Open Discussion With Lnc

[mwc]

Why shouldn't it matter that it is a product of a certain time period. Do we read all books of antiquity through the lenses of our times or do we try to understand them in the context of their time. I think it is highly arrogant and irresponsible to interpret works of antiquity from our perspective. It is called having a chronological bias. I don't know what you mean when you claim that I am asserting that "the Bible is what it is and nothing more." I don't claim such since I don't know what that means. I claim that it is inerrant in its original autographs and that it is inspired. Now, I will ask you on what basis you bring these charges? Are these charges brought from your subjective moral system or do you base them on an objective moral system, and if so, on what do you base your system? I ask this as many on this site bring these charges, yet I want to know that they are real charges and not just your own opinions or preferences. So, please inform me.

Why does it matter? It matters for the very reason I'm even in this:

"Since God is, by definition, omnipotent, omniscient eternal and immutable, and the greatest possible being, he is perfect in all of his attributes."

These are your very words. And, as part of your argument, it makes no different when the edicts were given. It would be impossible for your god to issue anything different. While I think most, if not all, of us would normally agree that the bible is nothing more than just another "[book] of antiquity" in this case we're willing to make exception. We're willing to see it as "moral code." And the type of being you describe would not alter its code subjectively over time.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

Sorry, 1 Samuel 15:3. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

 

Would you have followed God's order?

 

No. I would have went back to Samuel, and asked why we have to kill the innocent. I assume in that time, there must have been a reason for it; or it was the writers elaboration. I don't know. I do know that if God is real then he's not bipolar; so I would have to lean more toward writer error on that one. That's just me though.

[shantonu]

Sorry, 1 Samuel 15:3. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

 

Would you have followed God's order?

 

No. I would have went back to Samuel, and asked why we have to kill the innocent. I assume in that time, there must have been a reason for it; or it was the writers elaboration. I don't know. I do know that if God is real then he's not bipolar; so I would have to lean more toward writer error on that one. That's just me though.

 

That's what I hope I would do as well.

 

I wish LNC would stop playing games and just let us know what he thinks.

[chefranden]

No. I would have went back to Samuel, and asked why we have to kill the innocent. I assume in that time, there must have been a reason for it; or it was the writers elaboration. I don't know. I do know that if God is real then he's not bipolar; so I would have to lean more toward writer error on that one. That's just me though.

 

 

I would have gone back to Samuel and suggested a cat scan and then handed him over to the guys in white coats.

 

I lean more toward writer error for the whole shebang -- including the idea of God.

[Abiyoyo]

I would have gone back to Samuel and suggested a cat scan and then handed him over to the guys in white coats.

 

I lean more toward writer error for the whole shebang -- including the idea of God.

 

But Chef.....They didn't have cat-scans back then. You know what they used to do back then for a cat-scan. They tied a sheep up, and a person would lay down beside it. If the sheep licked you, you were fine. If it moved away, then you were a sinner. If the sheep said, Hey why did you tie me up? Then you were a prophet!

 

[Ouroboros]

So it was a sheep way of doing a cat scan?

[Abiyoyo]

So it was a sheep way of doing a cat scan?

 

Yeah. I had someone tell me that I needed to get a cat scan done before because I went from business man to preacher man overnight.

[Ouroboros]

If a person is obvious and wears their opinion on the outside, will this do?

 

[Abiyoyo]

If a person is obvious and wears their opinion on the outside, will this do?

 

 

That's the idea!

[LNC]

And yet we see (through scientific study) that animals show elementary morality. How come? How come they have found out that rats have a primitive ability to reasoning and even prediction? (At least that's what I remember from some articles some year ago.)

 

I'd say I'm more of panentheist, which means whatever "God" is, is more than just nature, but nature is a significant, necessary, integrated part of what "God" is. Can't separate them. We are part of God, and nature is part of God. And that doesn't mean that we must behave like animals. I don't see why that is the case. That's just pure non sequitur. "God and nature is one, and we are one with God, therefore we must behave like rocks or amoebas." Yeah, that sounds logical. It's just as logical as "God is separated from nature and left it in the hands of his enemy, so therefore humans act absolutely moral." Does that sound better? Or "God created the world to look like a bowling ball, therefore I like ice cream."

 

Consciousness obviously exists in nature. Can you deny it?

 

Scientific study actually can't get us there. We can observe behaviors of animals, but we cannot observe intentions, so you can't say that they exhibit morality, but only the appearance of morality. We don't know that animals do things out of a sense of moral ought. Also, there is a difference between reasoning and acting in a moral manner as morality involves an oughtness.

 

So, in what way would you say that we are more than or different than animals? Now, in what way would you say that I argue that God is separated from nature? I think that God is very much involved with nature as he created it and, according to the Bible sustains it. I also think that it is a mistake to say that God left nature in the hand of his enemy as it implies that God is completely hands off, and I don't see the Bible indicating that. So, I would say that I still have questions that need to be answered, so let's continue the conversation.

[agnosticator]

And yet we see (through scientific study) that animals show elementary morality. How come? How come they have found out that rats have a primitive ability to reasoning and even prediction? (At least that's what I remember from some articles some year ago.)

 

Scientific study actually can't get us there. We can observe behaviors of animals, but we cannot observe intentions, so you can't say that they exhibit morality, but only the appearance of morality. We don't know that animals do things out of a sense of moral ought. Also, there is a difference between reasoning and acting in a moral manner as morality involves an oughtness.

 

Morality is about how we treat each other within relationships-not just thinking about it.

 

Who's to say animals' reasonings don't include a form of "oughtness"? Humans are different than animals moreso in a matter of DEGREE, than type. Our brains didn't come from a separate alien being, or a god, but from life on earth. Just because we can't "read their minds" doesn't mean they can't possess some degree of "oughtness" in their reasoning.

[Justin]

I believe i'm done debating with LNC. It's a bigger waste of time than arguing with my cat.

[agnosticator]

I believe i'm done debating with LNC. It's a bigger waste of time than arguing with my cat.

 

At least your cat will come to you and purr afterwards.

[Ouroboros]

The cat is a purr-fect creature, fur it is so cute.

[Ouroboros]

Scientific study actually can't get us there. We can observe behaviors of animals, but we cannot observe intentions, so you can't say that they exhibit morality, but only the appearance of morality. We don't know that animals do things out of a sense of moral ought. Also, there is a difference between reasoning and acting in a moral manner as morality involves an oughtness.

True. Because the term "morality" only applies to humans and no other creature. Hence, morality as a concept can't be used outside of human nature. It has to only apply to human mind, intention, and behavior. So when animals show a "moral" behavior, it's because they're animals, not because they don't show having codes of conduct. So there is a basic code of correctness in social behavior, even with animals, but the term "moral" is subjective to humans only. So that's why morality is not absolute, since absolute (to me at least) would imply an inclusion of all existing beings. So I guess you agree with me then that "absolute" is not to be interpreted as a total and universal law for any and all beings in existence, but only to humans and their conduct?

 

And lets add to this, what about a 2 year old? Can they apply a correct moral decision to their behavior? Or does morality allow a flexibility to capacity and age? How about a mental handicapped person? Do we apply the same code to them for all things? What about someone with turrets?

 

And next question, what about death penalty, war, or self-defense? Do we apply the categorical imperative to those situations, or do we consider some "killing" acceptable depending on situation?

 

In other words, morality isn't simple, and it isn't absolute in the sense of "same rule, apply all the time, for all situations, for all people, everywhere," but rather, they are guidelines where we try to reach a certain condition, but we know that in most situations the answer is much more complex than that. Right?

 

So, in what way would you say that we are more than or different than animals? Now, in what way would you say that I argue that God is separated from nature? I think that God is very much involved with nature as he created it and, according to the Bible sustains it. I also think that it is a mistake to say that God left nature in the hand of his enemy as it implies that God is completely hands off, and I don't see the Bible indicating that.

Okay. That's good. However I see "God" as the energy that IS everything. I don't see God's omnipotence as him being in the empty space between the quarks, but rather, God is the quarks, God is the dark matter, God is the braided space, God is energy... And we are one with God. So God as a word is really not the same to me as to you. I don't pray to God. I don't believe God to be necessarily conscious or interacting with us, at least not more than just God is Nature and us. We interact with God when we interact with each other and nature. Hence, God in my view becomes nothing but all that exists. Therefore the word "God" loses meaning, and I really don't need it, since it would be more of a word-game. God is not personal, but God is just what is. Very much like the idea of "I AM WHO I AM," but replace "I" and "WHO' with "IT" and "WHICH" or "WHAT".

[agnosticator]

Scientific study actually can't get us there. We can observe behaviors of animals, but we cannot observe intentions, so you can't say that they exhibit morality, but only the appearance of morality. We don't know that animals do things out of a sense of moral ought. Also, there is a difference between reasoning and acting in a moral manner as morality involves an oughtness.

True. Because the term "morality" only applies to humans and no other creature. Hence, morality as a concept can't be used outside of human nature. It has to only apply to human mind, intention, and behavior. So when animals show a "moral" behavior, it's because they're animals, not because they don't show having codes of conduct. So there is a basic code of correctness in social behavior, even with animals, but the term "moral" is subjective to humans only. So that's why morality is not absolute, since absolute (to me at least) would imply an inclusion of all existing beings. So I guess you agree with me then that "absolute" is not to be interpreted as a total and universal law for any and all beings in existence, but only to humans and their conduct?

 

And lets add to this, what about a 2 year old? Can they apply a correct moral decision to their behavior? Or does morality allow a flexibility to capacity and age? How about a mental handicapped person? Do we apply the same code to them for all things? What about someone with turrets?

 

How is a "code of conduct" displayed by animals different than calling it "morality"? Animals aren't as developed and complex as humans, but I don't see it as being totally not about morality. Consider one example: The gorilla at Brookfield Zoo a few years back gently picked up a human child that fell in her enclosure. While her own baby was on her back, she proceeded to the gate of the enclosure while growling at other gorillas to keep away. She then handed the child to a keeper. I don't see the difference.

[mwc]

Okay. That's good. However I see "God" as the energy that IS everything. I don't see God's omnipotence as him being in the empty space between the quarks, but rather, God is the quarks, God is the dark matter, God is the braided space, God is energy... And we are one with God. So God as a word is really not the same to me as to you. I don't pray to God. I don't believe God to be necessarily conscious or interacting with us, at least not more than just God is Nature and us. We interact with God when we interact with each other and nature. Hence, God in my view becomes nothing but all that exists. Therefore the word "God" loses meaning, and I really don't need it, since it would be more of a word-game. God is not personal, but God is just what is. Very much like the idea of "I AM WHO I AM," but replace "I" and "WHO' with "IT" and "WHICH" or "WHAT".

It's funny that you would say this. You're yet another that describe a god, let's just say "god" (or god sans quotes). as a unifying force. Essentially energy in this case. I'm not going to do what you're saying any justice so I'm not going to even bother. And normally I'd say nothing or just mock you. But, as there is a circumstance currently in my life that I've shared with some that I won't repeat here, I started thinking about some things.

 

Not god. God is the side-effect of what I was thinking about though and it relates in a way to this concept of god. It's less "sophisticated" though. I was thinking that if circumstances don't go well that I'd like to do something nice, a gesture of sorts, to show my regard. Now this won't make a lot of sense for those who don't know the details but it really won't matter in a moment (I hope). But as I thought it snow-balled into a sort of "family reunion" type of thing. In a place I enjoyed. For some reason that kept creeping in. I wanted to share with all these people something that I enjoyed. To create a memory of this other person but in a special setting. Something that could really be a shared sort of bond. I wanted to share this person and a place with others. I wanted them to see all of this through my eyes. To know why I thought it was all so special. You know? Hopefully you're getting even a vague idea here. Kind of how people experience things with kids. To see things through their eyes.

 

So then it struck me. This is essentially the unifying force behind god. To get others to experience your shared experience. To grab them up and say "Come see this thing how I see it. Love it how I love it. Want to do it, live it, breath it how I do." Doesn't matter what that thing is. A special place. A special anything.

 

But if enough people love your thing then they tend to also "ruin" your thing. They want to have it their way. Just a little tweak here. A little tweak there. Soon it's not what it was. Or maybe there's just too many people there. It's too crowded. Rules need to be put into place to control the crowds. Any number of things. What was something to be enjoyed is ruined simply because it's being enjoyed. Now this can't happen in my situation. It would be a one time event. A celebration to Life. I hope I don't have actually do it. But it did make me think that the unifying force of god probably isn't some "out there" thing or some "force" that can't be measured but it would be something simple. Something that little kids already know. Something where they grab your arm and say "Look!" And they want you to see that thing. And that brings you together. That unifies you in a way that nothing else can. But it's fleeting. It doesn't last. God comes in fits and spurts. You have to enjoy it while you can.

 

That said. I'm still very much an atheist.

 

mwc

[LNC]

Fair enough. So what about the 10 commandments, and the additional instructions from Paul to obviate the food and religious laws in the OT? Were they written to all Christians, or to just the recipients?

 

The 10 commandments were written to the Jews; however, they have application to anyone. The purpose for the Law was mainly to show us that we need God, because we can't keep the law completely, which is what God expects. We are told in Matthew "Be perfect, as I am perfect." Paul said that the law is a tutor to show us that we are sinners in need of a savior. Paul's speaking to food restrictions was to Jews, as Gentiles didn't have these restrictions, therefore, it wouldn't make sense that it applied to them. That is why we must take the Scriptures at face value and interpret them in light of the context, audience, history, etc.

 

I haven't seen that unity between the textual critics, rather the opposite. I even listened to some of them becoming atheists or agnostics, and some of them even questioning the veracity of an historical Jesus. So no, there are definitely conflicts within the textual critics.

 

So, to whom besides Bart Ehrman are you referring? Could you let me know of which historical NT scholars besides Robert Price (and he isn't held in high regard in the academic community) who denies that Jesus existed? I also didn't say that there are no conflicts between textual critics, however, they differ based upon presuppositions that they bring into the text when they do (i.e., anti supernatural vs. supernatural presuppositions).

 

Well, sure, we can know things. But is relativity theory absolutely and universally true? No, since it doesn't work on quantum level. Is quantum physics the absolute and universally true, no, since it doesn't work for the higher levels. So truth only exists within their context and used correctly. Truth about science can be tested within the given parameters to be confirmed to work in those given situations, while Bible "truth" is extremely subjective. Again, I have said it before, there are statistics that show there are 30,000 different Christian denominations. Just consider the huge differences in a lot of the theology and dogma between Pentecostals, Lutherans, Catholics, Calvinists, Episcopalians, and so on. If the truth was so easy, the why is it so hard?

 

At least with science the ideas can be tested and confirmed, while with Bible truth is a matter of who got the loudest voice.

 

So, when the Bible talks about cities like Rome, Corinth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, would you say that it is promoting subjective truth at this point? By what objective basis do you judge the Biblical truth to be subjective? Doesn't that imply that you know objective truth and that the Bible doesn't hold up against that standard? I am not sure what you mean by the statement "truth about science can be tested." I think you mean that theories and assumptions can be tested, but science isn't about truth, per se. Science begins with unproven assumptions like causality and uniformity and therefore, we only prove that those "laws" are still in effect. Now, when you say that Bible truth is subjective, that is too vague of a statement for me to do anything with, I am not sure in what way you mean this statement.

 

Now, regarding the 30K different denominations, that is a misleading statistic. I go to a church that is not a part of a denomination, so it would be counted as a denomination, as would my former church as it was in the same situation. So, I don't read much into or out of that. Your statement is a statement of epistemology not necessarily a statement of ontology. So, in essence, your statement doesn't prove what you set out to prove.

[LNC]

I don’t speak of morality very often. And a larger part of me feels that it is better to exercise morality than to speak of it.

 

I’m not sure what it would mean to say that morality is either subjective or objective. I guess I lean towards an idea that morality involves anticipation. And I strongly suspect that anticipation has both objective and subjective components.

 

That is interesting, but I am not sure that it gets us toward an answer.

[LNC]

1. Morality is subjective of necessity, because it is exercised by subjective beings. Even if there were an objective morality you would not be able to discern it because of your subjective nature. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you can only be subjective. But rather than subjective I would rather say that morality is relative because it is about relationships. If you are hungry and I give you a blanket, I have not met my moral obligation. However if you are cold then I have met my moral obligation. To be moral my actions must be at least relevant to the need. And my moral actions are subject or relative to my resources. If you are hungry and cold, but I don't have food or a blanket, I am not immoral for not supplying you with the same.

 

Science is exercised by subjective beings, would you say that it is subjective as well? Can we not understand science objectively since we are subjective? I guess that would go for truth as a whole, that we would never be able to understand truth since we are subjective beings, yet that concept would be self-refuting since that understanding would either be true (meaning that objective truth could be known) or false (meaning that either we are not subjective beings or that we can still know truth even though we are subjective beings). In any case it reveals the false nature of your statement and shows that we can know objective things even though we are subjective beings.

 

Now, when you say morality is relative, is that always true or just true sometimes? When you say that you have a moral obligation I ask, to whom? And, why?

 

2. I bring charges against God, based on what he has supposed to have said is moral. Take for example the charges brought against the goats in the depiction of the judgment day. (mt 25) For one thing the goats were charged with not feeding the hungry. There are lots of hungry people around today that God does not feed. God condemned the goats for not feeding the hungry, therefore God stands condemned for not feeding the hungry. I would expect a moral God to be at least as moral as he expects his creatures to be.

 

Now, since you have claimed that morality is absolute and objective, you need to tell us what these absolute and objective morals are. I don't know of any, but I imagine you must. Give us a list, or even just one if you will.

 

However, you need to have a higher standard than God's by which to judge him. If you say that he has violated his own standard, then one of two things is true: 1) God's nature is not the source of morality in the Bible as it is grounded in his nature and if his nature is corrupt, then so is the moral standard. Therefore, you are judging him by an invalid standard. 2) God's nature is the grounding of morality in the Bible and you have simply not understood the reasoning of the judgment and by that standard your judgment would be invalid as well. So, either way, your judgment of God ends up being invalidated. That is unless you can prove a higher objective moral standard by which God can be judged, and that you must prove.

 

Regarding the goats, let me ask you a question - have you fed any of the hungry? How do you know that God hasn't chosen to feed the hungry through us, but we rebel and disobey him? That is why it says in Romans, "who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"

 

Absolute and objective moral values are true whether or not I, or anyone else in the world believe them to be valid. Here are a few examples, and you tell me if you find any exceptions to these standards: 1) Don't murder; 2) Don't rape; 3) Don't be a racist. If you can tell me of any situation where those actions, in and of themselves, would be OK morally to commit, I would like to hear about those situations.

[Antlerman]

Absolute and objective moral values are true whether or not I, or anyone else in the world believe them to be valid. Here are a few examples, and you tell me if you find any exceptions to these standards: 1) Don't murder; 2) Don't rape; 3) Don't be a racist. If you can tell me of any situation where those actions, in and of themselves, would be OK morally to commit, I would like to hear about those situations.

Oh this is just stupid. Where are the exceptions to all of these three you ask? Here's your answer

 

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

 

Accept it.

[LNC]

So understand this correctly, Moral Subjectivism is not what I call Vulgar Relativism, but it is not a system of Moral Absolutism either. It declare some or few moral precepts to be basic, and exactly which ones and why, how and from where is still something up for debate. My view, as you saw before, is that the primitive morals come from nature and the necessity of survival, fulfill needs, and fulfill pleasures, basically our ethics go from necessary or objective at the lower leves of Maslow's Pyramid of needs, and move upward in the pyramid toward pure subjective and even arbitrary rules. So the answer is: both.

 

The reason why I'm trying to clarify this now and not before is, I thought you understood what I said when I used the term "Subjectivism," but I see a lot of confusion going on here what "subjective" means in the ethical system. Therefore I thought it important to point this out.

 

And one more thing, I noticed the word "objective" has been used very loosely throughout the discussion, which also creates a lot of confusion. When I think of objective, I usually think of something that holds true for everything, everywhere, and always, which means, an absolute code of conduct, to me, applies to every species, being, creature, God, and not just one but not the other. But after our discussion about God's moral, and Adam's mDCT, and also your charge with "should morals apply to animals," shows that you really don't believe the "absolute" morals apply to every living being, but only to humans. This to me isn't really how I think of absolute, but I decided to adopt your definition (kind'a) above for your benefit.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I still find it problematic to say that you have these primitive morals that derive from nature. Nature is not personal and cannot pass along oughts to us in a moral sense. Sure, we can learn that if I don't eat I will starve, so I ought to eat, but that is a different kind of oughtness that is often falsely conflated with moral oughtness. Now, I am not saying that this is to what you are referring, but I have had naturalist use this false analogy. You would have to show me how nature can convey moral oughts to us.

 

Here is a second problem that I have in that naturalists automatically assume that survival is some kind of moral good, and that is an assumption for which they never give reasoning. Now, many will ask, "don't you want to survive?" as if that is proof for their point, and it is not. So, I would like to hear you defend that position. If survival, the fulfillment of needs, and the fulfillment of pleasure are the highest goods, shouldn't I do whatever I can to achieve those "goods?" For example, if I need money and I see someone getting money out of an ATM, shouldn't I just hit them over the head and take their money? If pleasure is my pursuit, I could justify the same action for that end and in essence fulfill two needs in the same act. If we are moving up the pyramid toward pure subjectivism, I can think of all sorts of acts that I could do. However, truth be told, I don't see any objective reason to believe that Maslow had it right.

 

I think that you may be confused a bit by the definition of objective vs. subjective. Let me give you my take. Objective morality is morality that is true whether I or anyone else believes it to be true. Now, there is a difference between the ontology, the epistemology, and the application of these morals. There will always be a subjective element that comes in in the application of moral values and that is clearly seen in the Bible. However, the confusion of most people is when they see a subjective element enter in in the application of morals, they will deny that objective moral values even exist, which is a fallacious assumption. For example, God said that the promise would come through the line of Jacob. Jacob was the younger son and younger sons in that culture didn't receive the first blessing of their fathers as that was always reserved for the oldest son. Jacob, with the help of his mother, set out to deceive his father and steal the blessing from his brother, which he did. Now, if Esau would have beaten Jacob to see his father and gotten the blessing, would it have thwarted God's plans? No, but God used Jacob's (which means deceiver) deceptive nature.

 

God used many deceptive people to accomplish his ends. These people were morally guilty for their sin, but God still used them as they were. Sometimes I hear the story of the person who is forced to rape someone in order to save his family. The fact that the person committed the rape to save his family doesn't make the rape right, even if it accomplished an ends of saving his family. That is a lot of rambling; however, I hope that sheds some light as well.

 

BTW, I wouldn't put myself in the camp of DCT as I believe that moral values derive from God's nature rather than from God's commands. DCT leaves open the possiblity that God's commands could be arbitrary, a position which I don't hold.

[LNC]

LNC -

 

Would you mind explaining what you mean by "it is inspired"?

 

Regarding inerrancy, what do you believe of what we currently have available to us? You referred in a previous post to me to a mistranslation in the KJV of the Bible. Do you have a more accurately translated Bible (or Bibles) that you use in your study? What process do you use to muck through issues of mistranslation and other errancy?

 

Phanta

 

Sure, inspiration is a Christian doctrine that says that the authors of the OT and NT were given Divine inspiration to write what they did. They didn't just make it up out of their heads. The Bible speaks of the Scripture as "God breathed" in that God didn't literally speak the words into their heads, nor was he moving their pens as if they were robots; however, he was giving them the wisdom and understanding to write what they did, while still allowing the authors to put their personality into the text.

 

I believe that it is in the high 99th percentile what was originally written and that the fraction of a percent that is in some doubt has no bearing on the meaning of the text. We have more manuscript evidence for the NT than any ancient document of antiquity, so we are pretty certain that what we have is virtually identical to what was originally written, with only minor variations. I tend to use either the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version. Both are good word for word translations of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The ESV is a newer translation so it updates some of the "thees and thous" still found in the NASB; however, there are new revisions of the NASB that have done the same, so either could be used with good confidence. Anyone can use a good host of commentaries which are widely available, some even online, to decipher some of the more difficult passages. Unless a person is going to really focus his efforts on digging deep into the original languages, histories, cultures, etc., one is going to have to look to commentaries from those who are doing that. There are many good sources from places near where I live like Wheaton College or Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Many commentaries are even available via Google Scholar online.

 

Again, since we have so many manuscripts by which to compare variant readings, we can apply rules of textual criticism to come to the best understanding of the correct reading. Even those who claim a variant reading are often challenged by people from all sides of the epistemological spectrum as to the best understanding. If you have other questions, let me know.

[Ouroboros]

It's funny that you would say this. You're yet another that describe a god, let's just say "god" (or god sans quotes). as a unifying force. Essentially energy in this case. I'm not going to do what you're saying any justice so I'm not going to even bother. And normally I'd say nothing or just mock you. But, as there is a circumstance currently in my life that I've shared with some that I won't repeat here, I started thinking about some things.

I really don't like calling it God, but I choose to use it in this discussion to kind of relate to LNC's view of God. I don't think of it as a supernatura, external, independent being, which you have to pray to, or worship, or who is going to "do" something when you die, or is doing miracles. Nature, is just nature. It's a higher power than me, considering that if a black hole and I would go into a battle, I wouldn't win. Yes, I include the whole universe in the word Nature.

 

So then it struck me. This is essentially the unifying force behind god. To get others to experience your shared experience. To grab them up and say "Come see this thing how I see it. Love it how I love it. Want to do it, live it, breath it how I do." Doesn't matter what that thing is. A special place. A special anything.

The symbol basically. Like saying Pi, and really mean the irrational number 3.1415...

 

But if enough people love your thing then they tend to also "ruin" your thing. They want to have it their way. Just a little tweak here. A little tweak there. Soon it's not what it was. Or maybe there's just too many people there. It's too crowded. Rules need to be put into place to control the crowds. Any number of things. What was something to be enjoyed is ruined simply because it's being enjoyed. Now this can't happen in my situation. It would be a one time event. A celebration to Life. I hope I don't have actually do it. But it did make me think that the unifying force of god probably isn't some "out there" thing or some "force" that can't be measured but it would be something simple. Something that little kids already know. Something where they grab your arm and say "Look!" And they want you to see that thing. And that brings you together. That unifies you in a way that nothing else can. But it's fleeting. It doesn't last. God comes in fits and spurts. You have to enjoy it while you can.

I think what you're describing is more of a God concept rising up from social setting. The Nature "God" is more like... the Universe, and whatever could exist beyond that, like Multiverse, etc. The forces of nature.

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough. So what about the 10 commandments, and the additional instructions from Paul to obviate the food and religious laws in the OT? Were they written to all Christians, or to just the recipients?

 

The 10 commandments were written to the Jews; however, they have application to anyone.

So you pick and choose. You are the arbiter of what to pick and what to reject. If a verse is addressed to Bob, and you don't like the command, then the verse was to Bob only. But if the verse is to Bob, and you like the command, then it's for everyone.

 

The purpose for the Law was mainly to show us that we need God, because we can't keep the law completely, which is what God expects. We are told in Matthew "Be perfect, as I am perfect." Paul said that the law is a tutor to show us that we are sinners in need of a savior. Paul's speaking to food restrictions was to Jews, as Gentiles didn't have these restrictions, therefore, it wouldn't make sense that it applied to them. That is why we must take the Scriptures at face value and interpret them in light of the context, audience, history, etc.

No, Matthew told it to the Jews. Jesus said he only came for Israel. Paul made his own spin. And Paul wrote to the churches, not to you. So no. Nothing applies to you.

 

So, to whom besides Bart Ehrman are you referring? Could you let me know of which historical NT scholars besides Robert Price (and he isn't held in high regard in the academic community) who denies that Jesus existed? I also didn't say that there are no conflicts between textual critics, however, they differ based upon presuppositions that they bring into the text when they do (i.e., anti supernatural vs. supernatural presuppositions).

I have heard a couple more, but I don't recall their names.

 

And of course Doc Price isn't held high, because he rejects the regular interpretation. So basically, those who agree with your pet religion, are good and okay, but those who doesn't, are rejected, just because they have a different opinion. Interesting that scholar means so many things. A "true" scholar is those who agree with you. The "false" scholars are those who you disagree with.

 

So, when the Bible talks about cities like Rome, Corinth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, would you say that it is promoting subjective truth at this point? By what objective basis do you judge the Biblical truth to be subjective? Doesn't that imply that you know objective truth and that the Bible doesn't hold up against that standard? I am not sure what you mean by the statement "truth about science can be tested." I think you mean that theories and assumptions can be tested, but science isn't about truth, per se. Science begins with unproven assumptions like causality and uniformity and therefore, we only prove that those "laws" are still in effect. Now, when you say that Bible truth is subjective, that is too vague of a statement for me to do anything with, I am not sure in what way you mean this statement.

In the Bible it says: Pray and you shall receive. Is that true? Do you receive anything you pray for to get? No. Why, because people realized it doesn't work, and added new "rules" to how it works. You can't pray for anything, and something the answer is "maybe" or "later." Those excuses are just that. Excuses. The truth is that the verse is not literally true, whichever way you try to make up excuses for it.

 

Now, regarding the 30K different denominations, that is a misleading statistic. I go to a church that is not a part of a denomination, so it would be counted as a denomination, as would my former church as it was in the same situation. So, I don't read much into or out of that. Your statement is a statement of epistemology not necessarily a statement of ontology. So, in essence, your statement doesn't prove what you set out to prove.

I were member in at least four different kinds.

 

Open this page, link, and count the different named denominations. And these are only the major ones. I know, it's not 30,000 there, but it is the big ones, and then you have many, many minor ones.

 

Where would you for instance put the Westboro Baptist Church?