Is This *logical*

[godsfavoritecolor]

Quote from Neon Genesis: “But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me.” Luke 19:27.

 

Neon, I’m on your side, but if I were you, I would not claim that the above quote from Luke 19:27 is the command of Jesus. If you look at the context, you will see that it can be argued that this statement is part of a parable spoken by Jesus in which he is quoting the words of a “certain nobleman” to his inadequate servant.

 

There are plenty of other evil and ridiculous quotations of Jesus which are not so equivocal.

I've heard explanations that it's not Jesus speaking it but the character in the parable speaking it as a metaphor, but what is it a metaphor of? Christians say the verse is metaphorical, not literally said by Jesus, but it seems obvious to me that the man in the parable who said that is a metaphor for Jesus in real life. It also just seems strangely convenient to me that whenever there are bible verses that don't jive with Christians' rose-colored glasses view of Jesus, suddenly it's being "taken out of context." For some reason, Christians have no problem with this idea of Jesus sending everyone who doesn't believe in him to burn in hell, but suddenly it's heresy to suggest Jesus made a direct commandment for Christians to do it. Don't some Christians believe that they'll battle against non-Christians in the book of Revelation too, or am I misremembering? I just really like to know what this verse is supposed to be a metaphor for if it's meant to be metaphorical since the bible never says what the meaning of that verse in the parable is and just goes on to a completely different story.

 

You’re right.

 

Reminds of a joke I heard when I used to go to church. It seems that a rich widow in the church turned down every suitor that wanted to marry her.

 

One finally asked her why she turned them all down. She replied that it was because of scripture, Romans 1:13, “Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren.”

 

Look it up.

[Angel of Hope]

You may be right about the news being all over the coverage. Why only some news organizations have covered it, and others have ignored it, is a mystery to me. However, what I meant to say was that, even if there was global coverage of the evidence, there are a great deal of people out there who would probably look for something else to watch, because they could care less about theological issues. There would be a great deal of people interested, but most who didn't find Christianity to be a big deal in their lives wouldn't care, because it's something connected to Christianity.

 

Nor do I doubt that it would be in best-selling books, and other such forms of informative media. However, consider the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It claimed to possess conclusive evidence that Christ was just a man, had married and bred with Mary Magdalene, and that they lived in Europe until He died of old age. The book enjoyed a short pop of popularity, and then people just stopped caring. It took the book, and movie, "the DaVinci Code", to revive interest... and look how little time has passed since then, and how popular the film and book are now, compared to when they first came out. The sad thing is, most people are either so secure in their faith that they're not interested in the evidence, or they just don't care about the evidence. You mention that there are 2.1 billion Christians, and a sizable number of Muslims. I would point this out:

 

1 - Most Muslims would want evidence of Islam specifically, rather than Judaism or Christianity in conjunction, to surface. Hence, they wouldn't care, until something came up like, Mohammad's DNA in the spot where the temple was, when the Qu'Ran says he was (kind of) teleported there during his prayer at the Kaabah.

 

2 - Even if there are over 3 billion people on this Earth that believe in the Bible's teachings to some degree, there are still several billions who don't. Add to that, at least, the 1 billion Christians who don't believe such parts of the Bible as the Flood story, and would care less if there was evidence to corroborate those stories. Essentially, they put no stock in ideas like Creation and the Flood, and all the importance on the moral codes. Don't get me wrong, the moral codes are the most important part, but the other parts of the Bible (again, like Creation, the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.) make such statements conclusive. Without them being true, the Bible's moral codes could all be wrong. Then, where would the 2.1 Christians in this world be (not to mention the millions of Jews, and billions of Muslims)?

 

I didn't see your post. I'll go back through here, and see if I can locate it. If I can, I'll respond.

 

I would like very much to dialogue with you about such subjects.

 

Indeed, it could apply also to religious people of all beliefs. However, I was mainly referring to those who are unwilling to appreciate an argument for a religion's beliefs, rather than those who have arrived at their conclusions based on evidence. I certainly don't believe you would be so dogmatic in your beliefs, though I personally would still characterize them as beliefs. After all, wouldn't you agree that the available evidence would suggest both Creation and Evolution at least on an equal level?

 

Honestly, I can't say the same about not having anything to defend. However, it is my contention that everyone has something to believe in, and is willing to dig as deep as necessary to support their belief... or change their beliefs just enough to let them fit the evidence, but not so much that they believe something different altogether. Take evolution. As there are some Christians who believe in "theistic evolution", so too are there some evolutionists who are trying to distance themselves from Darwinian theories, while still retaining the moniker of "evolution".

 

I ask you, do you not know of any evidence, at all, that can at least imply the existence of God? If there's the possibility, and it's at least equal to that of a disbelief in God, then why not go with the one you would rather choose? If both are valid possibilities, as the evidence would suggest, why not go with the one you like better?

 

If I appeared to dismiss differences in belief, it was not my intention. I was just pointing out that anybody can be susceptible to dismissing different possibilities... surely, even Christians can be included in that number. I know I have in the past, and I have been accused of it as well (both when I have actually done so, in my youth, and when it wasn't my intention to dismiss any possibility).

 

There is certainly room for open-minded dispute. However, there surely is also the possibility that there are some people who choose to not believe because they'd rather believe something different. Do you deny that such people are out there at all?

 

With all due respect, how do we know it was Paul's intent to use such a form of argument as an "ad hominem"? Isn't it possible that others have simply used this verse in such a way themselves? There are many times when Christians knowingly, or unknowingly, use such arguments to try to validate their point, and use verses of the Bible to try to corroborate their ideas. In many cases, they don't take the verses before and/or after the verse they use, to help gain a better understanding of the verse in question. I'm not insinuating that you have, but I would point out that there are some who do, and it ruins the point for the rest of us. I certainly didn't mean to add a globalized (some call it generalized, but that's what I was taught it was called in school) statement, but rather to explain what I understand to be an occurrence that can and does happen at times.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate anyone in particular... certainly not you, Antler. I'm convinced that you're sincere in your beliefs (or, if you prefer, conclusions). However, and again I state this, there are some who would disbelieve something just because it wasn't convenient.

 

~AOH~

 

P.S. - The site says, again, that there were too many quotes, so I ask you refer to the earlier post, as I had to delete them again...

"The number of opening and closing quote tags does not match. Please fix this to submit your post."

What causes that?!

[Ouroboros]

P.S. - The site says, again, that there were too many quotes, so I ask you refer to the earlier post, as I had to delete them again...

"The number of opening and closing quote tags does not match. Please fix this to submit your post."

What causes that?!

The number of opening and closing quote tags error is something you get if it looks like this:

 

[quote]
Inside my first quote
[/quote]
Outside quote
[quote]
another quote... but no ending quote

 

or

 

[quote]
Inside quote
[/quote]
Outside
[/quote]
Another end quote, without a starting quote

 

Also, you can only have 10 quote tags in a post.

[Neon Genesis]

AOH, might I make a suggestion, that why don't you try ASKING people if they would care about evidence that the bible is true before making assumptions about them?

Even if there are over 3 billion people on this Earth that believe in the Bible's teachings to some degree, there are still several billions who don't. Add to that, at least, the 1 billion Christians who don't believe such parts of the Bible as the Flood story, and would care less if there was evidence to corroborate those stories. Essentially, they put no stock in ideas like Creation and the Flood, and all the importance on the moral codes. Don't get me wrong, the moral codes are the most important part, but the other parts of the Bible (again, like Creation, the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.)

Weren't you the one who said we shouldn't focus on the little details and be more concerned with the message of Christ than the small details?

 

This was also a major problem with many of the Pharisees in Christ's day. They got so wrapped up in the little things, that they let the big things slip. Christ pointed it out to them, and with gusto! "Hypocrites, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel!" is one phrase that comes to mind. Another is, "These should you have done, without leaving the others undone!" in reference to the Pharisees' preference to follow little rules, like tithing cumin and other spices; and not following the bigger rules, like charity to your fellow man (or, if you prefer, woman). I am really embarrassed that such people would be calling themselves Christians, because they don't show it from what you've posted about them. I try not to claim to know motivations, without getting to know more about the people behind them; but, even if you are of a different religion from them, it's still no excuse for them to get you into trouble.

Here's another piece of advice for you, AOH. Practice what you preach.

[Kuroikaze]

I'll add a couple of thoughts here.

 

Indeed, it could apply also to religious people of all beliefs. However, I was mainly referring to those who are unwilling to appreciate an argument for a religion's beliefs, rather than those who have arrived at their conclusions based on evidence. I certainly don't believe you would be so dogmatic in your beliefs, though I personally would still characterize them as beliefs. After all, wouldn't you agree that the available evidence would suggest both Creation and Evolution at least on an equal level?

 

Are talking about "scientific creationism?" If so, I'd say going by the evidence I have seen it is not anywhere near on equal level with evolution. Just take one idea put forward in creationism. Is the earth less than 10,000 years old? There is, to my knowledge, absolutely no evidence to suggest the earth could be that young.

 

Honestly, I can't say the same about not having anything to defend. However, it is my contention that everyone has something to believe in, and is willing to dig as deep as necessary to support their belief... or change their beliefs just enough to let them fit the evidence, but not so much that they believe something different altogether. Take evolution. As there are some Christians who believe in "theistic evolution", so too are there some evolutionists who are trying to distance themselves from Darwinian theories, while still retaining the moniker of "evolution".

 

A small thought here. What do you do with us? Isn't our existence a contradiction to this idea. What I mean is that most of us here were willing to to change our beliefs to something different altogether. So while people may not change their entire belief systems often or easily (it certainly wasn't easy for most of us) it does happen.

 

I ask you, do you not know of any evidence, at all, that can at least imply the existence of God? If there's the possibility, and it's at least equal to that of a disbelief in God, then why not go with the one you would rather choose? If both are valid possibilities, as the evidence would suggest, why not go with the one you like better?

 

I think it depends on how you are defining the word "god." If by this, you simply mean an intelligent being who had a hand in creating the universe in some way then sure there is a possibility. However, personally I don't think it makes sense to choose the one we like better, unless a choice is necessary. Otherwise the best choice is simply to shrug our shoulders and say, "I don't know."

 

However, if by "god" one means a particular ideal of god as espoused in a particular religion, I personally think that the chances any religion got the right ideal is a lot lower than 50/50.

 

If I appeared to dismiss differences in belief, it was not my intention. I was just pointing out that anybody can be susceptible to dismissing different possibilities... surely, even Christians can be included in that number. I know I have in the past, and I have been accused of it as well (both when I have actually done so, in my youth, and when it wasn't my intention to dismiss any possibility).

 

I agree, this is human nature so it is no surprise. People generally see the evidence in the way that best supports their world view.

 

There is certainly room for open-minded dispute. However, there surely is also the possibility that there are some people who choose to not believe because they'd rather believe something different. Do you deny that such people are out there at all?

 

Of course there are such people, probably quite a few of them, on the other hand there are a lot of people who believe in a religion simply because they were raised in it. They, likewise, have given no thought to why they believe what they believe.

I fix computers for a living, and as such I work with a lot of customers, now I hate to sound elitist, but there are a lot of people out there that are quite honestly, pretty stupid.

 

I didn't mean to insinuate anyone in particular... certainly not you, Antler. I'm convinced that you're sincere in your beliefs (or, if you prefer, conclusions). However, and again I state this, there are some who would disbelieve something just because it wasn't convenient.

 

Wouldn't you also admit that there are many who believe just because it is convenient for them in some way?

[Antlerman]

Ahh… mastering the quote function! Once done, it shows the true sign of the forum initiated! (Hans explained how to do it.)

 

You may be right about the news being all over the coverage. Why only some news organizations have covered it, and others have ignored it, is a mystery to me.

It’s because it’s marginally news because it mostly speculative, and not considered solid evidence. Those that covered it likely did so as filler or human interest, etc.

 

However, what I meant to say was that, even if there was global coverage of the evidence, there are a great deal of people out there who would probably look for something else to watch, because they could care less about theological issues. There would be a great deal of people interested, but most who didn't find Christianity to be a big deal in their lives wouldn't care, because it's something connected to Christianity.

Alright, I’ll make a concession here in part. I still believe it would make front page news, and people would be interested, but to your point, would it make a difference as far as “believing”, as in converting, or would they not care about it?

 

It’s an interesting hypothetical. What would probably happen is that a lot of people in this consumerist society would look at it as a cool thing that’s news worthy, but would ultimately probably say “so what” about it as far as how it impacts their lives. To them it’s not a question of “proofs”, but relevance. It probably wouldn’t be something that would rock their world, despite it being huge news because the rest of what Christianity offers doesn’t speak to them.

 

Would it lead to a surge in conversions? Certainly, at least initially while people focused on thinking about such issues, but again ultimately, like any surge in conversions that happens, people fall back to living their lives that works for them as the relevance of the system fails to talk to where they live. This will be something that will come up in later conversations.

 

The sad thing is, most people are either so secure in their faith that they're not interested in the evidence, or they just don't care about the evidence. You mention that there are 2.1 billion Christians, and a sizable number of Muslims. I would point this out:

 

1 - Most Muslims would want evidence of Islam specifically, rather than Judaism or Christianity in conjunction, to surface. Hence, they wouldn't care, until something came up like, Mohammad's DNA in the spot where the temple was, when the Qu'Ran says he was (kind of) teleported there during his prayer at the Kaabah.

Actually, as a point of correction, Noah is talked about quite a great deal in the Koran, however that it was a local flood and not a global one. So my thought that Muslims would be interested in it is because Noah is a figure in the Koran. From Suras 54 and 69:

54:10 Rejected and condemned, he cried out, saying: 'Help me, Lord, I am overcome!'

54:11 We opened the gates of heaven with pouring rain and caused the earth to burst with gushing springs, so that the waters met for a predestined end. We carried him in a vessel built with planks and nails, which drifted on under Our eyes: a recompense for him who had been disbelieved.

This We have left as a sign: but will any take heed? How grievous was My scourge, and how clear My warning!

69:10 When the Flood rose high We carried you in the floating ark, making the event a warning, so that all attentive ears might heed it.

There’s a great many more references in the Koran, but this makes my point well enough.

 

 

Even if there are over 3 billion people on this Earth that believe in the Bible's teachings to some degree, there are still several billions who don't. Add to that, at least, the 1 billion Christians who don't believe such parts of the Bible as the Flood story, and would care less if there was evidence to corroborate those stories. Essentially, they put no stock in ideas like Creation and the Flood, and all the importance on the moral codes. Don't get me wrong, the moral codes are the most important part, but the other parts of the Bible (again, like Creation, the Flood, the parting of the Red Sea, etc.) make such statements conclusive. Without them being true, the Bible's moral codes could all be wrong. Then, where would the 2.1 Christians in this world be (not to mention the millions of Jews, and billions of Muslims)?

There’s so much in here that could be an entire discussion in itself. Are the moral codes weakened without actual miracles putting a stamp of authority on it? Interesting question. I will say this for now, that I doubt it.

 

If morality is not something that is assented to individually, as in a personal choice for personal value, and is instead something that is imposed upon you by an all powerful potentate than even though you may have conformity it’s not something that is bought into philosophically, and therefore not effect as a valid morality. In other words, it doesn’t matter if it has “authority”. Conformity to a code is not living morally, in my perspective.

 

So I ask then, what is the value of miracles? Shouldn’t the message speak to the heart, without the need for marketing ploys, or endorsements of celebrities? You follow my thinking? I adopt codes of morality that speak truth to me, that I can see the value in, and questions of its “authoritativeness” are irrelevant.

 

I certainly don't believe you would be so dogmatic in your beliefs, though I personally would still characterize them as beliefs. After all, wouldn't you agree that the available evidence would suggest both Creation and Evolution at least on an equal level?

I’ll accept that my views are beliefs. Would I say that the evidence is on an equal level between Creationism and Evolution? Most definitely not. That’s not bias speaking, that’s just simple fact.

 

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) has mountains of hard facts supporting it, it is considered a deeply established scientific theory, and is accepted by the vast majority of the world’s scientists in almost every single field of science. It has been confirmed as a valid theory time and again without any failings. It can be used for valid prediction, and is useful to the world scientifically.

 

Creationism on the other hand lacks any credible evidence – entirely. It’s gone through the examination of science as any hypothesis and has been shown, nay proven, to be non-scientific. At its very best, it’s based on logic arguments only with no supporting empirical data, at its worst it’s outright fraudulent political manipulation. It’s appeal is to emotion, not data.

 

So no, they are not only not on a equal level, they cannot be compared. Only one is science, the other is religion. They can’t be equated with each other. Again, this is not bias talking, it’s simply fact.

 

However, it is my contention that everyone has something to believe in, and is willing to dig as deep as necessary to support their belief... or change their beliefs just enough to let them fit the evidence, but not so much that they believe something different altogether. Take evolution. As there are some Christians who believe in "theistic evolution", so too are there some evolutionists who are trying to distance themselves from Darwinian theories, while still retaining the moniker of "evolution".

Sometimes the evidence is so compelling you may have no choice but to change your beliefs. I agree though that it is human to try to not change one’s beliefs. We have to have certain definitions of the world in order for us to know how to function. Therefore, when put up against a wall of evidence, this is where EQ (one’s emotional quotient) kicks in. People will defend irrationally a belief against which there are mountains of evidence to the contrary if they’re not able to figure how to fit that new view into their lives, or until such a time as they are able to emotionally do so.

 

Can you give me an example of evolutionists who distance themselves from Darwinian theories? You mean some scientists who have different takes than Darwin did in some areas? That’s not “distancing themselves”. It’s called doing science. Darwin didn’t have all the tools and resources available to him as we do today, and not all of his ideas may be right. This however does not imply that they are moving back from the ToE. It’s merely different ideas about how evolution of the species happened, not that they didn’t evolve. Are you talking about Gould’s punctuated equilibrium? In no way does this challenge the ToE.

 

As far as theistic evolution goes, I honestly don’t have a problem with that view. I don’t see it as a violation of science because it essentially accepts the reality of the evolution of life on this planet, but says that a God purposed and created the conditions for this to happen through divine providence. Fine. It doesn’t deny the facts we know to be true, unlike Creationists who are evolution-deniers, which is the best term to describe them.

 

Science doesn’t talk about anything outside this universe, and speculating that these things are here and functioning as they do using the process of evolution, because a God willed it to be this, is a view that I can see would not be incompatible with either science or belief in God. I don’t share that view, but I can respect those who choose to see it that way. As long as belief in God doesn’t violate known facts, I can respect it.

 

Do you feel you have deny evolution in order to believe in God? If so, are you sure it’s not just a matter of you simply needing to be open to looking at a different way of reading Genesis? Do you believe that a non-metaphorical interpretation is the only way that can possibly be read? Is there only one way to read anything in that book and that American Evangelicals are the ones who’ve got that one way figured out?

 

I ask you, do you not know of any evidence, at all, that can at least imply the existence of God? If there's the possibility, and it's at least equal to that of a disbelief in God, then why not go with the one you would rather choose? If both are valid possibilities, as the evidence would suggest, why not go with the one you like better?

Interesting question. If there was equal possibilities, would I choose to believe in God or choose to be secular? That’s tricky. The reason it is hard to answer is because what is the definition of God we’re talking about? The Christian version? If it’s just a matter of seeing some sort of supreme being responsible for everything, then it could be a choice to be a deist. It’s not a direct step from a supreme Creator to the god Jehovah of the Bible.

 

But to answer you question if I see there may be any evidence at all that at least implies the existence of God: maybe. Not evidence, in the sense of empirical, but more in a sort of a possible “principle” fashion. Some sort of possible overarching or underlying principle of maybe, possibly “intention”. It gets really tricky in here so don’t get too excited. I play around with the idea of an underlying aesthetic heart to the universe, that shall we say exists for the purpose of creation; that drives everything? That what occurs is, could almost be considered an act of will, a will that is inherent it all that exists? That principle and will would be something that manifests itself in our thoughts and expressions of our humanity, is almost Beauty loving Beauty.

 

Now again, these are just thoughts I have sometimes, and not really something that anyone could call evidence. It’s more an aesthetic mythology that incorporates ideas of deity back into the fabric of the universe. But you asked if I see any evidence, and that would be the closest I would say. Some sort of principle of the universe. It's an aesthetic perception, that comes from.... ?

 

If I were to choose to believe in this sort of God, it wouldn’t be for reasons of “evidence”, but for reasons of value. How does this further my experience of life, and enrich the world around me? You see why this argument of “evidence” is really kind of meaningless?

 

 

Well, that’s enough monster post for today. Have fun digesting it.

[Franciscan Monkey]

Angel of Hope, if you could, I'd still like a link to information of the actual Ark of the Covenant being found, and a link to NASA or some other credible agency concluding that there is a large "man-made sea-faring vessel" located in the vicinity of Mt. Ararat. I've been out of town for a few days, so perhaps you did provide the links somewhere, but I have not found them. I apologize in advance if you did. Thank you.

 

Respectfully,

Franciscan Monkey