have to say, I don’t know. He could say that abiogenesis is a promising theory, but not proven yet. And at the end of the day, he still has to throw up his hands as to why there is such a place as the universe that formed from a speck of dust. (There I go again with the big bang) To that he has to say I don’t know. He could say that science just hasn’t gotten there yet, but one could say, isn’t that just believing in what can’t be known? In other words, how do we know science can solve that puzzle of why there is something rather nothing?
E
emisher
Guest
We’re told there is objective morality, and an objective moral law giver, and then we read things like this in Job:
The ruination of a perfectly good and holy man, for no reason what so ever, other than a bet!!!
The moral law giver can be enticed by Satan
Now I am certain there is a whole body of apologetics around this that I have not read yet, but reading the Bible, taking it on face value as the inspired word of God, sure does raise a lot of issues.
Were someone to do that today, to someone, they would most likely get jail-time. One has to ask what exactly is the morality of this moral law giver, without whom believers say one cannot be objectively moral. The action is either moral, in which case no one could be condemned for doing likewise - destroying someones life, killing their kids, ruining their means of earning a living - or it is immoral, in which case the moral law giver is capable of going that which is immoral which is supposed to be against their nature. Either way credibility takes a hit.
Yeah, this I know was baffling to me years ago. But we have to remember that there are many different styles of writing in Bible. There is history, and then there is wisdom literature with the Psalms and Proverbs. And then there are others which are not necessarily literally true, but allegorical. (while still conveying a deeper truth) We don’t
necessarily need to believe that Job was a real person who had this happen to him.
But the thing is, is that what this scene in Job is really about is spiritual warfare. It’s illustrating this reality and also the reality sometimes innocent poeple suffer (which is a prelude to the New Covenant with jesus )
That is, that we are locked in a battle with angelic forces too. As Christians, we believe that God desired to create a new world outside of himself, he created pure spiritual creatures first and then the universe with the intent to infuse bodily creatures with a spirit in which they could come to know him. He wanted to create a race of creatures who could share in his divinity. (I’m not ruling out bodily evolution here) What we believe revelation points to is that at some point long before the creation of the world, some of these angelic creatures, out of some sort of jealousy or pride could not deal with the plan for the body/soul creatures. They could not handle the thought of their God becoming human to die in order to identify with the humans and give them the hope of resurrection. They refused to serve God and man and so they raised hell so to speak. They were cast down where they would be allowed to tempt this new human race.
And so we that’s what we read in Genesis. This is the first glimpse of the notion of spiritual combat and the failure to engage in it. Now, this is a battle not fought with weapons or anger, but simply leaning on the Heavenly God in faith that he was/is stronger than these evil beings. We believe that this is what in essence, is at the heart of Christianity, even though that is often left out of the whole picture. So we can’t really understand this scene in Job without understanding this angle.
Why does God allow this to go on, with so much carnage? My guess is that there is nothing more powerful in this universe than when one of these puny, weak, human creatures fights this battle with humility and love and leans on the God-man in faith. (True humility is a treasure to witness in this world of pride and ego)
Even though it can seem unjust to subject an entire world to the wiles of the devil and the demons, just to get a few of these brave souls, we can’t judge God according to human standards of justice. I think that what God is doing is so far beyond what we could imagine, that the earth’s misery is worth it to Him. These souls who do come to him and trust, the saints, I believe, are like precious jewels to God, worth more than we can imagine. And so since he can raise up people again, maybe it is worth it to him. Maybe what is prepared to give us is so far away from the pain of this world, that those who die and go to heaven say: “Yes. It was worth it!”
And I believe that is another reason why Jesus had to come, in addition to all the theological reasons that we are all familiar with. He had to endure the world and “own up to His Creation” so to speak. As Jesus said: ‘Should not the Christ suffer?”
Faith and trust is the weapon in this battle–the opposite of the pride-driven demons. And even though we can’t possibly understand how a moral God can allow this to happen to fulfill this “bet” with the devil, I truly believe that the reason is that the reward is so overwhelmingly blissful that it will make it all worth it in the end. All the pain, all the misery of the earth, will be transformed in such a way that no suffering will be remembered. As Julian of Norwich said, “All will be well.”
And St. Teresa of Avila who said: From the vantage point of eternity, even the most miserable life on earth will seem like only one night a lousy hotel.”
The ruination of a perfectly good and holy man, for no reason what so ever, other than a bet!!!
The moral law giver can be enticed by Satan
Now I am certain there is a whole body of apologetics around this that I have not read yet, but reading the Bible, taking it on face value as the inspired word of God, sure does raise a lot of issues.
Were someone to do that today, to someone, they would most likely get jail-time. One has to ask what exactly is the morality of this moral law giver, without whom believers say one cannot be objectively moral. The action is either moral, in which case no one could be condemned for doing likewise - destroying someones life, killing their kids, ruining their means of earning a living - or it is immoral, in which case the moral law giver is capable of going that which is immoral which is supposed to be against their nature. Either way credibility takes a hit.
Yeah, this I know was baffling to me years ago. But we have to remember that there are many different styles of writing in Bible. There is history, and then there is wisdom literature with the Psalms and Proverbs. And then there are others which are not necessarily literally true, but allegorical. (while still conveying a deeper truth) We don’t
necessarily need to believe that Job was a real person who had this happen to him.
But the thing is, is that what this scene in Job is really about is spiritual warfare. It’s illustrating this reality and also the reality sometimes innocent poeple suffer (which is a prelude to the New Covenant with jesus )
That is, that we are locked in a battle with angelic forces too. As Christians, we believe that God desired to create a new world outside of himself, he created pure spiritual creatures first and then the universe with the intent to infuse bodily creatures with a spirit in which they could come to know him. He wanted to create a race of creatures who could share in his divinity. (I’m not ruling out bodily evolution here) What we believe revelation points to is that at some point long before the creation of the world, some of these angelic creatures, out of some sort of jealousy or pride could not deal with the plan for the body/soul creatures. They could not handle the thought of their God becoming human to die in order to identify with the humans and give them the hope of resurrection. They refused to serve God and man and so they raised hell so to speak. They were cast down where they would be allowed to tempt this new human race.
And so we that’s what we read in Genesis. This is the first glimpse of the notion of spiritual combat and the failure to engage in it. Now, this is a battle not fought with weapons or anger, but simply leaning on the Heavenly God in faith that he was/is stronger than these evil beings. We believe that this is what in essence, is at the heart of Christianity, even though that is often left out of the whole picture. So we can’t really understand this scene in Job without understanding this angle.
Why does God allow this to go on, with so much carnage? My guess is that there is nothing more powerful in this universe than when one of these puny, weak, human creatures fights this battle with humility and love and leans on the God-man in faith. (True humility is a treasure to witness in this world of pride and ego)
Even though it can seem unjust to subject an entire world to the wiles of the devil and the demons, just to get a few of these brave souls, we can’t judge God according to human standards of justice. I think that what God is doing is so far beyond what we could imagine, that the earth’s misery is worth it to Him. These souls who do come to him and trust, the saints, I believe, are like precious jewels to God, worth more than we can imagine. And so since he can raise up people again, maybe it is worth it to him. Maybe what is prepared to give us is so far away from the pain of this world, that those who die and go to heaven say: “Yes. It was worth it!”
And I believe that is another reason why Jesus had to come, in addition to all the theological reasons that we are all familiar with. He had to endure the world and “own up to His Creation” so to speak. As Jesus said: ‘Should not the Christ suffer?”
Faith and trust is the weapon in this battle–the opposite of the pride-driven demons. And even though we can’t possibly understand how a moral God can allow this to happen to fulfill this “bet” with the devil, I truly believe that the reason is that the reward is so overwhelmingly blissful that it will make it all worth it in the end. All the pain, all the misery of the earth, will be transformed in such a way that no suffering will be remembered. As Julian of Norwich said, “All will be well.”
And St. Teresa of Avila who said: From the vantage point of eternity, even the most miserable life on earth will seem like only one night a lousy hotel.”
E
emisher
Guest
Sorry everyone, I didn’t do that right.
Atheist girl’s comments are not highlited. It will make it difficult to follow now. I was working in Word and then when I imported my post, it didn’t hold the highlites in place.
What a doofus, I am!
Atheist girl’s comments are not highlited. It will make it difficult to follow now. I was working in Word and then when I imported my post, it didn’t hold the highlites in place.
What a doofus, I am!
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
It’s significant that your challenge remains unaccepted!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Atheistgirl,
You are still just dropping the ball on this - the complaint that an Uncreated Creator is illogical but a Endless Universe or Self-Created Universe is then equally illogical. One can not be superior simply because you refuse to believe the other - and really the only basis you have given for this belief is that it is ‘illigocal’ to have God. Yet, you again leave this door open with, “… even if it was given …”
Well, honestly, work with it as a given and see what you get. You can believe in any god or gods or God you wish - anything would be an improvement over not believing in God at all.
And, really, there are an abundance of religions out there - you can go through the alphabet, or go through your local yellow pages of the phone book (that may be more of a historic soruce…!
) or google by your zip code or any other method to do an honest assessment of this ‘given’ and see what you come up with. You know, on the off chance that there is a God and we will be held accountable for our behavior - telling God you honestly searched for this ‘given’ may go a lot better than saying you could not be bothered.
God bless
You are still just dropping the ball on this - the complaint that an Uncreated Creator is illogical but a Endless Universe or Self-Created Universe is then equally illogical. One can not be superior simply because you refuse to believe the other - and really the only basis you have given for this belief is that it is ‘illigocal’ to have God. Yet, you again leave this door open with, “… even if it was given …”
Well, honestly, work with it as a given and see what you get. You can believe in any god or gods or God you wish - anything would be an improvement over not believing in God at all.
And, really, there are an abundance of religions out there - you can go through the alphabet, or go through your local yellow pages of the phone book (that may be more of a historic soruce…!
) or google by your zip code or any other method to do an honest assessment of this ‘given’ and see what you come up with. You know, on the off chance that there is a God and we will be held accountable for our behavior - telling God you honestly searched for this ‘given’ may go a lot better than saying you could not be bothered. God bless
We will have to agree to differ. I think that precicely highlights the weakness of the arguement. An uncreated creator is not logical. However, even if it was given - all that says it there is an uncreated creator. There is still all the work ahead to prove, beyond any doubt what so ever, that this creator is the God of Christianity and not some other creator/god. After all, every faith had their own creation story that this uncreated creator would neatly fit into.
Sarah x
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, ThinkingSapien,
Not to incur the wrath of any national or international brewers … but, I think water would work just as well as beer when it comes to drowning snails. I think the trick here is to dig a small trench separating your plants from the hungry snails. Something like 2" wide and 2" deep, line with a bit of plastic (a plastic bag cut into section would work nicely) and just fill this trench (moat) with water. Snails can’t swim and that is the basic issue
Besides, I do not know what the moral implications are of contributing to the delinquency of a snail! One was pulled over by a cop for driving without a shell - he was ‘slugged’!
Stay safe in this 3rd world country.
God bless
Not to incur the wrath of any national or international brewers … but, I think water would work just as well as beer when it comes to drowning snails. I think the trick here is to dig a small trench separating your plants from the hungry snails. Something like 2" wide and 2" deep, line with a bit of plastic (a plastic bag cut into section would work nicely) and just fill this trench (moat) with water. Snails can’t swim and that is the basic issue
Besides, I do not know what the moral implications are of contributing to the delinquency of a snail! One was pulled over by a cop for driving without a shell - he was ‘slugged’!
Stay safe in this 3rd world country.
God bless
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Well, not quite. We know the universe exists, we can experiment, test, calculate, retest, predict etc - and while we certainly do not know all the answers now, we can at the very least experiment to find them. This can not be said of any diety. We can not test for God in any empiracle or practical way. We can not get repeatable measurable results - for the interession of prayer for example. So the two are not really equitable.
So to move from atheist, to believing in a tortose god that holds the earth on its back, with no justification and flying in the face of everything we know about cosmology is an improvement Perhaps. Perhaps not. Who knowstelling God you honestly searched for this ‘given’ may go a lot better than saying you could not be bothered.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I dont think that’s accurate. Reading lots of threads on this forum alone, I can see this issue has been dealt with numerous, numerous times. Of course, it also seems neither side finds the other sides arguments convincing, but that isnt the same thing as saying the issue hasnt been addressed.It’s significant that your challenge remains unaccepted!
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Thanks for the link and the interestign reading. It seems it comes down to two main arguments - God can do what He likes because He’s the moral law giver and who’s to say His actions are not ultimately moral even though they appear to us to be immoral, and secondly, Jephthah shouldnt have burnt his daughter in scrifice as God did not approve of human sacrifice. Well, surely God, who was in conversation with Jephthah could have made that perfectly clear. After all, he had a month when she went to the mountains with her friends to mourn! But He didnt. So one can assume the keeping of the vow was more important than the life of the child. In Deuteronomy 13:13-19 we read ‘‘put the entire town to the torch as a burn offering to the Lord’’ so that justification seems inconsistent with the fact there are numerous places in the OT where human sacrifice or slaughter was not only acceptable, but commanded.
Sarah x
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Emisher,
Hey - relax… You did just fine.
Atheistgirl was advised that reading the Bible is not like reading any other written work - and you just can not dive into to it and expect to understand it.
Honest, I think it would aid understanding to no end if she first began this quest for the ‘given’ and believed in God or god or even gods. Moving for her stated belief in no God is probably hindering a productive reading of the Bible. After all, this is the Word of God we are talking about.
Your comments were right on target. Keep up the good work!
God bless
Hey - relax…
You did just fine.Atheistgirl was advised that reading the Bible is not like reading any other written work - and you just can not dive into to it and expect to understand it.
Honest, I think it would aid understanding to no end if she first began this quest for the ‘given’ and believed in God or god or even gods. Moving for her stated belief in no God is probably hindering a productive reading of the Bible. After all, this is the Word of God we are talking about.
Your comments were right on target. Keep up the good work!
God bless
[/quote]
A
atheistgirl
Guest
If it is the Word of God, for all His people, shouldnt it be understandable?
What you seem to be saying is there is no logical way to reach a belief in God. You have to first start off by believing in something, anything, and then go from there, but the prerequisite is having ‘‘faith’’ in some diety - then corrections can be made along the way
Now that really is something Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it.
Edited to say scratch that - Ive reread what youve said and you said stated believe in no God - not, stated belief there IS no God. My apologies.
Sarah x
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Atheistgirl,
Back to playing games again, eh?
Here are three things I would like to share with you:
1- MOST IMPORTANT - Dr. Peter Stoner, a mathematician, did an analysis of just 8 of the most specific prophecies which you can find here. sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Christ_of_Prophecy.html
I just got this link from another thread, read it and was totally amazed. Read it and let me know what you think of it. It does a nice job of working with the scientific method.
2- there really are all kinds of books out there that the average person can not pick up and read with understanding. The Bible is a very specialized book and the proof of that statement is people every day pick it up, claim that becasue they passed 3rd Reader that they can read it and proceed to come away with all kinds of errors. Based on your comments, you have just demonstrated this.
3- Since you claim to not have denied God, may I suggest a name change to something like ‘Agnosticgirl’ or something equally convincing. If not a name change - then just own up to the fact that the name you freely chose denies God. But, you really can have it both ways…
Seriously, I would recommend this link in item #1 for eveyone to look at very carefully.
God bless
Back to playing games again, eh?
Here are three things I would like to share with you:
1- MOST IMPORTANT - Dr. Peter Stoner, a mathematician, did an analysis of just 8 of the most specific prophecies which you can find here. sciencespeaks.dstoner.net/Christ_of_Prophecy.html
I just got this link from another thread, read it and was totally amazed. Read it and let me know what you think of it. It does a nice job of working with the scientific method.
2- there really are all kinds of books out there that the average person can not pick up and read with understanding. The Bible is a very specialized book and the proof of that statement is people every day pick it up, claim that becasue they passed 3rd Reader that they can read it and proceed to come away with all kinds of errors. Based on your comments, you have just demonstrated this.
3- Since you claim to not have denied God, may I suggest a name change to something like ‘Agnosticgirl’ or something equally convincing. If not a name change - then just own up to the fact that the name you freely chose denies God. But, you really can have it both ways…
Seriously, I would recommend this link in item #1 for eveyone to look at very carefully.
God bless
If it is the Word of God, for all His people, shouldnt it be understandable?
What you seem to be saying is there is no logical way to reach a belief in God. You have to first start off by believing in something, anything, and then go from there, but the prerequisite is having ‘‘faith’’ in some diety - then corrections can be made along the way
Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it.
Edited to say scratch that - Ive reread what youve said and you said stated believe in no God - not, stated belief there IS no God. My apologies.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Hi, Atheistgirl,
Back to playing games again, eh?
Game playing???
Really???
Sadly it seems genuine inquiry conducted as charitably and as respectfully as I can muster leads some to feel free with the accusations of trolling (that wasnt you, that was someone else) and game playing.
Tell you what, you can claim the moral high ground, tell all your friends you drove the atheist from your midst, and languish in your sense of moral righteousness, superiority and pretty patterns.
I shan’t be participating any further in this forum.
Good luck to all of you.
And my thanks to those that took the time to engage in a civilized, pleasant mutually respectful exchange over the past 10 months or so.
Sarah x
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is impossible to know to what extent individuals have been influenced by the arguments. The issue has certainly been addressed but whether it has been addressed conclusively is another matter…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
atheistgirl
**Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it. **
She’s gone, but her comment seems worth a comment.
Atheism and agnosticism are, to all intents and purposes, the same. I have never known an agnostic who did not live his or her life as though God might exist. Every agnostic writer I have read has concocted as many arguments against religion as he could, and none in its favor. The view of the agnostic therefore is not neutral; it is negative toward God.
The self-styled agnostic Bertrand Russell refused to call himself an atheist, yet he did everything he could to demolish all arguments for the existence of God. He did, so far as I know, nothing to advance arguments for the existence of God. As many of his admirers would admit, he was really an atheist at heart.
Agnosticism is just a timid brand of atheism.
**Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it. **
She’s gone, but her comment seems worth a comment.
Atheism and agnosticism are, to all intents and purposes, the same. I have never known an agnostic who did not live his or her life as though God might exist. Every agnostic writer I have read has concocted as many arguments against religion as he could, and none in its favor. The view of the agnostic therefore is not neutral; it is negative toward God.
The self-styled agnostic Bertrand Russell refused to call himself an atheist, yet he did everything he could to demolish all arguments for the existence of God. He did, so far as I know, nothing to advance arguments for the existence of God. As many of his admirers would admit, he was really an atheist at heart.
Agnosticism is just a timid brand of atheism.
E
emisher
Guest
Thanks Atheist Girl and peace be with you.Game playing???
Really???
Sadly it seems genuine inquiry conducted as charitably and as respectfully as I can muster leads some to feel free with the accusations of trolling (that wasnt you, that was someone else) and game playing.
Tell you what, you can claim the moral high ground, tell all your friends you drove the atheist from your midst, and languish in your sense of moral righteousness, superiority and pretty patterns.
I shan’t be participating any further in this forum.
Good luck to all of you.
And my thanks to those that took the time to engage in a civilized, pleasant mutually respectful exchange over the past 10 months or so.
Sarah x
T
tonyrey
Guest
Agnosticism is often more pernicious than atheism because a genuine agnostic would pray on the off-chance that God exists whereas in practice it is just a cloak for indifference and imagined invulnerability. However - as the atheist Sartre pointed out - it is impossible to remain uncommitted, echoing the words of Jesus:atheistgirl
**Never once have I stated there is no God. My position is there is not sufficient evidence to believe in one. I have never once stated, implied or asserted there is no God. I currently have no way to know this, so I can not state it. **
She’s gone, but her comment seems worth a comment.
Atheism and agnosticism are, to all intents and purposes, the same. I have never known an agnostic who did not live his or her life as though God might exist. Every agnostic writer I have read has concocted as many arguments against religion as he could, and none in its favor. The view of the agnostic therefore is not neutral; it is negative toward God.
The self-styled agnostic Bertrand Russell refused to call himself an atheist, yet he did everything he could to demolish all arguments for the existence of God. He did, so far as I know, nothing to advance arguments for the existence of God. As many of his admirers would admit, he was really an atheist at heart.
Agnosticism is just a timid brand of atheism.
“Who is not for me is against me.”
To describe oneself as an atheist is misleading if one is uncertain…
E
emisher
Guest
Thanks, I appreciate your commentsHi, Emisher,
Hey - relax…
Atheistgirl was advised that reading the Bible is not like reading any other written work - and you just can not dive into to it and expect to understand it.
Honest, I think it would aid understanding to no end if she first began this quest for the ‘given’ and believed in God or god or even gods. Moving for her stated belief in no God is probably hindering a productive reading of the Bible. After all, this is the Word of God we are talking about.
Your comments were right on target. Keep up the good work!
God bless
- Status