A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth
- Thread starter Rambam99
- Start date
- Status
Care to expand on that? I've read several of his books. He has never come off as having gone off the deep end in any of his views on religion.
Here is just a snippet of his accomplishments scientifically:
Sagan was central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus. In the early 1960s, no one knew for certain the basic conditions of Venus' surface and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report (which were later depicted for popularization in a Time-Life book, Planets) — his own view was that the planet was dry and very hot, as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio emissions from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500°C (900°F). As a visiting scientist to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his views on the conditions of Venus in 1962.
Sagan was among the first to hypothesize that Saturn's moon Titan[4] and Jupiter's moon Europa may possess oceans (a subsurface ocean, in the case of Europa) or lakes, thus making the hypothesized water ocean on Europa potentially habitable for life. Europa's subsurface ocean was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. Sagan also helped solve the mystery of the reddish haze seen on Titan, revealing that it is composed of complex organic molecules constantly raining down to the moon's surface.
He furthered insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter as well as seasonal changes on Mars. Sagan established that the atmosphere of Venus is extremely hot and dense with crushing pressures. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through greenhouse gases. Sagan speculated (along with his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter) about life in Jupiter's clouds, given the planet's dense atmospheric composition rich in organic molecules. He studied the observed color variations on Mars’ surface, concluding that they were not seasonal or vegetation changes as most believed, but shifts in surface dust caused by windstorms.
Sagan is best known, however, for his research on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation.
Yeah, seems like a he doesn't have a clue scientifically. Sagan was a champion of science and the scientific method.
This post was edited on 3/1 9:44 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
When someone proves that unicorns existed then I'll give it more credit for being "historically accurate." Nine references to unicorns in the Bible. NINE! There is wisdom in the books of the Bible, but there is also wisdom in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Russell, Shakespeare, and so many more that I could make a list of thousands. But along with all that wisdom is a representation of a jealous, petty, unjust, vindictive, misogynistic, racist, bloodthirsty, and downright sadistic God. Worshipping something so filled with hatred for human nature is an act of little more than self-loathing.
Well, LLunatic, how about digging a little deeper into your assumptions instead of just posting skeptic argument # 173 not to believe the bible?
Strong's Concordance tells us that the definitions for the Hebrew words used in Isaiah 13.21-22 are:
satyrs- sa`iyr: a he-goat or faun. Elsewhere in the OT translated devil , goat , hairy , kid , and rough .
dragons- tanniyn: a marine or land monster, such as a sea serpent. Elsewhere in the OT translated sea-monster , sea serpent , and whale .
Numbers 23.22:
unicorn- ra'em: a wild bull. Unicorn is the only way this word is translated in the OT.
leviathan- livyathan: a wreathed animal, such as a serpent (especially a crocodile or some other large sea-monster).
Of course, more modern language translations have brought the translation of those particular words to a better understanding. Coincindentally, just as science continues to refine it's understanding, better understanding is reached in the area of Bible translation when more and more cross-referenced archaeological writings are discovered and understood.
Most people, including Christians, read the Bible as if it was written like today's newspapers. Understanding context and linguistics is an absolute necessity when reading a work that dates back as far as the Bible.
Howwever, I completely understand why some of you don't want to do any study on it. It's too much of a threat to your preconceived notions about Christianity, and so comfortable (as some insist is the plight of Christians) to have your beliefs spoon fed to you.
This post was edited on 3/1 11:00 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Strong's Concordance tells us that the definitions for the Hebrew words used in Isaiah 13.21-22 are:
satyrs- sa`iyr: a he-goat or faun. Elsewhere in the OT translated devil , goat , hairy , kid , and rough .
dragons- tanniyn: a marine or land monster, such as a sea serpent. Elsewhere in the OT translated sea-monster , sea serpent , and whale .
Numbers 23.22:
unicorn- ra'em: a wild bull. Unicorn is the only way this word is translated in the OT.
leviathan- livyathan: a wreathed animal, such as a serpent (especially a crocodile or some other large sea-monster).
Of course, more modern language translations have brought the translation of those particular words to a better understanding. Coincindentally, just as science continues to refine it's understanding, better understanding is reached in the area of Bible translation when more and more cross-referenced archaeological writings are discovered and understood.
Most people, including Christians, read the Bible as if it was written like today's newspapers. Understanding context and linguistics is an absolute necessity when reading a work that dates back as far as the Bible.
Howwever, I completely understand why some of you don't want to do any study on it. It's too much of a threat to your preconceived notions about Christianity, and so comfortable (as some insist is the plight of Christians) to have your beliefs spoon fed to you.
This post was edited on 3/1 11:00 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
The scientists who had an opened mind. Try it.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:49 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
As an engineer I have a great appreciation for the scientific method, and I have long challenged myself in the field of religious beliefs.
That being said, some people on here are oversimplifying the scientific argument.
One of the longer standing philosophical questions has been about "determinism", which boils down to (if I remember this from college correctly):
"If everything has a cause, and you trace that cause to its cause, and kept doing this continuously - would you go on for infinity or would you reach a point at which there was something that had no cause?"
If so, that would be God.....maybe not the God of the Bible, but "God" nonetheless.
This leaves us with a difficult scientific question....has the matter in the universe existed FOREVER and WITHOUT CAUSE? I'd like someone to answer that.
TIME seems to be one of the biggest assumptions behind both the scientific and religious positions, which is why I'm very interested in the developments taking place with string theory......time must be fundamentally different than how we understand it today if we are to reconcile these arguments.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:54 AM by DanHawkPellaif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
That being said, some people on here are oversimplifying the scientific argument.
One of the longer standing philosophical questions has been about "determinism", which boils down to (if I remember this from college correctly):
"If everything has a cause, and you trace that cause to its cause, and kept doing this continuously - would you go on for infinity or would you reach a point at which there was something that had no cause?"
If so, that would be God.....maybe not the God of the Bible, but "God" nonetheless.
This leaves us with a difficult scientific question....has the matter in the universe existed FOREVER and WITHOUT CAUSE? I'd like someone to answer that.
TIME seems to be one of the biggest assumptions behind both the scientific and religious positions, which is why I'm very interested in the developments taking place with string theory......time must be fundamentally different than how we understand it today if we are to reconcile these arguments.
This post was edited on 3/2 7:54 AM by DanHawkPellaif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
That's nowhere in the many versions I use. You shouldn't pick one version exclusively over another, but realize sometimes a word isn't translated correctly.
I would say the Bible has more wisdom than those other wise men. But, to each his own.
God is a jealous god and He should be. I always find it interesting that people don't think God should have a God complex. But He is NEVER unjust, never mysogynistic, and never petty. And He loves mankind more than any of us could. We are His creation.
This post was edited on 3/2 8:01 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Yes, a great point. There are limitations to physical matter. I will not believe that matter can come from absolutely and purely nothing. Even another dimension is something.
I would like you to point out one fact I do not believe. And then we will have a basis for whether I cannot deal with reality.
The problem is, you are not using logic at all. You are explaining natural phenomena with super natural things. That is not logical at all. Maybe in your small small world it is, but not when it comes to science.
Give it up, Hounded has long ago abandoned the search for God in favor of the word of mortal men. I understand you're trying to save him that evil path but it's almost a lost cause. The search for God is dead to him, he's got his book and myths instead.
Give it up, Hounded has long ago abandoned the search for God in favor of the word of mortal men. I understand you're trying to save him that evil path but it's almost a lost cause. The search for God is dead to him, he's got his book and myths instead.
Howwever, I completely understand why some of you don't want to do any study on it. It's too much of a threat to your preconceived notions about Christianity, and so comfortable (as some insist is the plight of Christians) to have your beliefs spoon fed to you.
Classic case of projection. Faith = having your beliefs spoon fed to you.
This was an excellent post because it shows how hypocritical the extreme religious right is.
Classic case of projection. Faith = having your beliefs spoon fed to you.
This was an excellent post because it shows how hypocritical the extreme religious right is.
Instead of merely assessing what you can't possibly know about me, perhaps you could add something substantive.
It's not illogical to believe that one of the possibilies that we exist is that there is an unlimited Creator.
It's then not illogical to assume the Creator is unlimited to what He can do in the physical realm.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:02 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Then tell us, Phil, how much have you delved into the disciplines surrounding the study of the Bible?
This post was edited on 3/2 8:49 AM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/2 8:49 AM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
A limited creator? What like and alien race?
This post was edited on 3/2 8:52 AM by Fork Stabbedif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/2 8:52 AM by Fork Stabbedif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
About as much as I've "delved into the disciplines surrounding the study of" Dr. Seuss and Santa Clause. I have no times for manmade myths about creation, they're for people who have given up on the search for God, who just want an answer and don't care if it's right or not.
Proof positive that your mind is closed off to one of the possibilities that may be correct. We're not talking about a Dr. Seuss book where there are no people on Earth that think it's real. We're talking about a book that hundreds of millions and countless educated people think is the Word of God.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:08 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Well then I guess any argument you may quote from your "Skeptics Annotated Bible" or any of the other comments you make about Christianity, as well as the mindless repetition the catch-phrases of those who have as much scholarship background in their suppositions as do you, and has its basis in pure bigotry and uninformed ignorance,.
You are defined by the statement in my signature.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:14 AM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
You are defined by the statement in my signature.
This post was edited on 3/2 9:14 AM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Right, because numbers of believers = a greater likelihood of truth.
My mind *is* closed off to unsubstantied myths, I'll give you that.
Nope, I'm agnostic, I admit that I don't know. Truley, no one will EVER know. Even if God comes down from heaven we couldn't know because it would be jsut as likely to be an alien race that studied our culture and took the form of something that we would follow.
Even God itself couldn't know that it was the ultimate supreme being and that nothing was above it.
Accepting a religious exlaination is the same as accepting Santa Claus though.
Nope, I'm agnostic, I admit that I don't know. Truley, no one will EVER know. Even if God comes down from heaven we couldn't know because it would be jsut as likely to be an alien race that studied our culture and took the form of something that we would follow.
So, you have a belief that allows just as much room as needed to allow for the possibility of a superior alien race capable of deceiving billions of people, but the eye witness accounts of New Testament writers is to thrown out the window? Do you have any idea how much study has gone into verifying the authenticity of the books of the Bible by non-believers as well as believers?
Even God itself couldn't know that it was the ultimate supreme being and that nothing was above it.
The very definition of God is "I AM" = omnipotent. You might as well say that we as a human race can only have faith in the fact that we exist, not that we have verifiable proof of our existence. Patently short sighted thinking.
Accepting a religious exlaination is the same as accepting Santa Claus though.
See the response to your first paragraph. This appplies to the FSM, Christ-mythers, etal.
So, you have a belief that allows just as much room as needed to allow for the possibility of a superior alien race capable of deceiving billions of people, but the eye witness accounts of New Testament writers is to thrown out the window? Do you have any idea how much study has gone into verifying the authenticity of the books of the Bible by non-believers as well as believers?
Even God itself couldn't know that it was the ultimate supreme being and that nothing was above it.
The very definition of God is "I AM" = omnipotent. You might as well say that we as a human race can only have faith in the fact that we exist, not that we have verifiable proof of our existence. Patently short sighted thinking.
Accepting a religious exlaination is the same as accepting Santa Claus though.
See the response to your first paragraph. This appplies to the FSM, Christ-mythers, etal.
Admitting to not knowing can be a scary thing Dave, but it's the only thing we'll ever truely know.
RE
Quantum Mechanics has shown us things happen with out a cause at all. The very atoms in our universe do things with no apparent cause. Yet you are going to tell me that some of the most basic things that make up our universe can't be made on their own, although they do things on their own without a cause at all. You attribute them coming from a "creator" which has never given humanity any shred of evidence of its existence. You just choose to believe it exists contrary to all facts and evidence.
Quantum Mechanics has shown us things happen with out a cause at all. The very atoms in our universe do things with no apparent cause. Yet you are going to tell me that some of the most basic things that make up our universe can't be made on their own, although they do things on their own without a cause at all. You attribute them coming from a "creator" which has never given humanity any shred of evidence of its existence. You just choose to believe it exists contrary to all facts and evidence.
This leaves us with a difficult scientific question....has the matter in the universe existed FOREVER and WITHOUT CAUSE? I'd like someone to answer that.
Quantum Mechanics has shown us that matter can do things without causes at all.
Even if you answer the question as god did it, where did god come from? You are willing to say the universe has to have a creator, but then you don't extend that to the creator. The creator has always been, but how is that possible but the universe can't always be? QM mechanics shows that things do happen with out a cause at all. You have to disregard logic in order for god to to be an answer to the question.
Quantum Mechanics has shown us that matter can do things without causes at all.
Even if you answer the question as god did it, where did god come from? You are willing to say the universe has to have a creator, but then you don't extend that to the creator. The creator has always been, but how is that possible but the universe can't always be? QM mechanics shows that things do happen with out a cause at all. You have to disregard logic in order for god to to be an answer to the question.
Says me, who is actually following the scientific method. Logic doesn't go into the supernatural area no matter how hard you try and stretch it into there.
You arguement is basically summed up as "the gods of gaps" arguement. Science has been lessening the role of god in this universe since man started to us science as a tool. First the Earth was the center of the universe, when it was shown that the Earth actually orbits the sun and we are just a common planet among all the other planets, the explanation that god was controlling the heavens faded away. Then when it was shown the sun and Milky Way are in no special place in the universe and that the universe is a vast expanse of emptiness with a galaxies every so often, human significance kept dwindling.
For you hounded, you argue for gods existence where science hasn't explained something yet. This has been going on for a long time. Science steadily moves forward providing natural explanations for things, and religious followers like yourself have had to constantly lessen the role of god in the universe to places where science hasn't gained much knowledge yet. Somehow you actually think you are actually proving something since science hasn't explained it yet, but I wouldn't expect you to understand why you are wrong. Afterall, you said logic can involve explaning natural phenomena with unnatural causes
This post was edited on 3/2 2:09 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
Wasn't there a thread on this the other day? Calling christians weak because they need each others support? Well here is an example of Houndeds religion being attacked and one of the first thing he trumpets out is, "We're talking about a book that hundreds of millions and countless educated people think is the Word of God." Ahh comfort in numbers. Gives you that safe and secure feeling doesn't it? You see, if you have to defend your little fairy tale by arguing about the number of people who believe in it makes it viable, you aren't going to get very far. As I pointed out to Hounded earlier in this thread, people used to believe the world was flat, a vast majority did, only a small number dared to say it wasn't. I'm sure the flat worlders would say the exact same thing hounded has here, "well a lot of educated people believe the world is flat, so its a viable explanation."
Just to put a few more bullets into Houndeds first cause arguement:
"The first cause, or cosmological argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, God must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems.
The main problem of the first cause argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what is known as the Casimir Effect.
The beginning of the universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics is only a century old, and already we've been able to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. The four most prominent facts are:
The red shift of almost all galaxies — getting greater as their distance increases.
- This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other — at greater speeds at greater distances.
The cosmic microwave background radiation.
- This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.
The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes.
- This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct.
The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive.
- This shows some of the changes in the universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.
The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. Even if Inflation Theory is eventually shown to be wrong or incomplete, that doesn’t mean that “God did it.”
The next problem of the first cause argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. Many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe; we certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.
Another problem comes from the definition of God as perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing one?
The last problem with the first cause argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the first cause argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic."
"Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what is known as the Casimir Effect."
Hounded, how do you explain this phenomena? Things are popping into and out of existence in our own universe, yet you say the universe couldn't have just come to be itself although our science clearly shows it can.
"The first cause, or cosmological argument, says that everything has a cause, and, since we supposedly can’t have an infinite series of causes stretching into the past, God must be the first cause — an uncaused cause. This argument was described by Aristotle, and has at least four problems.
The main problem of the first cause argument is the idea that every event has a cause. As we discovered in the 20th century, the universe is actually ruled at the bottom level by quantum mechanics, in which it’s possible for events to have no cause. An obvious example of quantum mechanics in action is the radioactive decay of a uranium atom. There is no previous cause for each such event, and we can only predict it with probability. The averaging of quantum effects gives us the Newtonian experience that we have. However, Newtonian physics does not control the universe; quantum mechanics and Einsteinian relativity do. We now know that the universe has an intrinsic, bottom level of uncertainty that cannot be bypassed. Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what is known as the Casimir Effect.
The beginning of the universe — of all the matter and energy in it and even of time itself — is called the Big Bang. The science of quantum mechanics is only a century old, and already we've been able to get extremely close to understanding the beginning of the universe — with no god needed. How close can we get? Approximately a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is supported by extensive data. The four most prominent facts are:
The red shift of almost all galaxies — getting greater as their distance increases.
- This shows that the galaxies are flying away from each other — at greater speeds at greater distances.
The cosmic microwave background radiation.
- This is a remnant of the radiation from the Big Bang, and has cooled over time to the exact temperature predicted.
The proportions of the lightest elements and isotopes.
- This helps show that the calculations for nuclear interactions immediately following the Big Bang are correct.
The changes in galaxies as we look further away (and thus back in time), with distant galaxies more primitive.
- This shows some of the changes in the universe since the Big Bang, and confirms the deep time of the universe.
The physicist and cosmologist Alan Guth of MIT has put forth the scientific theory, called Inflation, that the Big Bang was just the result of a random quantum event called a vacuum fluctuation — with no cause, created out of the space vacuum, and with a total energy of zero. Even tho this doesn’t make sense in the Newtonian physics of our experience of the world, it does make sense in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity. In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy. There is also excellent experimental and theoretical evidence to support Inflation Theory. Even if Inflation Theory is eventually shown to be wrong or incomplete, that doesn’t mean that “God did it.”
The next problem of the first cause argument is the assumption that an infinite chain of events is impossible. Many cosmologists have proposed that our universe could be part of a much larger, super and perhaps eternal meta-universe; we certainly don’t know for sure, and may never know. However, this meta-universe would allow infinite chains of events.
Another problem comes from the definition of God as perfect and unchanging. If these qualities were true, then why would God need a universe and how could God change from not needing a universe to needing one?
The last problem with the first cause argument lies in its assumption that this eternal god exists, something that it is trying to prove. This is known as begging the question. Even a child can ask, “If God created the universe, then who created God?” If the answer is that God is uncaused, then the same answer could certainly be applied to the existence of the universe — that it is uncaused. Besides, which god are we talking about? People using the first cause argument always make the assumption that their god did the creating. Muslims think that Allah created the universe. Hindus think that Brahma did it. Christians and Jews think that Yahweh did it. Most religions have a story of how their god created the universe. The idea of a god as creator of the universe makes for a good tale, but it obviously tells us little about the characteristics of that god. What they are doing is explaining one mystery with a bigger mystery, and that is fallacious logic."
"Quantum mechanics also shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. Even in supposedly empty space, virtual particles are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process, via what is known as the Casimir Effect."
Hounded, how do you explain this phenomena? Things are popping into and out of existence in our own universe, yet you say the universe couldn't have just come to be itself although our science clearly shows it can.
None of what you've said makes the Bible the Word of God or proves that God exists. If you don't like my unicorn example you can use any other aspect of the Bible that is preposterous. How about from the New testament: Mary conceives Jesus through the Holy Spirit instead of from a human man's semen? Walking on water? Turning water into wine? Any of the other supernatural miracles?
And if the miracles turn out to be explained by natural phenomena and physical laws then the Bible ceases to be supernatural in origin and content. Which makes it no more or less special than any other written compilation of documents and therefore there's no reason to afford it special divine status. There are plenty of reasons to not make it the basis of my personal worldview. That doesn't mean it's unworthy of study by any means. In fact, because so many people do view it as a supernatural document it's perhaps the most important document to study. But the same can be said of the Koran (which is equally absurd and even more disturbing than the Old Testament).
All the more reason to study these documents and to figure out how and why they became they are so influential. There has been a TON of study of those issues--and others to boot. And one of the findings is that the document is incredibly valuable politically. The Bible (both Old and New Testaments) is the most important political document in history. The Koran is probably the second most important. So, yes, I agree, understanding the document is of the utmost importance for humanity. But for entirely different reasons than you are suggesting.
I deconstructed your strawman argument about what you consider absurdities in the Bible. You respond accordingly and ignore the fact that the challenge you laid down was addressed definitively. Another skeptic SOP.
No, none of what I said in that post "proved the existence of God". What it did prove however is the lack of information you struggle under when you try to disabuse those who have faith of their belief.
Again, if God is God, then a virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, the blind man being healed, Lazarus being raised from the dead, Jesus crucified, dying, and being resurrected all as the propitiation for the sins of all humankind, although unbelievable and miraculous in nature in our finite minds, then He has/had/possesses for all eternity the power to do those things and much more than you or I can concieve.
If all you perceive the Bible to be is an impactful political document then go ahead and glean from it the very little you choose to cherry pick. I choose to go deeper into it.
I'll stand by my signature line and continue to hope that those who choose to believe can ignore the vitriol and ad hominem generalizations posted here by those who have no interest in learning, only in attacking and demeaning others. I hope that your statements, as well as mine, motivate the dubious observer to find out more on their own.
No, none of what I said in that post "proved the existence of God". What it did prove however is the lack of information you struggle under when you try to disabuse those who have faith of their belief.
Again, if God is God, then a virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, the blind man being healed, Lazarus being raised from the dead, Jesus crucified, dying, and being resurrected all as the propitiation for the sins of all humankind, although unbelievable and miraculous in nature in our finite minds, then He has/had/possesses for all eternity the power to do those things and much more than you or I can concieve.
If all you perceive the Bible to be is an impactful political document then go ahead and glean from it the very little you choose to cherry pick. I choose to go deeper into it.
I'll stand by my signature line and continue to hope that those who choose to believe can ignore the vitriol and ad hominem generalizations posted here by those who have no interest in learning, only in attacking and demeaning others. I hope that your statements, as well as mine, motivate the dubious observer to find out more on their own.
Dave, have you studied philosophy or Biblical critiques/criticisms at all? You obviously have a strong faith in the Christian God. I'm curious if you explored and studied other things before arriving at your choice or if you started with the Bible and just wanted to learn more. Basically I'm asking if you've been open to other world views before you settled on Christianity.
Although I was exposed to a variety of philosophies and religions before becoming a Christian, I've admittedly done a lot more comparitive study since then.
In regards to Biblical critiques/criticisms, absolutely. In fact I welcome challenges to to my faith and challenges to the veracity of the Bible.
What I found singularly unique to the philosophy/theology of the Bible is how it compares to all other religions/philosophies regarding the position of man. Every other religion I've ever investigated held that man is an intrinsically "good" being. Kind of the Father Flanagan attitude of "I've never met a 'bad' boy".
The Bible presents an entirely different view of man and, in turn, God.
Man is sinful, especially in comparison to a Holy God. Our egos don't want to accept that so we turn to religions or philosophies, like Sam Harris has, that are self-serving.
Can the words in the Bible be twisted to be just as self-serving? Yes.
But that shouldn't deter someone from actually digging for the truth.
The thousands of pieces of documentation that have been compiled, and those that continue to appear, have only served to confirm my faith. Even this recent "Jesus Tomb" event coming up on Sunday has already been debunked before it airs. And, interestingly, not just by "Christian" scholars, but Jewish experts in arachaeology.
In regards to Biblical critiques/criticisms, absolutely. In fact I welcome challenges to to my faith and challenges to the veracity of the Bible.
What I found singularly unique to the philosophy/theology of the Bible is how it compares to all other religions/philosophies regarding the position of man. Every other religion I've ever investigated held that man is an intrinsically "good" being. Kind of the Father Flanagan attitude of "I've never met a 'bad' boy".
The Bible presents an entirely different view of man and, in turn, God.
Man is sinful, especially in comparison to a Holy God. Our egos don't want to accept that so we turn to religions or philosophies, like Sam Harris has, that are self-serving.
Can the words in the Bible be twisted to be just as self-serving? Yes.
But that shouldn't deter someone from actually digging for the truth.
The thousands of pieces of documentation that have been compiled, and those that continue to appear, have only served to confirm my faith. Even this recent "Jesus Tomb" event coming up on Sunday has already been debunked before it airs. And, interestingly, not just by "Christian" scholars, but Jewish experts in arachaeology.
Please, spare me your self-righteous indignation. Or continue in that vein if you prefer. However, it's completely illegitimate for you to suspect that I have no curiosity or that I have never put forth any effort to learn about the Bible or of the possibility of the existence of a God--any God at all, let alone a Christian God.
Your perception of my posts as an attack filled with vitriole that demeans others is wrong. What sort of harm have I caused you or any other person through my words? None of any consequence. Whatever harm you feel is owned by you alone based on how you interpret my words.
It's also an erroneous assumption to suppose that I view the Bible ONLY as a political document or that I cherry pick from it or that you somehow go "deeper" into it than I might. You have no way of knowing whether you do or not. The beauty of the books of the Bible are that they do hold tremendous wisdom. However, the danger arises when it is assumed that the wisdom is divine rather than inspired by human minds.
Take the story of Genesis, specifically the warning about the tree of knowledge. A million different meanings can be gleaned. One that strikes me is that the admonition is a warning of the severity of the danger inherent within the acquisition of knowledge. It can be read as a warning that humanity has either not developed the maturity to use knowledge conscientiously and judiciously. Even further than that, it can be read as a statement that humanity does not have within its nature the ability to EVER use knowledge wisely. But rather than that being the end of a particular insight it could be merely the starting point. To pursue knowledge at any level at all, though, would be considered a fault in human nature depending on your reading of the scriptures. But if that's the case, then reason or any other means of acquiring knowledge is problematic in and of itself. The only way to discover that it's problematic, however, is by thinking in the first place. And since everyone here thinks and knows in some capacity then we're all guilty and perpetuating the very same error (sin) that Adam and Eve committed, recycling the same problem over and over again.
But it's in our very nature to think, to reason, to search for answers. It may be, again, dependeing on your reading of certain passages, that this aspect of our nature is the sinful nature of humanity that came into being after the fall. Which could be taken to mean that man had no capacity for reason or acquiring knowledge before biting into the fruit of the knowledge tree. If you really wanted to stretch things then you could make a connection with evolutionary theory: eating from the tree of knowledge was the "evolutionary step" that transformed us from ape to human.
I know, it's a weird interpretation. But that's just it, the document has value in that it allows you to consider all sorts of possibilities of those meanings. But by further connecting the document with the historical knowledge of the age, the cultural realities, it's possible to glean more likely meanings.
As far as my view of the book as an important poilitical document, I don't know how that could be construed as something narrow or limited. The study of the Bible's role in the transformation of the Roman Empire from paganism/secularism to Chritianity (as well as the Protestant Reformation, the Great Schisms, and so much more) is fascinating and also incredibly important in understanding how the world came to be the way it is, how governments and cultures changed and developed, how values and morals and ethics changed, how the Bible was interpreted and viewed in each era, in each nation/community, and how those historical moments provide a context for who we are now, how the conflicts and problems we currently face came into existence, how problems were treated in the past and treated now.
Mmerely viewing the Bible as a personal answer to the question of God's existence or how to live your personal life is in itself limiting. The books of the Bible and the study of how they were interpreted in different ages and places provide so much more than that. It seems like a waste of time to struggle with the question fo whether or not there is a God. Regardless of whether there is or not as Hounded said it would be impossible to glean what the heck God may or may not be. That would include any biblical explanations for they are merely the writings of other finitely limited humans who lived and died thousands of years ago. Where the document is useful is in providing clues as to how we can positively change how we conduct our social and political life--human affairs. Hounded's earlier posts about God's mysterious and unfathomable being are very close to the sort of deism that was popular in the 18th century.
A deist believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe at the inception of the creation of the universe. A deist deity does not interfere thereafter and has no interest in the workings of the world--not in the sense of participating within it and as such completely lets the physical laws of nature dictate the "event" of the universe's being as a whole. There is no interaction with the affairs of humanity or any other aspect of the universe or even the universe as a whole other than, as I said, at the point of the universe's creation.
That is certainly a different God than the God of the Bible. I have no clue as to whether a deist God initiated the creation of the universe. But there's a greater probability of such a God creating the universe than there is a probability that a Christian or Jewish or Muslim God doing the things described in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran. The supernatural miracles are so statistically improbable that it's far more likely that each and every human being on the planet will win the lottery before they die. In other words, the improbability is so great that it would be the height of foolishness to give it more credence than the possibility of a diamond the size of the Sears Tower washing up on the North Beach shore of Lake Michigan tomorrow at 3 PM.
Why is it that unlikely? As one example, from what we know of human sexual reproduction, for instance, it is all but an impossibility that a woman was conceived by a non-human entity that exists within space and time and simultaneously beyond the limits of space and time. Thinking in terms of probabilities rather than certainties it's a wiser decision to give more credence to that which has a higher probability of occurring than that which has a lower probability. If the percentages are miniscule (52 percent to 48 percent) then that which has the lower probability should not be dismissed. But if you're dealing with two possibilities in which one is 99.999999999999999999999 percent likely to have occurred (say, a human impregnating Mary) versus one in which the possibility is 0.000000000000000000001 percent likely to have occurred (say, a non-physical entity impregnating Mary) then it's more reasonable to come to the conclusion that the 99.999999999999999999999 possibility is far more likely to have occurred (to put it mildly).
So I don't see how for a moment it could be suggested that I'm demeaning anyone by suggesting that it's preposterous to believe that the biblical God exists if it must follow that that God must have performed the supernatural miracles the books of the Bible suggest as a necessary condition of the biblical God's existence. A God may exist, but if that God must meet those biblical qualifications as a precondition for its existence then it's reasonable to suggest that the biblical God does not exist merely as a matter of probability.
To say that does not necessarily make me an atheist in the same way that you conceive of a theist. A theist believes with 100 percent certainty that God exist. My position as an agnostic is very close to pure atheism, but not 100 percent. I recognize that there is the most miniscule possibility that a God exists in some form, but even the existence of a deist God is more improbable than probable. I choose to live my life in a way that presumes that God does not exist simply because there's no evidence that a God does. I have to get up every morning and make all of my own decisions. Whether I use prayer or meditiation or a book (such as the Bible or any other) as the basis for how I make any of my decisions I am still the one making them. Which means, of course, that God does not play a role in my personal life.
As such, why would I pay any attention to anything that does not have anything to do with my life? I wouldn't and I don't. And personally I could care less if you or anyone else does. The only time it does matter to me is when the actions of those who do believe in God affect my life in any way directly or indirectly. For example, the politics of stem cell research concerns me. If the only reason for not using stem cells in research to discover cures for cancer or any other human malady is because of the belief of Americans in an improbable God then I become very disturbed by your beliefs. If your reasons for opposing the use of stem cells in scientific research is based on something more probable and therefore reasonable then I'll certainly consider that. But I won't consider the idea that stem cell research must not be allowed becuase it is "sinful" according to a contemporary interpretation of a 2000 to 3000 year-old document that uses as the basis for its principles an almost absolutely improbable God rather than reason. If there are reasonable ethical and moral arguments I certainly would consider those. "God says its a sin according to my understanding of scriptures" is not worth my consideration and in fact is a position that deserves to be ridiculed simply because religious inspirations that have no reasonable basis are irrational (which is to say absurd).
No less a thinker than Thomas Jefferson said that "ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea from the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." And if you still think that the characterization of the Old Testament God that I gave earlier is based in some sort of ingorance of scriptures then argue with Jefferson, a man who was a far greater thinker than anyone on this board will ever dream of being. It was he who said that "The Christian God is a being of terrific character--cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." You can argue with his ideas of justice to determin whether he is right or wrong about the Christian God.
Nevertheless, despite all of that I do find these debates invigorating. Always challenges me to rethink my own ideas, to make sure they're sound. So of course I welcome any flaws in my logic that you or anyone else might find. Hopefully, you view my statements in the same way, but if not it's not a horrible loss. I'm sure we'll all manage regardless of intent or misunderstanding.
Your perception of my posts as an attack filled with vitriole that demeans others is wrong. What sort of harm have I caused you or any other person through my words? None of any consequence. Whatever harm you feel is owned by you alone based on how you interpret my words.
It's also an erroneous assumption to suppose that I view the Bible ONLY as a political document or that I cherry pick from it or that you somehow go "deeper" into it than I might. You have no way of knowing whether you do or not. The beauty of the books of the Bible are that they do hold tremendous wisdom. However, the danger arises when it is assumed that the wisdom is divine rather than inspired by human minds.
Take the story of Genesis, specifically the warning about the tree of knowledge. A million different meanings can be gleaned. One that strikes me is that the admonition is a warning of the severity of the danger inherent within the acquisition of knowledge. It can be read as a warning that humanity has either not developed the maturity to use knowledge conscientiously and judiciously. Even further than that, it can be read as a statement that humanity does not have within its nature the ability to EVER use knowledge wisely. But rather than that being the end of a particular insight it could be merely the starting point. To pursue knowledge at any level at all, though, would be considered a fault in human nature depending on your reading of the scriptures. But if that's the case, then reason or any other means of acquiring knowledge is problematic in and of itself. The only way to discover that it's problematic, however, is by thinking in the first place. And since everyone here thinks and knows in some capacity then we're all guilty and perpetuating the very same error (sin) that Adam and Eve committed, recycling the same problem over and over again.
But it's in our very nature to think, to reason, to search for answers. It may be, again, dependeing on your reading of certain passages, that this aspect of our nature is the sinful nature of humanity that came into being after the fall. Which could be taken to mean that man had no capacity for reason or acquiring knowledge before biting into the fruit of the knowledge tree. If you really wanted to stretch things then you could make a connection with evolutionary theory: eating from the tree of knowledge was the "evolutionary step" that transformed us from ape to human.
I know, it's a weird interpretation. But that's just it, the document has value in that it allows you to consider all sorts of possibilities of those meanings. But by further connecting the document with the historical knowledge of the age, the cultural realities, it's possible to glean more likely meanings.
As far as my view of the book as an important poilitical document, I don't know how that could be construed as something narrow or limited. The study of the Bible's role in the transformation of the Roman Empire from paganism/secularism to Chritianity (as well as the Protestant Reformation, the Great Schisms, and so much more) is fascinating and also incredibly important in understanding how the world came to be the way it is, how governments and cultures changed and developed, how values and morals and ethics changed, how the Bible was interpreted and viewed in each era, in each nation/community, and how those historical moments provide a context for who we are now, how the conflicts and problems we currently face came into existence, how problems were treated in the past and treated now.
Mmerely viewing the Bible as a personal answer to the question of God's existence or how to live your personal life is in itself limiting. The books of the Bible and the study of how they were interpreted in different ages and places provide so much more than that. It seems like a waste of time to struggle with the question fo whether or not there is a God. Regardless of whether there is or not as Hounded said it would be impossible to glean what the heck God may or may not be. That would include any biblical explanations for they are merely the writings of other finitely limited humans who lived and died thousands of years ago. Where the document is useful is in providing clues as to how we can positively change how we conduct our social and political life--human affairs. Hounded's earlier posts about God's mysterious and unfathomable being are very close to the sort of deism that was popular in the 18th century.
A deist believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe at the inception of the creation of the universe. A deist deity does not interfere thereafter and has no interest in the workings of the world--not in the sense of participating within it and as such completely lets the physical laws of nature dictate the "event" of the universe's being as a whole. There is no interaction with the affairs of humanity or any other aspect of the universe or even the universe as a whole other than, as I said, at the point of the universe's creation.
That is certainly a different God than the God of the Bible. I have no clue as to whether a deist God initiated the creation of the universe. But there's a greater probability of such a God creating the universe than there is a probability that a Christian or Jewish or Muslim God doing the things described in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran. The supernatural miracles are so statistically improbable that it's far more likely that each and every human being on the planet will win the lottery before they die. In other words, the improbability is so great that it would be the height of foolishness to give it more credence than the possibility of a diamond the size of the Sears Tower washing up on the North Beach shore of Lake Michigan tomorrow at 3 PM.
Why is it that unlikely? As one example, from what we know of human sexual reproduction, for instance, it is all but an impossibility that a woman was conceived by a non-human entity that exists within space and time and simultaneously beyond the limits of space and time. Thinking in terms of probabilities rather than certainties it's a wiser decision to give more credence to that which has a higher probability of occurring than that which has a lower probability. If the percentages are miniscule (52 percent to 48 percent) then that which has the lower probability should not be dismissed. But if you're dealing with two possibilities in which one is 99.999999999999999999999 percent likely to have occurred (say, a human impregnating Mary) versus one in which the possibility is 0.000000000000000000001 percent likely to have occurred (say, a non-physical entity impregnating Mary) then it's more reasonable to come to the conclusion that the 99.999999999999999999999 possibility is far more likely to have occurred (to put it mildly).
So I don't see how for a moment it could be suggested that I'm demeaning anyone by suggesting that it's preposterous to believe that the biblical God exists if it must follow that that God must have performed the supernatural miracles the books of the Bible suggest as a necessary condition of the biblical God's existence. A God may exist, but if that God must meet those biblical qualifications as a precondition for its existence then it's reasonable to suggest that the biblical God does not exist merely as a matter of probability.
To say that does not necessarily make me an atheist in the same way that you conceive of a theist. A theist believes with 100 percent certainty that God exist. My position as an agnostic is very close to pure atheism, but not 100 percent. I recognize that there is the most miniscule possibility that a God exists in some form, but even the existence of a deist God is more improbable than probable. I choose to live my life in a way that presumes that God does not exist simply because there's no evidence that a God does. I have to get up every morning and make all of my own decisions. Whether I use prayer or meditiation or a book (such as the Bible or any other) as the basis for how I make any of my decisions I am still the one making them. Which means, of course, that God does not play a role in my personal life.
As such, why would I pay any attention to anything that does not have anything to do with my life? I wouldn't and I don't. And personally I could care less if you or anyone else does. The only time it does matter to me is when the actions of those who do believe in God affect my life in any way directly or indirectly. For example, the politics of stem cell research concerns me. If the only reason for not using stem cells in research to discover cures for cancer or any other human malady is because of the belief of Americans in an improbable God then I become very disturbed by your beliefs. If your reasons for opposing the use of stem cells in scientific research is based on something more probable and therefore reasonable then I'll certainly consider that. But I won't consider the idea that stem cell research must not be allowed becuase it is "sinful" according to a contemporary interpretation of a 2000 to 3000 year-old document that uses as the basis for its principles an almost absolutely improbable God rather than reason. If there are reasonable ethical and moral arguments I certainly would consider those. "God says its a sin according to my understanding of scriptures" is not worth my consideration and in fact is a position that deserves to be ridiculed simply because religious inspirations that have no reasonable basis are irrational (which is to say absurd).
No less a thinker than Thomas Jefferson said that "ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea from the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus." And if you still think that the characterization of the Old Testament God that I gave earlier is based in some sort of ingorance of scriptures then argue with Jefferson, a man who was a far greater thinker than anyone on this board will ever dream of being. It was he who said that "The Christian God is a being of terrific character--cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." You can argue with his ideas of justice to determin whether he is right or wrong about the Christian God.
Nevertheless, despite all of that I do find these debates invigorating. Always challenges me to rethink my own ideas, to make sure they're sound. So of course I welcome any flaws in my logic that you or anyone else might find. Hopefully, you view my statements in the same way, but if not it's not a horrible loss. I'm sure we'll all manage regardless of intent or misunderstanding.
- Status
