Open Discussion With Lnc

[chefranden]

I just can't see how LNC thinks he is doing anything. His skepticism about "Objective" grounds for morality is a bit like being skeptical about the value of paper money. Imagine someone saying, "Before I accept your money, I want to know whether it has Objective value or not." You would try to explain to him that nothing has "Objective" value in that sense, but that money can be used to exchange for goods and services. The value of paper money is subjective to that extent. But everything is subjective to that extent. And no one seriously thinks that money is merely subjective or that its subjectiveness robs it of value. LNC, I suppose, wants what . . . gold? I suppose he think gold's value is objective. And he's too stupid to understand that gold's value is just as subjective as paper money's value.ex-Christians from their wasting time.

 

Hey thanks for pinning it down like this. You've hit the old nail on the head. I wonder if old LNC will address it now that you have dismissed him.

[agnosticator]

Shantonu:

I think LNC has probably been confused by some trick that he learned in apologetics class, which is something like this: first ask whether the criteria by which we judge God's actions are objective or subjective. If the atheist says "subjective" then you reply, well then it's a matter of subjective opinion so there's no point discussing the matter. If the atheist says "objective," then ask the atheist how is it ojective. But the atheist won't be able to explain how ethics is grounded in timeless and objective rules. This is why he keeps coming back to that distinction.

 

And so we've been going round and round...

Humanity has strong reasons for adopting "timeless and objective rules". The empathetic and intelligent ones want to use them to inhibit people who have no regard for others. When they disregard the rules, they should be condemned and punished now, rather than wait for god. God said vengeance is his alone, yet believers ignore this and use the rules to justify earthly justice....my head is beginning to spin.

[Abiyoyo]

And so we've been going round and round...

 

I think I scared him away he probably got offline, saying, Gee, even the Christians on the site need saved ......later talking to the pastor....their is this yoyo online debating my calling from God......pastor responds, pray for that soul. The end is near

[shantonu]

And so we've been going round and round...

 

I think I scared him away he probably got offline, saying, Gee, even the Christians on the site need saved ......later talking to the pastor....their is this yoyo online debating my calling from God......pastor responds, pray for that soul. The end is near

 

No. It's me that's the idiot. I'll explain on a separate thread.

[shantonu]

Shantonu:

I think LNC has probably been confused by some trick that he learned in apologetics class, which is something like this: first ask whether the criteria by which we judge God's actions are objective or subjective. If the atheist says "subjective" then you reply, well then it's a matter of subjective opinion so there's no point discussing the matter. If the atheist says "objective," then ask the atheist how is it ojective. But the atheist won't be able to explain how ethics is grounded in timeless and objective rules. This is why he keeps coming back to that distinction.

 

And so we've been going round and round...

Humanity has strong reasons for adopting "timeless and objective rules". The empathetic and intelligent ones want to use them to inhibit people who have no regard for others. When they disregard the rules, they should be condemned and punished now, rather than wait for god. God said vengeance is his alone, yet believers ignore this and use the rules to justify earthly justice....my head is beginning to spin.

 

I'm the fool, not LNC. Explanation on another thread.

[Justin]

All you people who are talking about LNC, are you basing what you're saying on subjective or objective morals? I want to know so i can know from which direction your arguement is coming from. It doesn't really matter, i'm right and you all are wrong. Blah de blah blah de blah.

[Justin]

And so we've been going round and round...

 

I think I scared him away he probably got offline, saying, Gee, even the Christians on the site need saved ......later talking to the pastor....their is this yoyo online debating my calling from God......pastor responds, pray for that soul. The end is near

 

You're not the right type of christian YoYo. You need to have a special calling from the Lord to be an "LNC" type christian.

[LNC]

You've got a lot going on here and it is a bit off topic for most of what we have been discussing here, but let me give it a shot.

 

Most Christians have long since regarded the biblical account of the flood and creation as not being the first, even some biblical scholors i saw on a History Channel show some nights ago said that it wasn't the first. Some have proposed wild, fanciful theories as to why this is. Some say it was satan telling these Sumerians and Baylonians so as to mislead god's people. While some say it is just that regions account of the same event, only written earlier than the biblical account.

 

The Epic of Gilgamesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Great_Flood

 

Creation: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/babylonian.html

 

OK, so we see some similarities between the Gilgamesh account and the Biblical accounts, but how much is similar and how much is different? Is it possible that Gilgamesh served as inspiration for the Biblical accounts? Sure, theoretically. Do I believe that it is likely? Not really. Here are some reasons why. First, in regard to the flood accounts, it is possible that the Gilgamesh account and the Biblical account are recording the same event (giving a second attestation of the flood account), and it is possible that one recorded the history of the account more accurately than the other. The fact that the Gilgamesh account was written earlier doesn't necessitate that it was an earlier account as history was passed along orally prior to the ability to write the accounts, so though a written account may be older, it doesn't mean that the actual story is older. Second, let's compare the two accounts to see which one is more plausible.

 

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh (G) is not:

 

Reason for the flood: B (wickedness of man); G (gods couldn't sleep)

Size of vessel: B (450'x75'x45'); G (180' cube) The G vessel would be unseaworthy based upon this description

# Decks: B (3); G (6)

Building material: B (gopher wood); G (wood with slate roof) This would make the G vessel even more unseaworthy

Time to build vessel: B (100 years); G (7 days) How could they build such a large vessel (G) in such a short time?

Cargo: B (animals & food); G (animals, food, gold, jewels, and other valuables) G vessel is overloaded and unstable

Duration of rain: B (40 days); G (7 days) G account seems too short to cause such immense flooding

Duration of flood: B (370 days); G (14 days) G account seems to dissipate water too quickly for a vessel that ends up on a mountain

 

These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history.

 

Regarding the creation accounts, there is really little overlap and much difference. I again don't see the G account serving as any sort of inspiration, but rather a poor remembrance of what may have been the oral history passed down.

 

Flat Earth, geocentric earth, and all that goes with it: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html

 

There is too much to go through this article point by point; however, I think that the author either purposefully or by ignorance, takes poetic writing style and tries to turn it into a science text. That is just sloppy hermeneutic and doesn't really bear much more commentary on my part. It is not much different than taking the passages that speak of the God's "righteous right arm" and trying to prove that the text was teaching that God had a body. It says more about the author of the article than it does about the Bible.

 

Pertaining to Stars, from biblicalnonsense.com

 

"God allegedly created the stars on the fourth day (16), but what were they, and what was their purpose? Biblical authors believed that stars were small sources of light contained within the imaginary firmament covering the earth. In other words, they exhibited no divine inspiration, whatsoever, telling them that stars were actually unfathomably enormous gaseous spheres seemingly countless miles away. In short, the authors’ celestial hypothesis was incorrect on location, number, and size. Verification for the location part of this position is quite easy to demonstrate. After God made the sun, moon, and stars, he “set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth” (17). So along with the sun and moon, the stars are apparently housed in this imaginary physical boundary separating the sky ocean from the open air above earth’s inhabitants.

 

The Bible also remarkably claims the outdated belief that stars were extremely small in size. After the disclosure of their location in the firmament, and after God tells Abraham several times that his people would be as numerous as the stars (which is also impossible, yet it’s claimed to have been fulfilled in Hebrews 11:12), the next clear reference to size and position of these celestial bodies is found in the book of Isaiah. Here, the prophet speaks of exalting a throne “above the stars of God” (14:13). Likewise, Job says, “behold the height of the stars, how high they are” (22:12). Stars are not high; they are distant. One would expect these two divinely inspired individuals to make this distinction in their records; instead, they boldly demonstrate that they shared the popular yet erroneous belief that God fixed the stars at the sky’s apex.

 

The book of Psalms states that God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names (147:4). That’s quite an impressive accomplishment considering scientists estimate that there could be as many as 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in the known universe. If God truly told anyone how many stars surrounded our planet, the ridiculous firmament belief should have ceased without delay.

 

Daniel speaks of a vision that he had concerning a giant goat’s horn knocking the stars down to the ground where the goat “stamped upon them” (Daniel 8:8-9). Passing comment on the vision, we can also be decidedly certain that Daniel believed stars were tiny lights hanging above the earth. Otherwise, how could his monstrous goat stamp upon them? More importantly, how could someone divinely inspired write something so blatantly preposterous? In the New Testament, Matthew and Mark both record Jesus foretelling of an era when the stars shall “fall from heaven” (24:29 and 13:25, respectively). Jesus, a supposedly perfect human being who was supposedly the only son of a supposedly perfect god, wasn’t immune to scientific ignorance either.

 

Revelation was the grandiose vision of John, yet another man who God allegedly inspired, but John also thought that stars were bright objects of insignificant size directly above the earth. In this record of his dream-like hallucination, he claims to see Jesus holding seven stars in his right hand (1:16). While John may have seen what looked like seven stars in Jesus’ hand, this is not what the text clearly states. The passage unambiguously says Jesus was holding seven stars in his hand. Thus, John’s statement is certainly in error. In addition, John mentions a dream in which “the stars of heaven fell unto the earth” and compares this event to a fig tree shaking off its leaves (6:13). Furthermore, he describes a great star falling into “the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters” (8:10). If a star were to “fall” to our planet as John indicates, it would annihilate the earth upon impact because these bodies are generally hundreds of times larger than our world. Finally, John sees a dragon swing its tail around, consequently knocking a third of the stars in the sky down to the ground (12:4). There’s no need to discuss how enormous such a hypothetical tail would have to be in order to accomplish this impossibility. After all, Revelation was only a vision. On the other hand, we must expect Christians to accept that this man had a unique foreknowledge of humankind’s imminent future. In other words, these ridiculously fantastical events must remain futuristic certainties to biblical apologists. At this point, we can safely say that anyone attempting to harmonize the scientifically determined position, size, and number of our celestial neighbors with a literal interpretation of the Bible is veraciously wasting his time."

 

Again, the same goes here. There is a lot to comment on, but the gist of it is that this site doesn't take the text at face value. When it is speaking poetically, it should be taken as such, and when it is speaking prophetically, the same holds true. These are cases of each.

 

Virgin prophecy: "Isaiah 7:14: 700 years before Christ’s birth, God announced that the virgin would bear a child and His name would be Immanuel, “God with us”. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a Son, and will call Him Immanuel.” These words are specifically referred to in Matthew 1:21-23 where we see its fulfillment! (quote end)

 

There are many problems with this prophecy. Jewish scholars have noted that in Hebrew the verse reads as “Behold the young woman is with child and bears a son and calls his name Immanuel.” Instead of “virgin” it should read “young woman.” Segal has this to say in his The Jew and the Christian Missionary:

 

The Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah …. The word betulah is used in an explicit legal sense leaving no question as to its meaning. While almah does not define the state of virginity of a woman, betulah by contrast does. One would, therefore, reasonably expect that if Isa. 7:14 refers specifically to a virgin, the prophet would have the technical term betulah so as to leave no doubt as to the significance of his words.

 

Moreover, when you read Isaiah 7:14, nowhere it says that the child is to be a messiah. Oddly enough Jesus was never called Immanuel. Even today nobody calls Jesus as Immanuel. Not only that, Jesus being a Greek name is improper. He should be called Joshua which is a proper Hebrew name. " http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052006/gbs.htm

 

LNC, if the god of the Bible was a worldwide god, then he wouldn't have hand picked ONE nation to lead. I don't care about a few references to other nations or the world when the vast majority of the Bible deals with one tiny little nation, both the OT and the NT. It has only reached across the world due to its spread over time by people. Wouldn't he just send down his voice or appear to all the people of the earth at once? Wouldn't that be much better than favoritism? he is god afterall, he should have no problem in doing this.

 

As for the NT being validated, lol, funny you dared not to say the OT was. Besides, none of the miraculous claims have, so basically all you're left with is it mentioning places and things that are real and conclude that it is the truth, all of it.

 

LNC, what you need to do is step outside your little circle of funide friends. Before you say i need to do the same in regards to atheists, keep in mind that i was a Christian almost my entire life.

 

The problem with your Isaiah interpretation is that the LXX (Septuagint) translates the word from the Hebrew to the Greek as "virgin." The LXX was translated by Jewish scholars before between the 3rd and 1st century B.C., so the NT interpretation is consistent with the LXX. The word can be translated either way, however, as is true in translation, context is key, which is why the LXX translators chose the word virgin. As for the use of Immanuel, how can you say that it is never used for Jesus when it is used in Matthew, the very passage that you are disputing. As for today, we just came through the Christmas season where we have many hymns, carols, and contemporary Christmas songs that refer to Jesus as Immanuel.

 

Now, as for your comments on whether the God of the Bible is a worldwide God, I had this conversation recently with some Baha'is. The Abrahamic Covenant says that through him all the nations will be blessed. The book of Revelation says that every tongue, tribe, and nation will bless Jesus. I don't see the significance of the fact that for much of history God chose to work through one people group, that is not pertinent to his plan to bless all peoples, and today we see that happening.

 

In regard to your admonition that I step outside of my "little circle," first of all, you don't know how big or small my circle is, but it is obviously big enough to be encompassing the people in this site, so it is larger than I think you give me credit. I actually meet with a group including Muslims, Baha'is, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and other world religions every week on my local college campus. So, the fact is, my circle is pretty large. How about you?

[shantonu]

In regard to your admonition that I step outside of my "little circle," first of all, you don't know how big or small my circle is, but it is obviously big enough to be encompassing the people in this site, so it is larger than I think you give me credit. I actually meet with a group including Muslims, Baha'is, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and other world religions every week on my local college campus. So, the fact is, my circle is pretty large. How about you?

 

What website did you get this from? We all know you can't think for yourself.

[shantonu]

You've got a lot going on here and it is a bit off topic for most of what we have been discussing here, but let me give it a shot.

 

Don't you realize you've been exposed as a mere copier?

 

Does this look familiar?

 

Jesus claimed to be objective Truth,

6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6

Is it possible to know what Truth is? To find truth we can begin at the most basic premise, it is undeniable. In fact, if you are reading or hearing this you have proved this first basic premise of truth. “Being”, the mere fact you can question truth or yourself means you exist.

First Principles

This is an “Axiom” or “First Principle” according to Aristotle. First principles are self-evident points, demonstrating their existence without proof. For example Rene Descartes famous, “I Think therefore I am”, proves you exist even if someone told you did not exist, you would still have to think about your existence, therefore proving the one who told you did not exist is wrong.

This proves two points in the search for truth.

Existence (To be aware of yourself proves existence)

Reason (To think about yourself proves reason)

We can logically conclude we exist and we can have reasoned thought about our existence.

Aristotle notes that these first principles are necessary if there is to be any rational thought. In fact, he listed several laws in order to have rational, logical thought.

The Law of Non-Contradiction: (A is not non-A) Opposite truth claims cannot both be true. For example if an atheist believes God does not exist and a theist believes God does exit, it is impossible for both to be right. Another example of how the LNC works,

 

If someone were to say, “There is no such thing as truth, and the LNC is meaningless” he has done two things. First, he has assumed that his view is true as opposed to false, and thus he uses the LNC (which of course, implies that the LNC has meaning, because his view is assumed to be meaningful). Second, he has violated the LNC by suggesting that there is no such thing as truth while at the same time and in the same sense insisting there is such a thing as truth—The truth of his own view by doing so , he automatically validates the LNC.” [1]

 

The Law of Excluded Middle: (Either A or non-A) This asserts that it is either A or non-A but not both. God cannot exist and not exist. In other words, there is no middle ground, opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the “cracks” between being and not being.

 

The Law of Identity: (A is A) This law simply states that something is what we say it is: A is A. When someone says, “I loved the book” it is understood to mean “Book”. Without the law of identity, there would be chaos and language would be incoherent.

 

Using these basic laws of rational thought, we can examine the logic of certain truth claims, such as, is Truth objective or subjective? Can we find truth?

What is Truth?

Is it true that we exist? To think about the answer proves we exist. Existence proves the state of reality. And to think about yourself, proves reason. These are two axioms or undeniable facts; I exist, and I reason.

Truth: is an expression, symbol or statement that matches or corresponds to its object or referent. Truth must correspond to reality in order to be true.

Absolute Truth: “Something true for all people, at all times and in all places”

 

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

[shantonu]

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh (G) is not:

 

Reason for the flood: B (wickedness of man); G (gods couldn't sleep)

Size of vessel: B (450'x75'x45'); G (180' cube) The G vessel would be unseaworthy based upon this description

# Decks: B (3); G (6)

Building material: B (gopher wood); G (wood with slate roof) This would make the G vessel even more unseaworthy

Time to build vessel: B (100 years); G (7 days) How could they build such a large vessel (G) in such a short time?

Cargo: B (animals & food); G (animals, food, gold, jewels, and other valuables) G vessel is overloaded and unstable

Duration of rain: B (40 days); G (7 days) G account seems too short to cause such immense flooding

Duration of flood: B (370 days); G (14 days) G account seems to dissipate water too quickly for a vessel that ends up on a mountain

 

These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history.

 

 

In regard to your admonition that I step outside of my "little circle," first of all, you don't know how big or small my circle is, but it is obviously big enough to be encompassing the people in this site, so it is larger than I think you give me credit. I actually meet with a group including Muslims, Baha'is, Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and other world religions every week on my local college campus. So, the fact is, my circle is pretty large. How about you?

 

Ooops. Busted again:

 

Despite superficial similarities, the differences between the accounts are quite significant. The table below lists most of the differences.

 

Significant Differences Between Genesis and Epic of Gilgamesh Characteristic Genesis1 Gilgamesh2

Reason for flood human wickedness3 excessive human noisiness

Response of deity the Lord was sorry He made man because of his wickedness4 gods could not sleep

Warned by Yahweh (God)5 Ea

Main character Noah ("rest")6 Utnapishtim ("finder of life")

Why character chosen a righteous man6 no reason given

Intended for All humans except Noah and his family7 all humans

Decision to send flood Yahweh (God)8 council of the gods (primarily Enlil)

Builders Noah and family9 Utnapishtim, his family, and many craftsmen from city

Character's response Noah warned his neighbors of upcoming judgment as "Preacher of righteousness"10 Told by Ea to lie to neighbors so that they would help him build the boat

Building time 100 years11 7 days

Boat size 450x75x45 feet12 200x200x200 feet (unseaworthy cube)

Boat roof wood13 slate (top heavy?)

# Decks 314 6

Humans Noah and family7 Utnapishtim, his family, and craftsmen from city

Cargo animals and food15 animals, food, gold jewels, and other valuables

Launching by the floodwaters16 pushed to the river

Door closed by Yahweh (God)17 Utnapishtim

Sign of coming flood none extremely bright light sent by the Annanuki (collection of Sumerian gods)

Waters sent by Yahweh (God)7 Adad, with help from gods Shamash, Shullat, Hanish, Erragal, Ninurta

Reaction of deity to flood in control of waters18 gods scrambled to get away from water like "whipped dogs"

Duration of rain 40 days19 7 days

Duration of flood 370 days20 14 days

Boat landing Mt. Ararat21 Mt. Nisir

Deity's reaction to human deaths no regret mentioned regretted that they had killed all the humans

Birds sent out raven returns, dove returns second time with olive branch, then leaves22 dove returns, swallow returns, raven does not return

Offering after flood one of every clean animal and bird23 wines and a sheep

Aftermath God promises not to destroy humanity by flood again24 gods quarrel among themselves, god Ea lies to Enlil. Utnapishtim and wife given immortality like the gods

Repopulation Noah and family told to multiply and repopulate the earth25 Ea and Mami created 14 human beings to help repopulate the earth

What would be expected in any flood account?

 

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

 

Dude, do yourself--and all of us--big favor. Think for yourself. Don't just copy shit off the web. I swear, I know you're just a college kid, but you can do this. You can think for yourself.

 

Do you really think that you're fooling anyone? You're not the only one that has google. Just think for yourself.

 

Does it make any sense that Noah had new world monkeys on the ark or that he had duck billed platatpusesesses. Or that he had the 5,000 different species or red ant (only two of each), etc., etc., etc. Can't you see it's just a fable? If you were reading the same story in a African, Chinese, or Indian literature class at your college, you'd recognize it as just a story. But because it's contained in The Holy Bible, you think it's the literal truth. Then when someone confronts you about it, you run off to the internet and copy whatever is there. Dude, God gave you a brain. Think critically for two f'ing seconds.

[Ouroboros]

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh (G) is not:

...

These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history.

Sorry, but I find it extremely funny! Seriously LNC, you believe in the story? And even defend it as more reliable and supposedly historical?

[shantonu]

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh (G) is not:

...

These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history.

Sorry, but I find it extremely funny! Seriously LNC, you believe in the story? And even defend it as more reliable and supposedly historical?

 

I feel like going back through his posts and just googing some of the words and posting what website he ripped them from. Man, what is going on with kids today?

[Ouroboros]

I feel like going back through his posts and just googing some of the words and posting what website he ripped them from. Man, what is going on with kids today?

He claims he's older, and not a kid... Until now I at least entertained the idea of some reasonable mind on the other side, but this... Noah's ark... and compare it to Gilgamesh... and then claim G is not reliable, while B is!!! I'm sorry, but this is funny! I don't know how to calm down! Okay, I think there might be some insane God after all, because stupidity now reached a record low, and that form of stupidity can only exist if we had an unintelligent designer.

[shantonu]

I feel like going back through his posts and just googing some of the words and posting what website he ripped them from. Man, what is going on with kids today?

He claims he's older, and not a kid... Until now I at least entertained the idea of some reasonable mind on the other side, but this... Noah's ark... and compare it to Gilgamesh... and then claim G is not reliable, while B is!!! I'm sorry, but this is funny! I don't know how to calm down! Okay, I think there might be some insane God after all, because stupidity now reached a record low, and that form of stupidity can only exist if we had an unintelligent designer.

 

I hear you. It's not reasonable to believe that the all the animals on the earth were saved by some guy on a boat. That's really just preposterous. Penguins and polar bears would have to have gotten on the boat somehow, even though penguins live in the south pole and polar bears live in the north pole. Also, some animals don't really come "in twos," it's hard for example for to imagine just two ants or two spiders or two lemmings or two naked mole rats. It's all just too stupid for words.

 

I'm more disturbed by the fact that LNC just copied something off a website, again. After I busted him the first time. You think he'd learn that we were on to him. So it's the plagiarism and regurgitation that bothers me, not the irrationality. LNC: If you want to be irrational, fine be irrational, but come to it on your own. Don't just regurgitate somebody else's bullshit. You're perefectly capable of bullshitting all your own.

[Ouroboros]

I hear you. It's not reasonable to believe that the all the animals on the earth were saved by some guy on a boat. That's really just preposterous. Penguins and polar bears would have to have gotten on the boat somehow, even though penguins live in the south pole and polar bears live in the north pole. Also, some animals don't really come "in twos," it's hard for example for to imagine just two ants or two spiders or two lemmings or two naked mole rats. It's all just too stupid for words.

And koala bears, kangaroos, emus, ostriches, buffaloes, ... I forgot, he flew on the pterodactyl to pick them up. Or maybe he talked to Nemo and borrowed his submarine? And then how did he fit millions of species? oh, yeah, that's right, only one of each kind. So what is a kind? "Oh, I don't know" is the usual answer. But then, if you, Mr Christian, don't know, how the hell did Noah know? And round and round it goes, the merry-go-round of delusional story making.

[chefranden]

...These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history...

 

You think this is a true story? You actually think that this flood happened 4000 years ago give or take? I suppose then you believe in not trimming your beard, genocide, the earth reversing it's orbit for a day, virgin births, cursing fig trees for being fig trees, demons, pigs full of demons, tossing mountains into the sea, resurrections, raptures and other sundry irrational stuff.

 

And we are supposed to take you seriously about your objective morals arguments?

 

You are a great one for establishing a basis for argument. You establish that you are not a nut ball off your meds. Please show us that we are not just chasing the weasel around the mulberry bush.

[shantonu]

And we are supposed to take you seriously about your objective morals arguments?

 

You are a great one for establishing a basis for argument. You establish that you are not a nut ball off your meds. Please show us that we are not just chasing the weasel around the mulberry bush.

 

Forget about the lack of rationality. That I can take. It's the lack of originality that I find so offensive. I busted LNC twice in one day using arguments that he simply copied from apologetics websites.

 

see here: http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

and here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

 

He's a fraud. He can't think for himself. The few times he has put up his own orginal thoughts, they've been pretty good. But he doesn't trust his own instincts or abilities. If he doesn't respect himself, why should any of us respect him?

[shantonu]

I don't deem morality to be subjective, but what I am getting at, and I will repeat it again for clarity, is that it takes two to have a discussion. If my basis for morality is objective and yours is subjective, then to discuss them with you would still be a discussion of opinion as you have no objective grounding for your beliefs. That is why I won't choose to get into the particulars with you unless you have an objective basis for morality. Does that make sense?

 

I will be happy to discuss what is moral and what is not when I know that we will be having a discussion based upon each of us having that objective grounding. So, if you can give me your basis I will proceed with the answers.

 

Buuusteeeed.

 

Got that from this: http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Apologetics/Truth2/

[shantonu]

Here are just a few differences that show the Bible ( B ) to be a plausible account while Gilgamesh ( G ) is not:

 

Reason for the flood: B (wickedness of man); G (gods couldn't sleep)

Size of vessel: B (450'x75'x45'); G (180' cube) The G vessel would be unseaworthy based upon this description

# Decks: B (3); G (6)

Building material: B (gopher wood); G (wood with slate roof) This would make the G vessel even more unseaworthy

Time to build vessel: B (100 years); G (7 days) How could they build such a large vessel (G) in such a short time?

Cargo: B (animals & food); G (animals, food, gold, jewels, and other valuables) G vessel is overloaded and unstable

Duration of rain: B (40 days); G (7 days) G account seems too short to cause such immense flooding

Duration of flood: B (370 days); G (14 days) G account seems to dissipate water too quickly for a vessel that ends up on a mountain

 

These are just a few of the discrepancies that seem to make the G account read more like fiction and the B account to read more like history.

 

Buuuusteeeed.

 

You got this from here. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

 

You just cut and pasted it and made a few cosmetic changes. Try thinking for yourself.

[Ouroboros]

So God, magically held a canopy of water, miles thick over Earth for some thousand years, and then talked to Noah to build a huge ark, and then God help Noah to collect a pair (or more) of each "kind" of animal, and then shrank the animals to fit in the ark, and put them in suspended animation (to avoid the problem of food, waste, and predator/prey conflicts), magically managed to keep the boat afloat in the worst whirlpools every in history, and keeping the ark upright after being pounded by a foot of rain per hour for 40 days, and then when the huge amount of water recede God has to magically keep seeds and plants not to get sucked down to the deepest parts of the ocean, and then magically reintroduce millions of species of flies, bacteria, virus, and insects of every kind, and parasites, and only God knows what, and for what? To give a hell of a show?

 

How many of those who drowned survived to write about it? None. It's logical. So who survived? Noah, for the purpose of writing about God taking out humanity in revenge for their sins. Wait... Couldn't God just zap all animals and humans? Just one day *zzzzzspoff* and all evil people dead, and Noah only left, and then God could tell him, "it was because of their sins, now tell everyone." Oh, maybe it was better to "teach" Noah how powerful God was? Okay, we can see that it worked really well, since pretty much everyone sinned after that anyway. So it doesn't seem this flood impressed anyone that much. I suspect it's more impressive for believers today than it was for Noah... strange...

 

So basically, God enjoyed the show. The show of having small babies drowning in the waters, and then getting crushed when hit against the rocks because of the extreme turbulence. Yes. That's a powerful God, and a very vicious, revengeful, and angry God. That story teaches us, his children, what moral is. Do whatever you like, if you're powerful enough, and do it out of all the wrong reasons, and as grandiose as possible.

 

I think the only moral answer is: The authors were mistaken, and God didn't do it. Which leads to: the global flood never happened. The flood story is just so immoral.

[shantonu]

I think the only moral answer is: The authors were mistaken, and God didn't do it. Which leads to: the global flood never happened. The flood story is just so immoral.

 

Again, what I object to is not the belief, but the cheating. There are decent justifications for belief. When I say decent, I don't mean that we would accept them but they are legitimate reasons that, even if we don't understand them, we would have to say "okay, I have to accept that you believe x, y, or z."

 

For example, the believer could take inerrancy as a matter of faith. The believer could say: "It doesn't make sense in human terms, but we don't live in purely human terms. Since I personally feel that God saved me, and I feel this personal relationship with God that I can't explain and don't feel the need to explain. Thus, I believe in all of God's promises, just as I believe in love, which I cannot see either."

 

That's a sensible answer. It's from the heart. I don't think I would accept that for myself, but if someone wanted to believe in that way, what could I really say in response? That he is being irrational? So what? Humans are sometimes irrational, that's one of the pleasures of being human. Not everything can be explained. I can't explain all of my decisions--about who I love, about what music I enjoy, about what poetry moves me--and I would not want to be able to explain those things.

 

So it's not the irrationality that disturbs me. What is bad about LNC and his ilk is that they are not honest. Being wrong and even having stupid beliefs is no crime; being dishonest is.

[Ouroboros]

So it's not the irrationality that disturbs me. What is bad about LNC and his ilk is that they are not honest. Being wrong and even having stupid beliefs is no crime; being dishonest is.

Yes, I agree. If I have a dogma, there is at least one, which is: be honest to yourself. And that's where I feel so many religious fail (not all, but many). They lie to themselves and make up these excuses and stories, and they work so hard to prove their views, but deep down there is that lingering uneasiness, the little malaise bothering them, and they fight it off because they think it's the Devil tempting them to fall away from faith. They search, quote, rinse-and-repeat, the same things, the "masters" they look up to, and reject the professionals they don't like, because they want it to be true. They long for it to be true. Their emotions want it to be true, but still, there is that struggle in there and they fight it with tooth and nail. Honestly to oneself is the first act of virtue and salvation. To be saved and born again is about to take the first step to admitting something is amiss in their belief-system. There's a bunch of good in there, but it doesn't justify harming your own mind. *sigh* Been there, done that, and glad I'm out.

[chefranden]

The way I see the story, God screws up with Adam and Eve. They eat the fruit, and God doesn't kill them. Apparently God did not yet know that a parent can't threaten something and then not follow though, because pretty soon the kid gets the "yah right" attitude. If you you tell your kids you will kill them if they do X, you have to kill them or they won't respect you. No wonder Adam and Eve were so screwed up.

 

Now Adam and Eve go off and commit ultimate incest. Adam screws a female clone of himself and has fucked up children, I mean hello already. Didn't God know about Appalachia? Later God gets it and says, "Oops I guess I should have killed them like I said I would. Well better late than never." (which became a proverb) Instead of starting over God saves an old drunk and his family. I guess God didn't know that if you breed sheep you get sheep, but then he was never too clear on his biology.

 

Pretty soon he's got a world full of fuck up sinners again, but he's promised not to drown them again. This time he keeps his promise. "What should I do! Oh, what should I do!" Talking to himself he gets an idea, "Damn! I can't kill them, but I can kill me!" Brilliant! So he does! God commits suicide and them comes back and finds the world is still fucked up. Damn! What's a decent God to do? "Hey if y'all don't straighten up, I'm going to kill you with horsemen!! Hey, I mean it! Don't test me! I'll get you my pretty!..." Yah right!

[LNC]

This site is called Ex'Christian". That should be a pretty good heads up that most of us know a thing or two about the Bible.

 

Why don't you ask Bart Ehrman, one of the worlds foremost biblical scholars, what happened to him when he read the Bible.

 

Why would the name exChristian make me think that you have read the whole Bible. As I said before, I know many people who currently consider themselves Christians who have not read through the whole Bible. That being the case, I wouldn't assume that someone who calls himself an exChristian would necessarily have either. That would be like assuming that just because someone is an American that they have read the constitution all the way through.

 

What happened to Bart Ehrman was not as a result of reading the Bible, otherwise it would have happened much sooner, like when he was at Wheaton College. However, it wasn't until he did his grad work at a much more liberal institution that he left the faith. But, if reading the Bible alone would cause someone to abandon the faith, then I should have long ago as I have read through the Bible many times. It is funny that one of the foremost scholars and philosophers, William Lane Craig went to Wheaton College the same time that Ehrman did and Craig is a solid defender of the Scriptures. He even debated Ehrman a number of years ago. I would encourage you to listen to the debate, it is enlightening.