A Reprise: Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth

[Dave Wyatt]

I'll take just a few paragraphs of your dissertation LLunatic and address them. I may come back late and pick up the rest of it but maybe Hounded wouold like to address some of what you said.

First of all there was no "righteous indignation", your presumptive reasoning is wrong.


You're correct, perhaps I assume too much to say that you have no curiosity or "have never put forth any effort to learn about the Bibor of the possibility of the existence of a God--any God at all, let alone a Christian God." But I can say with certainty, based on the ludicrous strawman you posted about unicorns that your curiosity has apparently been limited.

You assume also that I'm referring only to your posts as containing vitriol and ad hominem attacks. I am not. There's plenty of resonsibility for that to be passed around. I take no offense nor do I propose that I've been harmed in any fashion by your words.

Are you, in your first paragrpah concerning Genesis, saying that man consuming the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, thereby learning of good and evil, was the sin?

Just trying to understand your foundational premise.

 

[DavidHawk324]

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
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.

Dave, I've disagreed with a lot of your posts in the past and still will probably never see eye to eye with you on many things regarding religion, especially on the topic of gay marriage among other things. That said, I definitely can respect your viewpoint. Especially knowing that you were open to ideas and put in the work so to speak before arriving at your religious choice. I am a former Catholic myself. Part of me exploring different philosophies and other things has lead me away from the church, where I'm sure I will stay. For you, it has clearly strengthened your faith. Just thought I'd let you know. I'll save the debating with you for later.

 

[Loquacious Lunatic]

Ah, I see. Well, I thought this statement in a previous post was directed at me as well as others:

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.

From what you're saying I guess I misread that. You weren't specific about who you were talking about so I thought it was possibly directed as me as much as anyone else. My assumption that you were possessed of self-righteous indignation was based on that segment of your post.

Anyway, we all make assumptions, some erroneous and some correct, simply because we have incomplete information and by putting forth those assumptions we open ourselves to the possibility of having them proved wrong. That's a good thing. Better to appear foolish for a moment than hold fast to a foolish idea.

You can't say with certainty that my curiosity has been limited because of the unicorn argument I put forth. You simply can't. You could have said that I was wrong and then provided an argument that proved it. For the sake of moving things along I'll accept that the biblical unicorn is something like a bull or water buffalo or whatnot. Fine. But it wasn't by a lack of curiosity that I put that forth. It was in fact because of my curiosity that I even stumbled upon the biblical versions that used the word "unicorn." Over time I may very well have continued to look into that to discover more. But I only recently discovered that term in the Bible. I'm limited by time in terms of what I can discover through my own curiosity. Plus, I am curious about things other than the Bible so I do not dedicate all of my time to attempting to decipher it by any means.

Admittedly, I do not have the familiarity with the Bible that Hounded does. Please, as you did with the unicorn, let me know if I'm misinterpreting the immaculate conception of Jesus. Here's the passage from Luke (I believe this is an Anglican version--I just looked for it online and it came up; if you have some other version that you, for whatever reason, feel is a better interpretation that contradicts this one then let me know):

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28And he came to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured one! The Lord is with you.’* 29But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30The angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. 31And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33He will reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’ 34Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’* 35The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born* will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

As I read it, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by Joseph or any other man.

Anyway, what am I saying about Genesis? No, I'm not saying that the sin was eating the fruit at all. The sin, as I've read the story, was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. But what I was getting at was imagining why God would not have wanted them to eat from the tree of knowledge. I was putting forth an idea that perhaps the reason, within the context of the story, was that God did not think Adam nor Eve were either ready or capable of wisely handling knowledge. It's not explained, as far as I can tell, why God would not want Adam or Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge in the first place. So I was putting forth a possibility of why that might have been. It's worthy of some thought just because it gets me to thinking about knowledge and the responsibility that accompanies knowledge. My ruminations aren't necessarily what the author(s) of Genesis meant at all. Rather, I was just trying to demonstrate the possibilities the story has separate from trying to determine whether God is real or merely as a back story to set up the rest of the book.

It's a benign view of the story and I think much of the vitriole you were referring to earlier is perhaps ill-directed at the Bible. The Bible is a book of stories and songs and predictions among other things. What people do in its name be worthy of vitriole and condemnation, though. That is certainly my biggest concern about the Bible. I think it has value, but I also know that interpretations of it taken far too seriously have been the source of horrendous atrocities (witch burnings, inquisitions, crusades, etc.) and horrifyingly foolish beliefs that become the basis for laws and punishments and systems of governing. The same goes for the Koran.

If I'm not mistaken, slavery is not something the Old Testament biblical God objects to. Isn't there a recommendation that the proper action of a slave is to obey his or her master to the best of that slave's abilities? And the master is to care responsibly for the slaves, including whippings? If so, it's no wonder the predominantly Baptist south was so up in arms over the idea of abolition (besides obvious financial losses due to the liberation of their "property"). A literal interpretation of Old Testament passages regarding slavery must have been part of their argument justifying the continued practice of slavery. Let me look this up to see what I can find ...

Here we go:

 

[Dave Wyatt]

LLunatic I think interpretation of the virgin birth is correct. In fact it was also prophesied in the Old Testament in Isaiah 7:14: (Amplified Bible) 14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].

If you choose to, you can source the multiple translations, some I wouldn't pay to get because they're uncomfortably and unneccessarily loose (read contemporary language use) in their attempt to "relate" to today's readers, at this site.

I normally work with the New American Standard, The Amplified, The New International, and the New King James, while at the same time having a Strong's Concordance and The Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Terstament Words.

Have to get back later got my son's birthday preparations to get going.

 

[Dave Wyatt]

Anyway, what am I saying about Genesis? No, I'm not saying that the sin was eating the fruit at all. The sin, as I've read the story, was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. But what I was getting at was imagining why God would not have wanted them to eat from the tree of knowledge. I was putting forth an idea that perhaps the reason, within the context of the story, was that God did not think Adam nor Eve were either ready or capable of wisely handling knowledge.

You've presented what could be interpreted as two different lines of thought on the "Tree of Knowledge" and the only way I can explain it is that in the traditional interpretation of Judaism as well as in Christianity, the Tree most certainly didn't impart "knowledge of good and evil", it existed for the purpose, as you said in the first statement you made (my emphasis in bold), to give Adam & Eve a choice.

The choice was to either obey God, or as is the nature of man, do his/her own thing.

The story symbolizes the freedom God gives us regarding a relationship with him. As the Knight Templar in Indiana Jones says "He/she/they choose poorly."

Now regarding slavery. The context, prevailing social morays, and customs of the times (both OT and NT) have to be taken into account Loquacious. God didn't invent and approve of slavery, just as he didn't invent and approve of murder, rape, lying, pedophilia, starvation, or the myriad of other woes that exist universally. They are the invention of man. God's regulation of those things was spoken to the Jewish prophets, and those Mosaic Laws have been codified and adapted down through the millenia. I know that opens another window of debate concerning the Hammurabi, but for the sake of brevity I'm not going to debate the foundational aspects of the ML here.

Again, those "sins", those universal behaviors that are abhorred and trouble mankind, are an example of the choices God gives us regarding serving our own desire or serving Him. Which is more efficacious? You know my answer. Do I succeed in following perfectly? No. But that's where the New Testament concept of grace enters in, and that is yet another discussion.

Now for the exigesis on the verses you referenced (and I really think you ought to put down the KJV and get a more accurate linguistic interpretaion working for you):

Exodus 21:20-21:

The Matthew Henry Commentary points out the language used here reflects two results and two consequences. The master stuck the slave and the slave died. The master was to be punished. No equivocation, even if the death was an accidental one. The master struck the slave, the slave survived and no punishment was required. As much as we abhor slavery today, it was the norm of the day and the striking of a slave in that society was not forbidden.

1 Peter 2:18 & Ephesians 6:5:

I don't see anything objectionable in these verses considering that the authors considered themselves servants to Jesus Christ (see 2 Peter 1:1). Most Christians I know consider themselves "servants" to Christ and find no callousness in having been imbued with that title.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

If anything, in this verse, I see a certain generosity in the regulation commanded. God didn't say "Kill 'em all and I'll sort 'em out later." He gave specific directive to take care of those whom the Israelites conquered. In that day, in that society, wealth was limited to few, and they were to have compassion for those who were not able to support or fend for themselves. This was practically a command to take extra responsibility upon yourself by executing a contract of indenturement, expecting services (labor) in trade for providing food and shelter to them. Of course today we'd simply say, let me adopt this child, but this was Israel and there was to be no comingling of races. A different time and social dynamic was in play.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14:

The context is war. God points out that the leadership of that conquered city, the men, should be removed permanently by execution since they were (again social construct of the time) the ones who led their people into idolotry. The women and children were spared and provided for.

Where you see callousness, I see justice and generosity.

Slavery/servanthood/bondman/bondmaid then as opposed to our concept as understood over the last 1900 years was completely different then.

It took theologians and activists that long to make that point, and yet today we still have the atrocity of Darfur, Somalia, etc.

You're right about the Bible being used as justification for the atrocities man has inflicted upon fellow man. But that is man's fault.

Disobedience, self-serving interpretation, sin.

Choices.

Thanks for exchange Loquacious. Hope this makes sense to you. Again, you eally ought to update your source for Bible reading.

 

[jrotten666]

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
Anyway, what am I saying about Genesis? No, I'm not saying that the sin was eating the fruit at all. The sin, as I've read the story, was that Adam and Eve disobeyed God. But what I was getting at was imagining why God would not have wanted them to eat from the tree of knowledge. I was putting forth an idea that perhaps the reason, within the context of the story, was that God did not think Adam nor Eve were either ready or capable of wisely handling knowledge.

You've presented what could be interpreted as two different lines of thought on the "Tree of Knowledge" and the only way I can explain it is that in the traditional interpretation of Judaism as well as in Christianity, the Tree most certainly didn't impart "knowledge of good and evil", it existed for the purpose, as you said in the first statement you made (my emphasis in bold), to give Adam & Eve a choice.

The choice was to either obey God, or as is the nature of man, do his/her own thing.

The story symbolizes the freedom God gives us regarding a relationship with him. As the Knight Templar in Indiana Jones says "He/she/they choose poorly."

Now regarding slavery. The context, prevailing social morays, and customs of the times (both OT and NT) have to be taken into account Loquacious. God didn't invent and approve of slavery, just as he didn't invent and approve of murder, rape, lying, pedophilia, starvation, or the myriad of other woes that exist universally. They are the invention of man. God's regulation of those things was spoken to the Jewish prophets, and those Mosaic Laws have been codified and adapted down through the millenia. I know that opens another window of debate concerning the Hammurabi, but for the sake of brevity I'm not going to debate the foundational aspects of the ML here.

Again, those "sins", those universal behaviors that are abhorred and trouble mankind, are an example of the choices God gives us regarding serving our own desire or serving Him. Which is more efficacious? You know my answer. Do I succeed in following perfectly? No. But that's where the New Testament concept of grace enters in, and that is yet another discussion.

Now for the exigesis on the verses you referenced (and I really think you ought to put down the KJV and get a more accurate linguistic interpretaion working for you):

Exodus 21:20-21:

The Matthew Henry Commentary points out the language used here reflects two results and two consequences. The master stuck the slave and the slave died. The master was to be punished. No equivocation, even if the death was an accidental one. The master struck the slave, the slave survived and no punishment was required. As much as we abhor slavery today, it was the norm of the day and the striking of a slave in that society was not forbidden.

1 Peter 2:18 & Ephesians 6:5:

I don't see anything objectionable in these verses considering that the authors considered themselves servants to Jesus Christ (see 2 Peter 1:1). Most Christians I know consider themselves "servants" to Christ and find no callousness in having been imbued with that title.

Leviticus 25:44-46:

If anything, in this verse, I see a certain generosity in the regulation commanded. God didn't say "Kill 'em all and I'll sort 'em out later." He gave specific directive to take care of those whom the Israelites conquered. In that day, in that society, wealth was limited to few, and they were to have compassion for those who were not able to support or fend for themselves. This was practically a command to take extra responsibility upon yourself by executing a contract of indenturement, expecting services (labor) in trade for providing food and shelter to them. Of course today we'd simply say, let me adopt this child, but this was Israel and there was to be no comingling of races. A different time and social dynamic was in play.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14:

The context is war. God points out that the leadership of that conquered city, the men, should be removed permanently by execution since they were (again social construct of the time) the ones who led their people into idolotry. The women and children were spared and provided for.

Where you see callousness, I see justice and generosity.

Slavery/servanthood/bondman/bondmaid then as opposed to our concept as understood over the last 1900 years was completely different then.

It took theologians and activists that long to make that point, and yet today we still have the atrocity of Darfur, Somalia, etc.

You're right about the Bible being used as justification for the atrocities man has inflicted upon fellow man. But that is man's fault.

Disobedience, self-serving interpretation, sin.

Choices.

Thanks for exchange Loquacious. Hope this makes sense to you. Again, you eally ought to update your source for Bible reading.

I don't understand how you can argue that God did not approve of slavery. Where in the Bible is there any condemnation of the institution of slavery? And slavery in Rome was not indentured servitude, but slaves were chattel. To be sure it was different than modern Southern chattel slavery, which had its own uniue characteristics, but slavery nonetheless. And no one really opposed the institution in those times, not even the slaves themselves, but God is not your average Joe blow ancient human. He is allegedly the imparter of how mankind should live their life.

So God was just following the customs of the times and giving guidance on how to regulate those customs? One of the customs of Nazi Germany was killing Jews. I suppose God would have just gone along with the local custom and helped out by providing regulations on how it should best be done. Homosexuals also were killed by the Nazis and I guess the Bible does provide guidance on how that should be done.

So we have the Bible, where God lays out all these laws: "Don't commit adultery. Don't engage in homosexuality. If your willie gets chopped off, you are in trouble....Buy and sell other human beings??? No problem, just be nice about it."

So on one of the burining questions of human history, God kind of takes an offhands attitude to the whole thing. He is more concerned with other things, like sodomy.

 

[Dave Wyatt]

I don't understand how you can argue that God did not approve of slavery. Where in the Bible is there any condemnation of the institution of slavery?

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16 (Amplified Bible)

Does this sound like an approval of slavery?

Did you understand what I said about the social structure of ancient Israel and the world in general?

I know at least one poster here thinks I say it too much, but, CONTEXT!!!

In the context of the times are you aware that Hebrew families would sell themselves or family members into servitude in order survive? Are you aware of the Year of Jubilee? Do you know that in the Year of Jubilee the Hebrew "slave" was set free?

You're so sure that your understanding is complete on this but I question your familiarity with the follow verses:

Exodus 21:26-27
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."

Exodus 21:12
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 23:12
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves."

Leviticus 25:39-43
"If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God."

Exodus 21:2
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment."

Proverbs 29:21
"He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son."

Honestly I don't expect to change your mind, but I won't let you get away with the statements you made without responding with the truth.

"So on one of the burining questions of human history, God kind of takes an offhands attitude to the whole thing. He is more concerned with other things, like sodomy."

I suspect you meant "hands-off attitude", but ya, you betcha. Such a hands-off attitude that Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the cross for the sins of mankind.

Now there's a God with no vested interest.

 

[jrotten666]

Originally posted by Dave Wyatt:
I don't understand how you can argue that God did not approve of slavery. Where in the Bible is there any condemnation of the institution of slavery?

"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16 (Amplified Bible)

Does this sound like an approval of slavery?

Did you understand what I said about the social structure of ancient Israel and the world in general?

I know at least one poster here thinks I say it too much, but, CONTEXT!!!

In the context of the times are you aware that Hebrew families would sell themselves or family members into servitude in order survive? Are you aware of the Year of Jubilee? Do you know that in the Year of Jubilee the Hebrew "slave" was set free?

You're so sure that your understanding is complete on this but I question your familiarity with the follow verses:

Exodus 21:26-27
"If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. "And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth."

Exodus 21:12
"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 23:12
"Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves."

Leviticus 25:39-43
"If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. 'He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. 'He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. 'For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. 'You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God."

Exodus 21:2
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment."

Proverbs 29:21
"He who pampers his slave from childhood will in the end find him to be a son."

Honestly I don't expect to change your mind, but I won't let you get away with the statements you made without responding with the truth.

"So on one of the burining questions of human history, God kind of takes an offhands attitude to the whole thing. He is more concerned with other things, like sodomy."

I suspect you meant "hands-off attitude", but ya, you betcha. Such a hands-off attitude that Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the cross for the sins of mankind.

Now there's a God with no vested interest.

But I am not just speaking about Israel or even the Old Testament necessarily. Jesus
operated within the Roman Empire. Slavery within Rome was not indentured
servitude, but chattel slavery. Different from chattel slavery in modern times,
but slavery nonetheless. Christians that try to justify the Bible on this always
fall back on the position that slavery was different in Ancient times or that it
was more like indentured servitude. It had its own unique characteristics, but
it was still slavery.


Even the Bible recognizes that this “indentured servitude” in Israel was more
than just a labor contract for a set number of years, which you are trying to
reduce it to.


You do realize that there is a huge difference between a labor contract (or even
an apprenticeship) and what
we are talking about here? Under a labor contract today, I am bound to the terms
of the contract for a set time period. However, I am also free to break such
contract, but must suffer the legal penalties for doing so. I might be fined
heavily, but I will not be beaten, killed or imprisoned for violating said
“servitude”. I am still free labor.


This is not what we are talking about in the Bible by any means. I know what
slavery was in Rome, but honestly I am not familiar with the system in Israel.
However, let’s take the Bible at it word on this and even use your translation
(Amplified). I will concede that the Bible is accurate in regards to this.


Thus we have:


Leviticus 25:


44 As for your bondmen and your bondmaids whom you may have, they shall
be from the nations round about you, of whom you may buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers who sojourn among you, of them you
may buy and of their families that are with you which they have begotten in your
land, and they shall be your possession.


46 And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold
for a possession; of them shall you take your bondmen always, but over your
brethren the Israelites you shall not rule one over another with harshness
(severity, oppression).

Using the term "bondmen" might be less harsh than slave, but we are still
speaking about chattel here, no matter how the person entered into the position.




Putting Exodus 21:16 within the context of these passages reads that it is
probably not kosher to steal slaves or kidnap your neighbor and sell into
slavery. You could use it as a condemnation of the slave trade, but that
is stretching it a bit, especially since Exodus deals with how one is to engage
in the buying and selling of bondmen (read slaves).




And then there is


Exodus 21:

7 If a man sells his daughter
to be a maidservant or bondwoman, she shall not go out [in six years] as
menservants do.

8 If she does not please her
master who has not espoused her to himself, he shall let her be redeemed. To
sell her to a foreign people he shall have no power, for he has dealt
faithlessly with her.

9 And if he espouses her to
his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.

10 If he marries again, her
food, clothing, and privilege as a wife shall he not diminish.

11 And if he does not do
these three things for her, then shall she go out free, without payment of
money.



So it is OK to sell your daughters into servitude, where the master can force
her to marry his son? And what exactly does
"if she does not please her master who has not espoused her to himself"
mean? Screwing the maidservant is OK, but in the end, you really need to marry
her?


Is this morally repugnant to you at all? Or do
we just chalk it up as one of God's wonderful, wacky way of doing things?
You don't suppose God could have stepped in and said "Guys, this just isn't
right!"?


And lest we think that being an "indentured servant" was all fun and games



Exodus 21
20 And if a man strikes his servant
or his maid with a rod and he [or she] dies under his hand, he shall surely be
punished.
21 But if the servant lives on
for a day or two, the offender shall not be punished, for he [has injured] his
own property.

Note the term "property". And this is using your translation, which has
the nicer term servant, rather than slave. We are not talking about a
simple labor contract here. "Hey come and work for me for seven years and
I will pay off your debts! We'll have a grand time!".




Granted the Ancient world was a brutal place, with different customs and
outlooks. Nobody opposed slavery as an institution, not even the slaves
themselves. The slave revolts in Rome were not aimed at abolishing the
institution, but at simple freeing themselves. One would have thought that
God could have transcended all this, since the Bible is supposedly a guide on
how mankind is to live his life and not just how to do it 2000+ years ago. Instead, we
have a God that is at best pandering to this social backwardness. The
average person on the street today has more morality many times over than the
God of the Old Testament.




So let's move on the the more "enlightened" New Testament. Here we have
Jesus running around the Eastern edge of the Roman Empire shooting his mouth
off. Wow! The perfect chance to condemn the institution of slavery
as it then existed in Rome. Not only that, but make a statement for those
who will live in the centuries to come, including the Southern plantation owners
in the United States.




I will leave Luke 12 out of this, since it is a parable, but it doesn't
bolster the anti-slavery argument and in fact leans the other way. So
where does Jesus condemn the ownership of other humans? He doesn't.
He has a lot to say about other more terrible things like adultery, pride,
divorce, etc., but not about one of the major questions of human history.

Other parts of the New Testament have things to say though:




Ephesians 6:
5 Servants (slaves), be obedient
to those who are your physical masters, having respect for them and eager
concern to please them, in singleness of motive and with all your heart, as
[service] to Christ [Himself]--



This is the Amplified translation.
Note to translator: Let's remove that nasty slave reference, since it is so
impolitic. Don't know how we missed that one!




1 Timothy 6

1 LET ALL who are under the yoke as bond servants esteem their own [personal]
masters worthy of honor and fullest respect, so that the name of God and the
teaching [about Him] may not be brought into disrepute and blasphemed.





I don't have a big problem with placing the teachings of the Bible within the
context of the times. Put if you do this, what criteria are you going to
use to pick and choose which is just a part of the times and which is relevant
to today? "Owning other people is morally wrong today, because the times
have changed, but there is no way same sex people can marry. That is just
morally wrong and sinful."

The Bible is supposed to be a moral guide for all time, without which mankind
will sink into degeneracy and sin even more than he is. Yet treating
others as property doesn't seem to deserve mention as an unqualified Biblical
no-no.

 

[Dave Wyatt]

Glad you took the time to respond, in a substantially non-antagonistic manner especially, and I only have time to address these three points:

1) You insist on viewing slavery in the context of your understanding and perceptions conditioned by the social standards you and I are most familiar with. Any sociologist can tell you that's a misperception and can't be applied to ancient cultures. It's disingenuous and misleading.

2) Your comment about removing "that nasty slave reference, since it is so impolitic" was an unneccessary slap at the credibility of the translation and shows a disregard for the advance in linguistic studies that relate to the translation of the original language.

3) Regarding "owning other people " and same sex marriage.
I think it's crystal clear that God approved of servitude only because it meant the chance to survive for those who were "slaves". Without the master/servant relationship those individuals and even entire families would have perished in the culture they inhabited.

Same sex marriage isn't a life or death issue, at least in a temporal sense. In God's eyes it's a moral issue and an (pardon the bluntness of the comment) abberation from His design. Just like the "Tree of Knowledge" discussion, there is a choice to be made, even if that choice seems natural to you and I, is it the correct choice in God's economy?

Paul wrote Philemon about the ownership of Onesimus after the latter had escaped, been exposed to the gospel, and became a follower of Jesus Christ, of which Philemon was also. The preference is that all men be free, but the times carried a different attitude. Philemon likely made a choice when Onesimus returned to his household, what that decision was we don't know, but Paul trusted he would make the right decision.

Choices. God lets us make them.
This post was edited on 3/4 10:35 PM by Dave Wyattif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
Right, because numbers of believers = a greater likelihood of truth.

I'll remember that the next time you use the majority when it comes to a physical science on something. The point is that it's at least worth investigating.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
My mind *is* closed off to unsubstantied myths, I'll give you that.

You don't know if it is a myth or not because you haven't ever investigated it.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Re: RE

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

You only suspect there is no cause. I don't believe it for a minute. Don't lecture me as if anybody truly understands all the aspects of quantum mechanics. It's a lot of faith, and I wouldn't be suprised if several aspects of theory were corrected just the way Newton had to be.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

The bottom line is that you believe something can come from absolutely and purely nothing based on faith. It's funny. In some ways you're like me. You call the originator of all things non-physical as I do. Your originator is called "nothing" and mine is called "God."

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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 keep asserting this but you have never refuted the logic. Criminal science uses the same type of logic concerning probability/statistics and process of elimination to prove who did what. It's no different than what I use.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

Yes, those were nice additions to human knowledge by believers.
It proves nothing as far as whether there is a creator or not.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

Don't group me in with people of the past. Perhaps I should group you in with scientists who thought the sound barrier could not be broken or going to the moon was impossible.

Your belief requires ignoring probability and statistics. I think it takes more faith to believe what you believe. As you said, you have FAITH that science will explain origins. It hasn't yet but you have FAITH/BELIEF that it will. And though it hasn't you believe it anyway. You're a very religious person.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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 /images/smilies/roll.gif

And you believe it though science hasn't proven it yet. Again, that takes great faith.

The greatest faith of all is your belief that something can come from absolutely and purely nothing. It's perhaps the greatest faith any human can have on any matter.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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."

Show some integrity and at least see the context of why I said what I did. I have never believed that the majority prove anything. That's a fact I've stood behind for years. My point was that it at least should be investigated since hundreds of millions believe it. But Phil said he would not investigate it at all, yet he determined it to be wrong. Intellectual dishonesty.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"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.

I don't believe they are popping in and out of total existence. It just cannot be detected. Science doesn't clearly show anything when it comes to this area. It's a lot of theory. Plus, having stuff allegedly "pop in and out" when there is already something here is vastly different than something popping into existence from absolultey and purely nothing.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Re: RE

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

You only suspect there is no cause. I don't believe it for a minute. Don't lecture me as if anybody truly understands all the aspects of quantum mechanics. It's a lot of faith, and I wouldn't be suprised if several aspects of theory were corrected just the way Newton had to be.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
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.

The bottom line is that you believe something can come from absolutely and purely nothing based on faith. It's funny. In some ways you're like me. You call the originator of all things non-physical as I do. Your originator is called "nothing" and mine is called "God."

LOL it is no use arguing with you. You just disregard scientific fact and theory based on "I don't believe it for a minute." Back that up a little bit and show me some good science to show that there is a cause.

Your right the theory will probably be adjusted a bit, but it will most likely not be totatlly replaced.

No, I don't believe something can come from nothing based on faith. The physics show that it can. That isn't faith(which requires a lack of evidence), thats an assertion with evidence to back it up.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

[/B]"You keep asserting this but you have never refuted the logic. Criminal science uses the same type of logic concerning probability/statistics and process of elimination to prove who did what. It's no different than what I use."[/B]


Refuted what logic? There is no logic in saying that a creator exists or can intervenne in the universe whenever he pleases without effecting everything else. Why is there no logic in this? Well for starters, there is no logic in a creator to begin with because of the INFINITE regression to which you continue to ignore. You choose to stop at one god, but why, why not say god has a creator? You have no logical arguement to stop, you just choose in your own mind to stop with 1 god.


"Yes, those were nice additions to human knowledge by believers.
It proves nothing as far as whether there is a creator or not."

It wasn't meant to show there was no god. It was meant to show how believers have continually drawn back where god operates because science has steadily replaced god with natural answers to things. Meaning, religion has never been very good at explaining anything about the natural world.

"Don't group me in with people of the past. Perhaps I should group you in with scientists who thought the sound barrier could not be broken or going to the moon was impossible.

Your belief requires ignoring probability and statistics. I think it takes more faith to believe what you believe. As you said, you have FAITH that science will explain origins. It hasn't yet but you have FAITH/BELIEF that it will. And though it hasn't you believe it anyway. You're a very religious person."

My belief is based on probabilty and statistics, which has mathmatical support for it. See faith= belief in something with no evidence to support it. My belief in the the science is absolutely backed by evidence. Science is all about those exact things when it comes to quantum mechanics and the entire universe. You understand nothing of the current scientific theories about the universe or evolution if you think that it is ignorning probability.

"And you believe it though science hasn't proven it yet. Again, that takes great faith.

The greatest faith of all is your belief that something can come from absolutely and purely nothing. It's perhaps the greatest faith any human can have on any matter."

Its funny, thats exactly what you believe about god. Whats interesting though, is that we have equations that do show that something can come from nothing. Hell black holes are turning something into nothing all the time. Physics has clearly shown the opposite is possible.
This post was edited on 3/4 11:39 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"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.

I don't believe they are popping in and out of total existence. It just cannot be detected. Science doesn't clearly show anything when it comes to this area. It's a lot of theory. Plus, having stuff allegedly "pop in and out" when there is already something here is vastly different than something popping into existence from absolultey and purely nothing.

Again, thats a belief you have that has no backing to it what-so-ever. I'm beginning to wonder if you remember much of your study of physics. The uncertainty principle shows that there is a basic level of uncertainty in the universe that we can never get around, so things popping into and out of existence with no cause is completely possible.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

"You're a very religious person."



"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Refuted what logic? There is no logic in saying that a creator exists or can intervenne in the universe whenever he pleases without effecting everything else. Why is there no logic in this?[/B]

It's pure logic. If He couldn't then He wouldn't be the Creator. It would require this type of being.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Why is there no logic in this? Well for starters, there is no logic in a creator to begin with because of the INFINITE regression to which you continue to ignore. You choose to stop at one god, but why, why not say god has a creator? You have no logical arguement to stop, you just choose in your own mind to stop with 1 god.

That's because my theory requires that there only be one God. If there was a god before Him, then it's not GOD. God must be infinite, sitting above the timeline, to be the God that can be the prime cause of everything.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Yes, those were nice additions to human knowledge by believers.
It proves nothing as far as whether there is a creator or not."

It wasn't meant to show there was no god. It was meant to show how believers have continually drawn back where god operates because science has steadily replaced god with natural answers to things. Meaning, religion has never been very good at explaining anything about the natural world.

It's irrelevant what past believers attributed to God concerning whether I am right or not on whether God is the primary cause. It's irrelevant for this discussion. It's just another means by which you insult believers.

Religion has been very good at explaining many things in the natural world. Over 3,500 years ago the Bible was saying the Earth was a sphere and suspended in the universe while other thinkers were clueless. The Bible was saying there were ocean currents and numerous other things ahead of its time.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
My belief is based on probabilty and statistics, which has mathmatical support for it. See faith= belief in something with no evidence to support it. My belief in the the science is absolutely backed by evidence. Science is all about those exact things when it comes to quantum mechanics and the entire universe. You understand nothing of the current scientific theories about the universe or evolution if you think that it is ignorning probability.

You're ignorant on what faith really means when it comes from a biblical point of view and therefore how I'm using it. Here's what I mean when I say "faith." There is evidence for faith. There are things that support it. Faith is not blind, it just isn't as proven as 2 + 2 = 4. For example, scientists have faith there is dark matter. They talk about it as though it is real, but there may be another solution. You have faith that matter can come from nothing. That is faith. I don't believe it. I think quantum theory's thoughts of multiple dimensions, etc. doesn't allow for PURELY nothing.

I also use probability and statistics for my faith. I think it violates laws of thermodynamics for matter to spontaneously appear or to exist forever. I think it violates probability/statistics for matter to organize itself into living tissue. I think it's statistically impossible for living tissue to bring about the most complicated object in the known universe, that is, the human brain.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Its funny, thats exactly what you believe about god. Whats interesting though, is that we have equations that do show that something can come from nothing. Hell black holes are turning something into nothing all the time. Physics has clearly shown the opposite is possible.

And there are physicists that would disagree with you. It's the height of arrogance for you to think you know what exactly goes on inside a black hole.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"You're a very religious person."



"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein

And it is also an admission that what we can understand about this natural realm will alway be very imperfect. And if one doesn't by faith believe God brought it about, one will then have faith that it came into existence out of nothing. Countless brilliant scientist have believed in the past and believe today that God is the prime cause.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Again, thats a belief you have that has no backing to it what-so-ever. I'm beginning to wonder if you remember much of your study of physics.

Perhaps you've forgotten if physics even allows for absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
The uncertainty principle shows that there is a basic level of uncertainty in the universe that we can never get around, so things popping into and out of existence with no cause is completely possible.

Then it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a God.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

"It's pure logic. If He couldn't then He wouldn't be the Creator. It would require this type of being."

Logic to you, idiocy to me. We seem to have a conflicting definition of what logic requires. Mines follows more of a scientific line, you follow w/e makes god exist for you and call it logic.

"That's because my theory requires that there only be one God. If there was a god before Him, then it's not GOD. God must be infinite, sitting above the timeline, to be the God that can be the prime cause of everything."

Then you're starting to see my point. You are just arbitrarily choosing to stop with one god, you have absolutely no reason too. Its an infinite regression of what created what that NEVER stops. Thats why its called an infinite regression.

"You're ignorant on what faith really means when it comes from a biblical point of view and therefore how I'm using it. Here's what I mean when I say "faith." There is evidence for faith. There are things that support it. Faith is not blind, it just isn't as proven as 2 + 2 = 4. For example, scientists have faith there is dark matter. They talk about it as though it is real, but there may be another solution. You have faith that matter can come from nothing. That is faith. I don't believe it. I think quantum theory's thoughts of multiple dimensions, etc. doesn't allow for PURELY nothing. "

Tere is no evidence for faith. The definition of faith is belief in something with lack of evidence.

Dark matter is a generic term(all matter is technically dark matter). It doesn't describe any individual thing. Its a term to be used once what we are looking for is found(and it will be, we need more sensitive intruments). We have evidence to support its existence because the math shows us we need this and there appears to be a diffuse gas that envelopes everything in the universe(previously unseen), it appears to be the best candidate for dark matter.

No it is not faith that something can come from nothing. The math shows that it can. Faith=requires evidence.

"I also use probability and statistics for my faith. I think it violates laws of thermodynamics for matter to spontaneously appear or to exist forever. I think it violates probability/statistics for matter to organize itself into living tissue. I think it's statistically impossible for living tissue to bring about the most complicated object in the known universe, that is, the human brain."

No, actually it doesn't violate thermodynamics. The matter isn't going to exist for ever it has a finite life span, everything in the universe is going to eventually die, even the atoms themselves. Space, if it keeps going the way we think it will, will just stretch everything apart to the point where atoms can no longer hold together. Thats a long way off though.

It doesnt' not violated probability and statisitic that life arose and became complicated. THe universe is rich in organic matter. Its everywhere. A lot of the moons around Jupiter and Saturn are COVERED in it. We have done experiments that show with early Earth conditions, a spark of electricity for a few hours creates complex organic molecules, some even capable of making crude copies of themselves.



Not to mention there are 300 billion stars in this galaxy. There are billions and billions of stars. What may be unlikely/improbable for 1 planet, becomes likely when you begin to add up the numbers of chances for life to arise.


"And there are physicists that would disagree with you. It's the height of arrogance for you to think you know what exactly goes on inside a black hole."



Its not arrogance when the math shows it. If we truely want to know, we probably have to take a dive into one, but from what we have studied and theorized about them, we have a pretty good idea.
This post was edited on 3/5 11:48 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/5 11:56 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"You're a very religious person."



"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- Albert Einstein

And it is also an admission that what we can understand about this natural realm will alway be very imperfect. And if one doesn't by faith believe God brought it about, one will then have faith that it came into existence out of nothing. Countless brilliant scientist have believed in the past and believe today that God is the prime cause.

Imperfect in the sense there will always be something to discover.

Again you are calling something that has backing mathmatically and calling it faith. Thats not even close.

Again, the number of believers in something has no bearing on its validity.
This post was edited on 3/5 11:51 AM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

"Perhaps you've forgotten if physics even allows for absolutely nothing."

? Just taking a shot in the dark there?

"Then it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a God."

Infinite regress.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

What you failed to see in arguing for the thermodynamic law is that while it works for the universe, all atoms will eventually die, god must also cease to exist at some point if you follow this law. But you will say it doesn't apply to god, but thats an asymmetric argument. Which turns out to be the same thing you say for everything, which makes your argument worthless.
This post was edited on 3/5 12:04 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
This post was edited on 3/5 12:05 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"It's pure logic. If He couldn't then He wouldn't be the Creator. It would require this type of being."

Logic to you, idiocy to mean. We seem to have a conflicting definition of what logic requires. Mines follows more of a scientific line, you follow w/e makes god exist for you and call it logic.

"Idiocy to mean"? "Mines"? Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. Are you this sloppy with your physics? I make typing mistakes, but you're falling apart here.

The only thing I agree with is our conflict on what logic requires. Mine is simple. Either:

1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter came from nothing.
3. Matter was created.

I've looked at #1 and #2. #1 violates entropy and #2 violates the law of causality and the bounds of common sense. Therefore #3 remains.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Tere is no evidence for faith. The definition of faith is belief in something with lack of evidence.

Why are you being so dense? Why aren't you listening? I'm trying to teach what faith means to many educated believers. "Faith" is the same word for "trust" to us. And we don't trust unless we have some evidence.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Then you're starting to see my point. You are just arbitrarily choosing to stop with one god, you have absolutely no reason too. Its an infinite regression of what created what that NEVER stops. Thats why its called an infinite regression.

No, I don't believe your point at all. And there is nothing arbitrary to it. I'm convinced you do not read what I post. You just have a knee jerk reaction and it all flies over your head.

READ CAREFULLY - Since I believe the physical cannot account for itself or have existed forever, I therefore theorize there is a non-physical originator of it all. This entity cannot have ANY physical attributes or it would succomb to the same problem. It cannot exist in linear time and therefore have a beginning. It cannot have mass. It cannot have boundaries. It must therefore be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This happens to be the exact description of the Creator in the Bible.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Dark matter is a generic term(all matter is technically dark matter). It doesn't describe any individual thing. Its a term to be used once what we are looking for is found(and it will be, we need more sensitive intruments).

Yes, I know you believe it is there on faith. And by faith you believe it will be found. You see an effect and you theorized a cause. This is what I have done.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
No, actually it doesn't violate thermodynamics. The matter isn't going to exist for ever it has a finite life span, everything in the universe is going to eventually die, even the atoms themselves. Space, if it keeps going the way we think it will, will just stretch everything apart to the point where atoms can no longer hold together. Thats a long way off though.

Well, that's a nice guess that I happen to agree with if everything is allowed to continue that long. But, it's irrelevant. My point went flying over your head again.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
It doesnt' not violated probability and statisitic that life arose and became complicated. THe universe is rich in organic matter. Its everywhere. A lot of the moons around Jupiter and Saturn are COVERED in it. We have done experiments that show with early Earth conditions, a spark of electricity for a few hours creates complex organic molecules, some even capable of making crude copies of themselves.

That's one gigantic lie. Your definition of "organic" is just outrageous. A carbon atom must be organic to you.

What you're trying to claim concerning the organic is about as accurate/relevant as someone saying, "I've seen rocks make themselves. I saw a big rock collide with another one and make a whole bunch more rocks. They're reproducing."

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Not to mention there are 300 billion stars in this galaxy. There are billions and billions of stars. What may be unlikely/improbable for 1 planet, becomes likely when you begin to add up the numbers of chances for life to arise.

No, I would say it is still statistically impossible. Those are still infinitesimally small numbers when talking of the total odds for a brain to come about.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Its not arrogance when the math shows it. If we truely want to know, we probably have to take a dive into one, but from what we have studied and theorized about them, we have a pretty good idea.

"Math schmath" is what some physicists would say to you. It's a whole house of cards.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

What you failed to see in arguing for the thermodynamic law is that while it works for the universe, all atoms will eventually die, god must also cease to exist at some point if you follow this law. But you will say it doesn't apply to god, but thats an asymmetric argument. Which turns out to be the same thing you say for everything, which makes your argument worthless.

No, it's called logical. I can't violate the definition of God just so your argument can hold water.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Perhaps you've forgotten if physics even allows for absolutely nothing."

? Just taking a shot in the dark there?

No, just seeing if you understand that. You don't seem to.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Then it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a God."

Infinite regress.

Infinite Cranial Thickness.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

And you're demonstrating the chaos theory through your spelling pattern. If you're going to insult a group's argument at least spell "argument" correctly.

And I haven't used the consciousness argument. I used the brain as an example of the most complex item in the known universe. Again, you're just a knee jerker. You don't really listen.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Again, the number of believers in something has no bearing on its validity.

No reason to spout my mantra. I know it better than you. I live it.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

""Idiocy to mean"? "Mines"? Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. Are you this sloppy with your physics? I make typing mistakes, but you're falling apart here.

The only thing I agree with is our conflict on what logic requires. Mine is simple. Either:

1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter came from nothing.
3. Matter was created.

I've looked at #1 and #2. #1 violates entropy and #2 violates the law of causality and the bounds of common sense. Therefore #3 remains."

Grammar police now? Its a mispelling that can still be understood by anyone with a working mind.

#2 does not violate the law of causality, thats something you just chose to arbitrarily apply. The phsysics show it is possible. This is why I'm getting tired of arguing with you. You don't understand a thing about physics behind this.

"Why are you being so dense? Why aren't you listening? I'm trying to teach what faith means to many educated believers. "Faith" is the same word for "trust" to us. And we don't trust unless we have some evidence."

What faith means to you is not at all what faith actually means. You are calling my scientific beliefs faith, which is totally wrong since there is solid evidence behind the claims.

Funny, you trust Christianity is right yet there is no evidence for it. Thats faith.

"No, I don't believe your point at all. And there is nothing arbitrary to it. I'm convinced you do not read what I post. You just have a knee jerk reaction and it all flies over your head.

READ CAREFULLY - Since I believe the physical cannot account for itself or have existed forever, I therefore theorize there is a non-physical originator of it all. This entity cannot have ANY physical attributes or it would succomb to the same problem. It cannot exist in linear time and therefore have a beginning. It cannot have mass. It cannot have boundaries. It must therefore be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. This happens to be the exact description of the Creator in the Bible. "

Yes it's purely arbitrary. You choose to stop with one god instead of continuing on. You have no logical reason to stop with one god if you introduce one in the first place.

Your theory isn't a very good theory since it isn't testable. It's worthless.

"
Yes, I know you believe it is there on faith. And by faith you believe it will be found. You see an effect and you theorized a cause. This is what I have done."

It isn't there on faith, we've see this diffuse gas. There are other things like dark energy to which we haven't seen so maybe you are confusing dark matter with dark energy, but we are getting a better idea of what dark matter is.

Yes, we see an effect and theorize a cause. A natural cause. God isn't needed.

"That's one gigantic lie. Your definition of "organic" is just outrageous. A carbon atom must be organic to you.

What you're trying to claim concerning the organic is about as accurate/relevant as someone saying, "I've seen rocks make themselves. I saw a big rock collide with another one and make a whole bunch more rocks. They're reproducing.""

link

Organic molecules are everywhere in space. Star deaths make them. And no it isn't a lie, they do make more complex molecules when given a spark(see exobiology). Carl Sagan did some very great work in this area in his quest for life elsewhere in the universe.

"No, I would say it is still statistically impossible. Those are still infinitesimally small numbers when talking of the total odds for a brain to come about."

I'm sure you would. No amount of evidence wille very convince you otherwise, which is why I'm getting tired of responding over and over again.

""Math schmath" is what some physicists would say to you. It's a whole house of cards."

Yeah, I'm mean, if the math says one things, but my personal belief says another, my personal belief must be right, not the math.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

What you failed to see in arguing for the thermodynamic law is that while it works for the universe, all atoms will eventually die, god must also cease to exist at some point if you follow this law. But you will say it doesn't apply to god, but thats an asymmetric argument. Which turns out to be the same thing you say for everything, which makes your argument worthless.

No, it's called logical. I can't violate the definition of God just so your argument can hold water.

Another example of why it is useless to argue with you. All you say is "god did it" and you are satisfied. Me, I'd like to have a explanation which doesn't rely on superstition.
This post was edited on 3/5 12:47 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

What you failed to see in arguing for the thermodynamic law is that while it works for the universe, all atoms will eventually die, god must also cease to exist at some point if you follow this law. But you will say it doesn't apply to god, but thats an asymmetric argument. Which turns out to be the same thing you say for everything, which makes your argument worthless.

No, it's called logical. I can't violate the definition of God just so your argument can hold water.

/images/smilies/roll.gif

Another example of why it is useless to argue with you. All you say is "god did it" and you are satisfied. Me, I'd like to have a explanation which doesn't rely on superstition.

Your's rely on a spurious faith in unproven theories.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

It is spelled argument. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. Here I'll link it for you argument

Yes you have used that argument for consciousness. You said the brain is more too complex to have arisen through evolution. That is the argument for consciousness. It's not that I don't listen. It's that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
You've now tried the cosmological argument for god, the argument for consciousness from god, and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

What you failed to see in arguing for the thermodynamic law is that while it works for the universe, all atoms will eventually die, god must also cease to exist at some point if you follow this law. But you will say it doesn't apply to god, but thats an asymmetric argument. Which turns out to be the same thing you say for everything, which makes your argument worthless.

No, it's called logical. I can't violate the definition of God just so your argument can hold water.

/images/smilies/roll.gif

Another example of why it is useless to argue with you. All you say is "god did it" and you are satisfied. Me, I'd like to have a explanation which doesn't rely on superstition.

Your's rely on a spurious faith in unproven theories.

Unproven sure, but they don't require faith. It's hard to prove a theory in science. Well its actually impossible because you would need infinite tests to do that. But at a certain point, things become fact to scientists and not just theories. Like evolution. There may need to be small changes made here and there, but the overall theory is correct.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Perhaps you've forgotten if physics even allows for absolutely nothing."

? Just taking a shot in the dark there?

No, just seeing if you understand that. You don't seem to.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
"Then it wouldn't be impossible for there to be a God."

Infinite regress.

Infinite Cranial Thickness.

Good reply. Physics does allow for nothing to come from something. Which is why I asked if you were just taking a shot in the dark.

Now you've spun that into "I understand something you don't" but you didn't even say what it is you understand, which is clearly nothing since physics does allow for it.



Also, this is going to be my last reply in this thread. No matter what my argument is, no matter how factually and logically based it is, you just ignore it in favor of superstition so it is really pointless to keep arguing with you.
This post was edited on 3/5 1:01 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

 

[HoundedHawk]

You responded to my following statement,

"That's one gigantic lie. Your definition of "organic" is just outrageous. A carbon atom must be organic to you.

What you're trying to claim concerning the organic is about as accurate/relevant as someone saying, "I've seen rocks make themselves. I saw a big rock collide with another one and make a whole bunch more rocks. They're reproducing.""

link

Organic molecules are everywhere in space. Star deaths make them. And no it isn't a lie, they do make more complex molecules when given a spark(see exobiology). Carl Sagan did some very great work in this area in his quest for life elsewhere in the universe.
Yes, just as I knew. Here's your definition of "organic" from the linked article.

Life molecules - The newly discovered molecules are made up of 6 to 11 atoms each and are classified as organic because they contain carbon.
You're right though. This is getting so boring. I've argued with so many of your type for years. You're so programmed that you can't think outside the box. I know what you believe. I've been there, done that.

 

[iowahawkeyes1986]

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
You responded to my following statement,



"That's one gigantic lie. Your definition of "organic" is just outrageous. A carbon atom must be organic to you.

What you're trying to claim concerning the organic is about as accurate/relevant as someone saying, "I've seen rocks make themselves. I saw a big rock collide with another one and make a whole bunch more rocks. They're reproducing.""

link

Organic molecules are everywhere in space. Star deaths make them. And no it isn't a lie, they do make more complex molecules when given a spark(see exobiology). Carl Sagan did some very great work in this area in his quest for life elsewhere in the universe.
Yes, just as I knew. Here's your definition of "organic" from the linked article.


Life molecules - The newly discovered molecules are made up of 6 to 11 atoms each and are classified as organic because they contain carbon.
You're right though. This is getting so boring. I've argued with so many of your type for years. You're so programmed that you can't think outside the box. I know what you believe. I've been there, done that.

They are molecules that contain carbon, not just carbon, which makes them organic molecules, the same ones found on the surface of the Earth or on the moons of Saturn, Juptier, Uranus, and Neptune. They become more complex upon having a spark applied to them. Exobiology. Keep reading to find out more about it.

Ok, this time its my last post, I have a class to attend.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
It is spelled argument. Maybe you should pick up a dictionary. Here I'll link it for you argument

Duh. You're the one who spelled it wrong twice.

You don't remember typing this?

"and the thermodynamic law arguement. All of which follow the typical bible beater arguement patterns.

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Yes you have used that argument for consciousness. You said the brain is more too complex to have arisen through evolution. That is the argument for consciousness. It's not that I don't listen. It's that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Consciousness" is one of the results of the complexity of the brain. And I did not use it.

 

[HoundedHawk]

Originally posted by iowahawkeyes1986:
Ok, this time its my last post, I have a class to attend.

This time? Oh, I see. The other post didn't mean what you said.

Class? Here, let me visualize.