Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

For Wololo Re Critical Thinking About Christianity


mymistake

Recommended Posts

 

it shows me whether or not you're an atheist/agnostic or an anti-theist. If you're an anti-theist, I want to know what it is specifically you're denying. If you're just an agnostic atheist, we can move on.

 

 

You are confusing the term anti-theism with strong/hard atheism.  Most of us are agnostic/soft/weak atheists, and many of us, including me are anti-theists as well.  This does not mean what you think it means.

 

Here's some reading for you:

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



 

All you need to do is google "theory of mind evolution". Here's a synopsis. On the African grassland, if there was a rustling in the grass, if you paid attention to that rustling, you were less likely to be eaten by a lion that you couldn't at the moment see. 

 

 

I have to start listening to the rustling then.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I

 

In a sense it's a pre-discussion discussion. How about this, let me try to finish this pre-discussion...do you assert that a creator God cannot exist? This sort of cuts to the chase. If you make that assertion, then you need to prove it because you've just made an absolute truth claim.

No. We are saying there is no evidence that God exists.

You are the one making the positive claim that God does exist, so the burden of proof is yours.

We do not assert that he does not exist; we assert there is no evidence that he does. Those are two separate things.

 

Evidence consists of non-supernatural, verifiable, and falsifiable facts and data.

 

PS Your posts are really TLDR, can you be more concise?

 

 

Wololo,

 

I'm 100% in agreement with Orbit on this one.  So please factor this post into your response to me.  Thanks.

 

I do not positively assert that a God cannot exist.

Mine is the null position.  I await the arrival of a positive claim that can pass the test.  Therefore, my mind is not made up - it is open to any and all claims, which I will examine as impartially as I can.  However, I currently do not accept the positive claims put forward by Theists like yourself.  I currently reject their claims, mostly for two reasons.

 

First, because they fail to meet certain necessary standards and criteria.  

My definition of these is perhaps, a little wider than Orbit's (non-supernatural, verifiable and falsifiable facts and data) and I'm always open to a persuasive argument as to what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

Secondly, because the methods they use are flawed and fail to conform to the necessary standards of critical thinking and reason.

 

For the most part, you fall foul of the second reason.

You agree that questioning is necessary, but you then seek to precede this questioning with an unquestioned acceptance of untested beliefs by others.  That is mostly where I'm taking issue with you.

 

I hope this clarifies things.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting stuff, Orbit!

 

So does the "theory of mind evolution" intersect with Michael Shermer's two articles... ?

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

.

.

.

 

Btw, I did as you suggested and Googled "theory of mind evolution".  This yielded a number of scholarly articles that are quite beyond me.  But is there a link or site you know of that can give me a layman's intro to this, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is good, very accessible, if a little long. It is specifically about the evolutionary cognitive science of religious belief. "Agency detection" is specifically what you're interested in.

 

 

 

Great!  Thanks, Orbit!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wololo...

 

"God is substantiated by philosophical exploration."

.

.

.

BAA...

 

But not if logical inference from empirically-derived data tells us that a Creator is not needed.  

Then this exercise of philosophical exploration is moot.  God cannot be substantiated by such exploration because reality doesn't require him to either create and sustain it.  The gap is closed.

.

.

.

However, this is a side-issue and should wait until other matters are settled.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to know more about how you feel they're taking them out of context. I'm very interested in that. If you could elaborate, I'd like to discuss it. As I see it, it's all an intricate puzzle that fits carefully together.

 

 

I also used to see them as fitting together perfectly. That's the picture painted by the church, the same church that you already indicated that you believe is lying about (or at least is seriously wrong about) the Tirinity.

 

I'm going to post an excerpt from a letter I wrote a few years ago. It's quite lengthy, but it goes into detail and will demonstrate that I'm not pulling that claim out of thin air. I really have studied it and New Testament authors absolutely did take Old Testament quotes completely out of context. Anyway, here's the excerpt:

 

FABRICATED PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

 

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, and therefore he must be the Messiah. If Jesus had indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume, as I did for many years, that such is the case, and that there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Savior. But did he really fulfill numerous prophecies? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth

 

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

 

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

 

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

 

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

 

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

 

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

 

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

 

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

 

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

 

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

 

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the prediction in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

 

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

 

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

 

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

 

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace

           

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

 

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

 

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt

 

Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

 

Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

 

Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

 

So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children

 

Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

 

At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

 

So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Uttering Parables

 

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

 

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

 

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

Shared Bread

 

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

 

Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

 

Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

 

So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

 

John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

 

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

 

The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

 

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

 

So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken

 

John's gospel tells us that the solders broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). Yet again, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see also verse 17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

 

So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced

 

John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (John 19:36) of what "another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced'" (John 19:37). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (Zech 12:1), and is therefore a text cited by many Christians to claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

 

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zech 12:1ff). He specifically states, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9). Did the Jesus of the gospels do that when the people looked upon his piercing? Of course not!

 

Once again, we see that John has taken a passage out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in Jesus.

 

Called a Nazarene

 

Another interesting one is the claim that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

The prophecy in question is found in... uh, it's found at... well, um, nowhere! The statement, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23) does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is there any statement even resembling it! This "prophecy" is pulled out of thin air!

 

Of course, Christians have a couple ways of trying to get around this problem. One suggestion is that this is a loose reference to the Nazarite vow, in which "either man or woman shall separate themselves" and make "a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:2). However, this in not a prediction at all, nor is it referring to where someone is from (i.e., Nazareth). "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" are simply two different things. In addition, the Nazarite text says, "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink" (Numbers 6:3), but Jesus is said to have drunk wine (Luke 7:33-34). Thus, the Nazarite vow suggestion is simply taking the text completely out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

Another suggestion is that the prophecy is found in the words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). The argument is that the Hebrew term for "branch" is "netser," which is similar to the Aramaic word for "Nazarene." But this argument also has problems. First, the words are not actually the same, just similar, and Isaiah does not say, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Second, it is not talking about location at all, but is using the imagery of a rod and a branch growing out of a stem and roots. Third, the text says that this branch "shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (Isaiah 11:4), which Jesus of Nazareth did not do. Fourth, the New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word "anthos" instead of the Hebrew word "netser" for the "branch" (Isaiah 11:1). So, once again we have a text being taken out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

As such, we are left with a New Testament claim of a fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Old Testament! It is yet another fabricated prophetic fulfillment.

 

Conclusion from the Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments

 

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament by New Testament authors fabricating prophetic fulfillments, and there are more.

 

How can the claim that Jesus is proven by fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused and distorted? It sounds more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, since they were misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character. After all, if they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

 

Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Old Testament, take them out of context and apply them to any number of individuals that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

 

Christians often vilify Jews for rejecting their "Messiah." Indeed, I used to wonder how the Jews couldn't see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but now that I have studied it closer I can understand why. The simple fact is that the Jews who take their religion seriously can clearly see how Christians have butchered the Hebrew Scriptures! They are not convinced that Jesus fulfilled prophecy because it is a simple fact that he didn't, as has been demonstrated.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you're trying to invoke Occam's Razor. Damn it's misused way too heavily. It DOES NOT mean that the most economical point is the most likely to be true. It's a heuristic, not a proof. It means that we shouldn't add that which is unnecessary to a theory. It shouldn't be "and God". This doesn't prove or disprove God. It means that you should cut away until you have the essence.

 

I don't like Swinburne and I don't like probability in this discussion. We already have the world. We rolled a 1 on a 1 sided die. It's here. It's silly to roll dice about the existence of God. Either he exists or doesn't, but we have the world anyway.

O.k. well I thought that quote might help clarify the discussion of whether belief in God is reasonable.

 

Apparently I don't understand what you're trying to argue, so I'll leave the discussion to those who can follow it. smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... PS Your posts are really TLDR, can you be more concise?

 

 

Amen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wololo, thanks for responding to my post. I can't reliably quote for some reason.

So, you said God is outside the universe and has no mass. Then how can God interact with matter? matter interacts with matter, via energy.

Even to burn something, you need mollecules to vibrate fast enough that the composit breaks down.

RE: intelligent systems, there are companies in Japan and elsewhere working on what you're talking about. But since most machines are constructed by us to serve us, we don't create them with a whole lot of individuality and needs for emotions. The self-aware security sentry in the cloud knows what to watch out for, but behaves a lot more like the Cauldron-Born from Llloyd Alexander's Prydain series.

But anyway. To be outside of something is to be unable to operate within it. The only alternative is if God were outside the universe, but could operate it somehow by remote control. And were that the case, it would be detectable with instruments.

The whole idea of God being outside of spacetime never came into being until we understood the relationship between space and time. The whole idea of God being nonmaterial, or not made of matter, was only realized once we could describe matter. Even the new-age gods made of energy, are only possible due to the extremely elementary understanding of matter/energy relationships that the new agers apparently have.

In fact, when you read Genesis, it's apparent they thought the atmosphere was full of air ad infinitum. They had no concept of space. And, God couldn't just come out and explain to them what space was.

What we have is this god idea evolving, if you will, with our understanding of our world. If God were constant, he would have communicated this to us from day one. After all, I told my daughter at age 4 how a rainbow really works, what the moon is made of, and so forth.

I find some of your ideas interesting, and agree that you seem to really be thinking about it.

I'd also echo what someone else said: Be careful of how much you learn from us. You won't be able to unlearn what you find out, and deconversion is never a choice to disbelieve. You might end up realizing you really don't believe any of it anymore. And that, in the world we live in today, has its problems in relationships and family. Especially young people who can lose access to resources from their parents if they leave the faith, or at least be seriously hounded.

None of us are immune to having our belief systems changed. That is why so much science and other literature is so prohibited among the evangelicals. They can control street porn, but they cannot control skepticism and analysis, and deep down they know it.

 

 

"None of us are immune to having our belief systems changed. That is why so much science and other literature is so prohibited among the evangelicals. They can control street porn, but they cannot control skepticism and analysis, and deep down they know it."

 

 

What prohibitions on literature?

 

Please, give it a rest.

 

You seem to have God all figured out and in your pocket of disbelief.

 

I don't. 

 

Ironhorse, I can answer this. During my years as a Christian, there were many books that I never, EVER would have read. It wasn't so much a direct "prohibition"... I didn't have any church authority telling me NOT to read things... it was more an intense social pressure. The Harry Potter series and The DaVinci Code are two that I think of right off the top of my head at 5:30 in the morning. To take it even further, one only needs to look at what really is prohibited for evangelical children. Again, Harry Potter... lots of other literature, too... and as for science! Oh, man. I'm a homeschooling mom... now secular, but once evangelical. Have you any idea how tremendous the evangelical/fundamentalist homeschooling market is? Have you any idea that an entire generation of homeschooled children is being raised anti-science? ABeka... BJU... Apologia... Mystery of History... Sonlight... My Father's World... these are just a few of the hugely popular Young Earth Creationism curricula out there. Not to mention Ken Ham. Yes. It's a prohibition to rival that of the 1920's.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'd like to know more about how you feel they're taking them out of context. I'm very interested in that. If you could elaborate, I'd like to discuss it. As I see it, it's all an intricate puzzle that fits carefully together.

 

 

I also used to see them as fitting together perfectly. That's the picture painted by the church (yes, the same church that you already indicated that you believe is lying about the Tirinity).

 

I'm going to post an excerpt from a letter I wrote a few years ago. It's quite lengthy, but it goes into detail and will demonstrate that I'm not pulling that claim out of thin air.  ...

 

Great stuff! I've heard most of this before, but it's even more persuasive when several examples are discussed together. I'm keeping your letter in my "god file" for future reference. Thanks for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a sense it's a pre-discussion discussion. How about this, let me try to finish this pre-discussion...do you assert that a creator God cannot exist?

 

No, I'm more of a pantheist. I dont think there is a separate entity with its own personality that people call God. I think we're all God. I have no empirical evidence of this either.  I also identify with the term 'agnostic.' I just play for the Ex-christian team on this site.

 

This sort of cuts to the chase. If you make that assertion, then you need to prove it because you've just made an absolute truth claim. You'd have to prove that there is no possibility of God existing and having created the universe in whatever manner. If you chose to leave that option open and imply it is possible, then we are making progress.

 

Do all negative assertions need to be backed up with evidence? If I claimed that it is impossible to swallow a bulldozer (but didnt provide some evidence) would people have to assume that it IS possible for me to swallow a bulldozer until I provide evidence that it isnt? Or does common sense play a role? Can assumptions ever be made? Are there any claims that can automatically be dismissed as absurd or ridiculous?

 

  That means that there exists a set of conditions where it is plausible and reasonable that God exists. I can assert that Santa Claus cannot exist and then create a good argument as to why it's impossible. I don't even leave the option open because there is an excellent argument against it.

 

If you have a moment maybe you could compare and contrast why God could exist and Santa could not exist. I really dont see any difference between them.

 

Establishing this doesn't make me any more right, but it shows me whether or not you're an atheist/agnostic or an anti-theist. If you're an anti-theist, I want to know what it is specifically you're denying. If you're just an agnostic atheist, we can move on.

 

I'm agnostic.  I'd rather believe in a vague pantheism of my own choosing that is open to change without regard to logic. I'd rather not identify as atheist because I don't feel logic and reason and science are my personal philosophical world view. I dont like following other people's dogma/doctrine which is why I eventually rejected Christianity.

 

A lot of what I'm trying to do is define the terms of our discussion because I'm tired of people dancing all over the place and I'm even more tired of "give me evidence". We haven't even agreed on what evidence actually is. How are we supposed to debate when we're using different terms? Voltaire said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms". That's what I'm going to do before I go much further with some of you.

 

Evidence is that tricky little item that is held up high for all to see , if someone agrees with it.... and is generally ridiculed and minimized if someone doesn't agree with it. :-)

 

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~ Philip K. Dick   ...  In 1982, Mr Dick went away. I never did believe in that guy...haha. Sorry, digressing.

 

We need to establish what evidence is and why that is our standard for evidence. I can present what I feel is evidence day and night and not convince you because you immediately reject it as either 'weak' or 'non-evidence'.

 

Theists and non-theists have different standards for evidence regarding God. Evidence can be rejected by non-theists as non scientific and if it is a scientific study then it can be called pseudoscience or the results can be called into question or be deemed 'inconclusive' if the non-theist doesn't like what he is reading. Theists accept what they feel inside as evidence even if nobody else can feel it. I think agreeing on a standard for evidence between believers and non-believers will be difficult.

 

Replicated observation is one method of obtaining evidence. But some people see things that others don't see. Sometimes we call these lone wolfs crazy. I know someone who is unable to ever see the 3d picture in a stereogram when most others can...maybe he's crazy..haha...sorry, digressing again.

 

I've been trying to establish for quite some time that 'proving' God cannot be done empirically. The small amount of empirical evidence is not convincing. I've tried a few of those arguments and they barely hold enough water with you to keep the letters of the words upright. For me, the stronger evidence is philosophical. It involves the process of asking questions and creating a coherent framework for the world. Some of it is definitely based on empirical observations, but it doesn't rely exclusively on those things. If you don't want to philosophize, I can't argue with you.

 

Does philosophy provide evidence for God? Or does philosophy create God? I enjoyed the Vedas but never experienced any of its characters in real life. The same goes for the bible and Jesus. I do enjoy Eastern philosophy. But I dont rely on it for everyday life.

 

That doesn't mean everything would be over and you could walk away and call yourself a 'winner'. You would then need to explain to me why empirical evidence is the only valid evidence (and how I could experience that empirically). I will agree it's valid, but to say nothing else is worth bringing up...that would be a hard position to hold.

 

Why is empirical evidence the only valid evidence? Could be personal preference to confirm someone's bias. But I bet people are going to say that empirical evidence best describes reality. It's hard to argue against empirical evidence. We are bombarded with the reality of what we observe everyday in the material world. But empirical evidence is all processed inside my head so it could all be a fabrication. And all the materialist atheists arguing against non-materialism could also be fabrications inside my head.... lol. The non-existent dream people are always fighting against solipsism. haha.

 

You weren't reading carefully earlier. I was not trying to prove God exists by saying the belief has been held for a long time. I was trying to prove it is reasonable to hold that belief (with counter arguments I need to address from BAA).

 

Meaning can be ambiguous sometimes.

 

From reading your posts, you're convinced God is fiction. I'd like to know where that came from. You don't have to prove he doesn't exist, but to state that he is made up...that's a truth claim.

 

I'm convinced that the biblical God is fiction. I've been told by people I went to church with that he is real but he never comes to visit. So he might be real but has no relevance to my life. I had to pretend he existed and work the puppet strings of my imagination in order to have a relationship with him...or more precisely a relationship with myself. It seemed absurd to talk to myself but pretend I was talking to God. Why is it  that children stop believing or are encouraged to stop believing in Santa Claus around age 10 but are feared into believing Jesus forever ... Why is Santa considered pretend while God is not?

 

Do you claim God is real?

 

FYI to those that are avid readers and actually read that. If you're going to make truth statements that I disagree with, I'm going to ask you for evidence since that seems to be your obsession with me. Yes, I'm going to force you into agnosticism, or you're going to convince me that you hold a logically coherent argument that God is made up or that it is impossible for him to exist and have created the world. Stop making absolute statements and then complaining that I do the same.

 

Sounds like a false dichotomy. Either we will end up agnostics or you will end up an atheist. What do you bet that none of our minds are changed after this thread is done? 

 

P.S. I don't count as a win for you since I'm already an agnostic. :-) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Wololo wrote...

Perhaps that's why the vocab came back lacking...but you're on the right track. What I'm arguing is that regardless of cultural and scientific changes to our, the concept of God continues to exist, making it a plausible concept. I wouldn't say it goes unquestioned. Especially over the past few hundred years, it has been very heavily questioned. With the explosion of population on the planet, it's becoming even more popular to question it. Of course, you could certainly argue that the reason it exists still is because of dogma, and there is some truth to that...but dogma does not appeal to all of us. When I hear platitudes from the pulpit...and when I hear other people spouting doctrine like the purest of facts, I wrinkle my nose. If God exists, why should he fear my questioning? I'm a puny human, if there's a God, what threat am I to him? This is why we should question religion and question God...we have nothing to lose either way. Either he doesn't exist and we will confirm this is the case, or he does and we will be vindicated. To not question is just stupid. If I was afraid of questions and hard attacks, I wouldn't be here.

 

It's the way that you're using the word 'reasonable' that I'm taking issue with, Wololo.

Specifically in your response to Vigile in post # 22, yesterday.  Here...

 

Vigile, on 28 Oct 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:snapback.png

People have always believed in gods (ad populum fallacy) and I can't otherwise explain why the universe exists (god of the gaps fallacy), in addition to appeals to emotion are quite the opposite of critical thinking my man. 

 

You appear to me to be a smart guy.  You're just not using your thinking cap. 

 

Wololo wrote...

Logical fallacies exist for proofs. I'm arguing that perpetual popularity makes something reasonable to us. I'm saying that the idea of God is reasonable and not extraordinary. We have a predisposition to it, so to call it outrageous or absurd is just not true.

 

This thread concerns critical thinking, not perpetuated popularity or human predispositions.

Critical thinking uses reason to discover what is reasonable and what isn't.  That which is found wanting is not called reasonable - it's something else.  In this thread you've changed the meaning of the word 'reasonable' to mean something else, like this.

 

1. If God is popular and his popularity is perpetuated, then God is "reasonable" and is therefore not extraordinary.

 

2. If we have a predisposition towards God, then God is "reasonable" and he is therefore neither outrageous nor absurd.

 

Both of these are wrong. Neither of them shows the use of critical thinking and reason.

The first relies on perpetuated popularity, not reason and so cannot be legitimately called, 'reasonable'.  Only something that is reasoned can be accorded the title, 'reasonable'.  If something both popular and perpetuated were reasonable (in the way that you're using that word) then SLAVERY would count as being reasonable.  Slavery has been popular for thousands of years and has been perpetuated for generations.  By your criteria of popularity and perpetuation, slavery is entirely reasonable.  Is that really the way you want the word reasonable to be used?

 

Example # 2 erroneously calls an innate human disposition towards God... 'reasonable'.

Unless you are employing the fallacy of Special Pleading to claim that ONLY our predisposition towards God is reasonable, by your logic, ALL innate human predispositions are reasonable.  Is that really what you're saying here, Wololo?  That our innate human predisposition towards violence is... reasonable? 

 

As mentioned above, only the proper use of reason and critical thinking makes something 'reasonable'.

Using that word in any other way in a thread about critical thinking is disingenuous and/or fatally flawed.   It therefore falls to you Wololo, to use your reason and your critical thinking skills... properly.  For you to define and use the word 'reasonable'... properly.

For you to do justice to the word reasonable.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I have to establish something is reasonable before we can discuss it truly critically. There are so many fundamental things that we don't agree on, so the discussion often doesn't advance very far. How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?

 

There is more to being reasonable than just popularity. Santa Claus is a popular belief (mostly among children). For them it is a reasonable belief. What changes their mind is that his existence is utterly unsubstantiated, and further, has evidence to the contrary. This is not the case with God. There is evidence, whether it's disputed or not. The belief has persisted for a very long time. Slavery, before we really started evaluating it, was reasonable. People believed that it was totally appropriate and they lived their lives as though slavery was normal. What you're focusing on is the truth of something. I'm arguing that we cannot even start to be critical if we cannot establish that something is worth discussing.

 

If God is not reasonable, then it is not worth discussing anything critically. If you want me to show I'm critical, the only way that's going to happen is if we can agree that God is reasonable to believe in. Then we can being being properly critical.

 

On the topic of defining "reasonable", let's get an actual definition into the discussion.

 

"a :  being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory>

 

b :  not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests>

 

c :  moderate, fair <a reasonable chance> <a reasonable price> " - Merriam-Webster dictionary

 

You're implying to me that God cannot be argued with reason...that it is an extreme belief. I want proof of that if that's what you want to assert.

 

Just to be clear, in case I'm missing a connection somewhere: Anything that has the potential to be argued with reason is reasonable until it has been conclusively and firmly demonstrated to be extreme or irrational. I will stand by that definition until it is shown to me that I am wrong. Reasonable DOES NOT EQUAL true. Reasonable merely means worth discussing critically.

 

 

 

I apologize for being away for so long.  Real world events kept me off line.

 

You are using the word reasonable incorrectly.  An idea is reasonable if and only if there are valid reasons for considering it.  You use the process of reasoning to test it and the idea holds up for a while then it is reasonable.  Of course you are right that reasonable does not mean true.  All ideas are worth discussing critically.  This does not elevate all ideas to the level of reasonable.

 

As for your question:

"How are we supposed to critically evaluate the existence of God if you won't even agree that it's reasonable or possible to believe it?"

 

All ideas can be critically evaluated so this idea too falls within the group that can be critically evaluated.  Declaring the idea reasonable isn't the prerequisite.  Instead the process of critical evaluation will determine if the idea is reasonable or not.

 

Children do not believe in Santa because they used logic to evaluate facts.  Children believe in Santa because certain adults enjoy fooling children.  This doesn't make Santa reasonable.  Likewise slavery existed because certain people in power found it useful to enslave others.  That also isn't what reasonable means.

 

Personally I am reaching the point where I think perhaps God cannot be argued in the positive with reason.  However I am basing that on my own personal experience of three decades of searching for a way plus along with thousand of internet conversations where people all over the world have had the chance to offer me their perspectives as well.  If you think about it the theology people have today is based on debates that have been going on for centuries.  So many people have been thinking about God for so long and all this effort adds up to nothing at all so maybe God cannot be argued with reason.

 

But on the other hand there are hundreds of museums and thousands of archeological works filled with examples that demonstrate that it is human nature to create gods.  We have been creating gods for at least 40,000 years.  Probably a lot longer than that.  I would imagine that humans have been creating gods since the genetic bottleneck when our species almost went extinct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, MM.

I concur.  Very well put.

.

.

.

I hope that Wololo will soon return to this thread to pick up where he left off.

He seems like a thoughtful and earnest young man.  Imho it'd be a shame if he never returned or returned, only to drop this thread, in favor of something else.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please tell us which core Christian doctrines you questioned and (if applicable) what logical reasons drove you to conclude the doctrines were true?

 

Let's start with the basics:

 

3 The Bible isn't the word of men

 

Let's see your critical thinking shine.

                By a show hands, how many of you taught yourself how to read and right?

 

While that doesn't prove anything in itself, the fact remains that something had to teach you how to read and write.  

 

Now even a child without any directions can draw, which in a way is a the basic precept of the images used by the Egyptians called hieroglyphics.  

 sign.png     Now you can  easily recognize the meaning of these               traffic_signal.gif

 

 

 

            However, ask somebody, such a 5 or 6 year old, or someone not familiar with driving what these symbols mean and I can almost guarantee you that

 

the kids are going to tell you exactly what their imagination believes it means, yet if you didn't know what they actually meant then how could you refute

 

why they say it means is what it actually means.     

 

In any case, one should be conclude there is a significant different between the written  "Road curves right"  and "Warning signal light ahead" when 

 

compared to the symbolic images.

 

              While many conclude that Moses wrote the 10 Commandments on the tables of stone, yet Moses was raised and educated in all the Egyptian wisdom an which 

 

as stated has no documented evidence of any use of the written word but symbolic images.  So if Moses wrote the two tables of stone then that in itself would

 

serve to disprove the written account of the Torah.  Especially in light of the fact that Moses who neither eat nor drank anything during the entire time upon the Mt. Sinai.

 

              Yet amazingly, the obvious fact is that a number of the so call experts who have deciphered the Sumerian tablets and the Egyptian hieroglyphics can not cite 

 

the underlying principle upon which the written spoke word was founded upon.  [According to the best information I can find is that man is presumed to be the result of

 

the evolution from those symbolic images to the written word.]  

 

              So there is no sense trying to explain the principle but will  leave you with a excerpt from

Thomas Paine's Age of Reason:

 

      It may be said that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is a human invention.

 

     But the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the principle; it is a delineation to the eye,

and from thence to the mind, of a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does not make

the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that was dark makes the chairs and tables that before

were invisible. All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and existed before any triangle

was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no more to do in the formation of these properties or principles, than

he had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and therefore the one must have the

same Divine origin as the other.

     

    In the same manner, as it may be said, that man can make a triangle, so also, may it be said, he can make

the mechanical instrument called a lever; but the principle by which the lever acts is a thing distinct from the

instrument, and would exist if the instrument did not; it attaches itself to the instrument after it is made; the

instrument, therefore, cannot act otherwise than it does act; neither can all the efforts of human invention

make it act otherwise — that which, in all such cases, man calls the effect is no other than the principle itself

rendered perceptible to the senses.

 

     Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply

them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant from him as all the

heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

              Yet amazingly, the obvious fact is that a number of the so call experts who have deciphered the Sumerian tablets and the Egyptian hieroglyphics can not cite 

 

the underlying principle upon which the written spoke word was founded upon. 

 

 

Uh no.  Religious beliefs are not obvious and not established as fact.

 

 

 

 

Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply

 

them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant from him as all the

heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?

 

Theology leads to ignorance.  After all religion is willful ignorance.  Humans learn truth from following the principles of science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

                By a show hands, how many of you taught yourself how to read and right?

Evidently not you. "Right"?

 

the kids are going to tell you exactly what their imagination believes it means, yet if you didn't know what they actually meant then how could you refute

 

why they say it means is what it actually means.     

Uh, because they are wrong. Either they have the meaning correct or they don't.

 

 

              Yet amazingly, the obvious fact is that a number of the so call experts who have deciphered the Sumerian tablets and the Egyptian hieroglyphics can not cite 

 

the underlying principle upon which the written spoke word was founded upon.

What an incredible assertion. The principle of language unknown? You could read up on some classic linguistics, like Noam Chomsky for your answer to how language works. It's not unknown. Why did we start to write? To keep track of buying and selling. It was a need. There is no mystery here.

 

Man had no more to do in the formation of these properties or principles, than

 

[/font]

he had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move; and therefore the one must have the

same Divine origin as the other.

And this is what a Deist would say. It's just bad theology, not fact.

 

Since, then, man cannot make principles, from whence did he gain a knowledge of them, so as to be able to apply

 

[/font]

them, not only to things on earth, but to ascertain the motion of bodies so immensely distant from him as all the

heavenly bodies are? From whence, I ask, could he gain that knowledge, but from the study of the true theology?

We gained knowledge of the heavens by simple observation. Then we used math to describe the motion. No mystery here, either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.