Questions For Ordinaryclay

[mymistake]

Let's see.  There will be . . . 

 

 

1)  Faith.  For you see the Real Christians^tm believe the "Real True Truth" their belief itself is evidence.  Don't notice that Christian belief has nothing special about it or that with so many different denominations and sects that this evidence of faith is all over the place and contradicts itself on various non-core doctrine.  The disagreement itself is what makes various issues non-core because Real Christians always agree on the core basics or else they can't recognize the other denomination or sect as authentic Christian.  There is nothing to see here.  Move along!

 

 

2)  Look around.  There is a whole universe here.  Clearly that is evidence that atheists deny.  You can't get something from nothing and God is, by definition, something that came from nothing.  So the universe could only be here because of God.  Paul said so.  Checkmate atheists!

 

 

3)  The Hole E. Buy Bull.  It has fantastic and unbelievable stories in it so clearly it must be the word of God that has been perfectly preserved in it's core meaning ever since the Catholic Church burned as heresy lost the original text.  Don't believe it?  Well here, let me quote you verses until you do believe it.  In the event of an apparent contradiction sit down with a priest or pastor and they will spend hours explaining it away.  See, it only looks like a contradiction to those who don't understand the original context.

 

 

4)  Try it!  Simply accept the religion without questioning it and without doubting it at all.  Believe it all and then you will see the difference in your personal life.  The uneven power from the religion dictating what you can or can't do will activate your self-preservation instinct and then you will experience empathy, sympathy and positive feelings for God the captor.  You may even get the urge to defend God.  Some people might tell you those feelings are irrational but they are agents of Satan!

 

 

The anti-Christians are afraid of these Truthinesses!

[florduh]

Anti-Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of truth. You crave self adulation.

 

 

 

Hmmm. Who mentioned cop out?

 

I suppose if our motive was actually a differing opinion supported by facts, that would be harder for you to deal with. You might have to consider the facts, but I realize that's not likely. Don't forget, we were once stuck in your delusion and understand cognitive dissonance; you don't yet.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I don't think that I have the energy to present the current fundie argument for the long-term consistency and reliability of radiometric dating, latest human footprint claim or tree growing through all layers of rock derptitude.

 

As far as metaphor in the creation accounts in Genesis, Joseph Campbell has presented an interesting take on the garden of Eden and and alternative perspective on the Cherubim in light of Eastern mythology and symbolism (as well as Western aboriginal myths).  Were the Cherubim physically guarding the tree of life, or were they symbols of the journeyman's anxiety, signaling for the weary traveler to calm his fears and enter bravely?

 

Where is our biblical champion who dares to defy the lions?  I lack energy and crave flesh!

What drivel. You have arbitrarily chosen to believe one myth over another. That is not rational.

 

What drivel, Clay.  You have arbitrarily chosen to believe one myth (Christianity) over others.  You may call that rational, others will disagree.

 

I believe in Christianity because of the totality of evidence not because I understand everything.

 

Yet the evidence that's persuaded you cannot be rigorously tested, checked or verified, because it's based upon eye-witness testimony, with all of the human failings, flaws and errors that accompany it.   How can the objective be separated from the subjective?  By using the 'inerrant' supernatural myths of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal people as a guide, perhaps?

 

The preponderance of evidence points to the truth of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

The preponderance of evidence you are prepared to accept points to the truth of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Everything else is filtered out by your personal bias.  A bias which is based upon the 'inerrant' supernatural myths of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal people - who also believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

 

So which came first Clay? 

Did you accept these myths as the 'inerrant' truth and then use them to filter out everything else as untruth?

Or did you use these myths to filter everything else out as untruth and then you accepted them as the 'inerrant' truth?

 

The alternatives are far, far more unbelievable.

 

To you, yes.   Others have no problem with them.

 

It is wishful thinking to think that the universe came into being from nothing with no Creator.

 

Cosmologists posit a currently-unknown material cause for the universe.  They don't use the 'inerrant' supernatural myths of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal people to inform their work.

 

It is wishful thinking to believe the first single celled organisms came into being spontaneously through necessity and chance.

 

Origin-of-life scientists posit a currently-unknown material cause for the first single celled organisms.  They don't use the 'inerrant' supernatural myths of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal people to inform their work.

 

It is wishful thinking to believe there is no life after death dispute (despite!)  the enormous evidence for the supernatural.

 

Ah yes, the supernatural... which, though detectable, cannot be investigated by any empirical means.  So, we are left to sift thru an enormous body of eye-witness testimony using what to guide us in our search for the truth?  Let me guess... to discover the objective truth about the supernatural all of the eye-witness testimony has to be filtered thru the 'innerant' supernatural myths of an ancient Middle Eastern tribal people, yes?

 

It is wishful thinking to believe the irrational hatred for the Jews is a quirk of history.

 

To you, yes.  Others have no problem with it.

 

Anti-Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of truth.

 

Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of the truth.

 

You crave self adulation.

 

And I see humility in every word you write Clay. 

 

 

BAA.

[centauri]

 

...The preponderance of evidence points to the truth of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The alternatives are far, far more unbelievable. It is wishful thinking to think that the universe came into being from nothing with no Creator. It is wishful thinking to believe the first single celled organisms came into being spontaneously through necessity and chance. It is wishful thinking to believe there is no life after death dispute the enormous evidence for the supernatural. It is wishful thinking to believe the irrational hatred for the Jews is a quirk of history.

 

Anti-Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of truth. You crave self adulation.

 

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not a three person Trinity.

You've adopted a far more unbelievable alternative that morphs the Hebrew deity into a three headed hydra that is internally inconsistent, even with itself.

Assuming the universe has a creator, that doesn't make your version of God the creator.

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

If hatred of Jews is irrational, why did so many Christians practice it?

According to the New Testament, Jews are Christ killers and reprobates.

Your use of the term "anti-Christians" is far too generic to have much meaning.

Christians have hated and killed each other for centuries.

Apparently Christians are also anti-Christian.

You need to be specific, defining exactly what a true Christian is and how you know your definition is more accurate and superior to that of other believers who are not members of your particular sect.

[stryper]

Why oh why do we feed this troll. 

 

He isn't here for rational discussion.  He is here to tell us we are wrong and try to do it using science.  

What if find more insulting then the obvious insult is this. 

 

 

I believe in Christianity because of the totality of evidence not because I understand everything. The preponderance of evidence points to the truth of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The alternatives are far, far more unbelievable. It is wishful thinking to think that the universe came into being from nothing with no Creator. It is wishful thinking to believe the first single celled organisms came into being spontaneously through necessity and chance. It is wishful thinking to believe there is no life after death dispute the enormous evidence for the supernatural. It is wishful thinking to believe the irrational hatred for the Jews is a quirk of history.

 

He speaks of evidence yet provides none, and how there is so much that god has to be true.   

 

He accepts science as it suits his purposes and then basically says "therefore, God."  

Calls evolution "wishful thinking".   Which after all this time is incredible.  Abiogenesis is a field of study.  It is looking at how the first cells developed.   Science isn't saying they just came together.  Given the right chemical conditions the protein chains will form.  This was done in 1953.   We haven't figured out how they became self replicating....yet.  There are multiple hypotheses as to how, but none have been verified experimentally.   This is very much a we don't know area. 

To represent it as well it just happened, is only valid from a very naive and simplistic way of looking at it.   I have taken the trouble in another thread to look into the philosophies you have thrown out to see what it says when refused to enlighten us.  I would expect the same in return. 

 

Life after death.  On a personal note, I do think there is, and I have covered that in other threads.   However, that sentence is strawman.  .  Do I think there is life after death, yes.  But then I am weird.  However, I know that I have no evidence for it that would be accepted as such.  I also know that it is not something that can currently be explain by a the scientific procoess.   I also admit I could be wrong.  
 

There is no overwhelming evidence of the supernatural.   I feel this has been a failing of science to investigate it.  Mainly because so many psychics, clairvoyants,  and others are out right frauds.  Many times people using body language and suggestive dialogue can achieve the same results. Science may find something eventually, but  my guess is it would take instruments and such that we currently don't have. 

That said.  Since we don't know for certain what happens after, there is no point in worrying about it.  This life is the only one this personality will have. Live it and learn what you can.

 

The last part is the worst in this whole post. 

 

 It is wishful thinking to believe the irrational hatred for the Jews is a quirk of history.

 

 

"irrational hatred for the Jews is a quirk of history."    I applaude you for stating the hatred is irrational.  That shows there is compassion in there somewhere.   It is the "quirk of history" part that is really disturbing. 

 

This statement first off has nothing to do with ANYTHING that I have heard said on this site.  It doesn't address science.  It doesn't address philosophy.  In a post, that is trying to show how screwed up we are for believing those other things, this statement stands out. 

This statement implies that everything that has happened to the Jews has been for a reason.  This statement suggested that while admittedly irrational the hatred of the Jews is to be expected. Is necessary?  Is....divine?   I don't know.  What I do know is this statement suggests to me that everything from the diaspora to the holocaust wasn't a "quirk".  This implies to me that there was a justified reason.  

There is no reason that is ever acceptable for subjugation of an anyone or hatred of anyone just because they look a certain way, have certain traits, belong to certain group, etc.  That sir is completely unacceptable. 

Even the CYA preface of saying it is irrational doesn't cover you from the fact this statement implies that though you think it irrational you would go along with it because you seem to believe "god must have a reason".  

This is why. This troll needs to not be feed and sent packing.   
 

[RipVanWinkle]

OC: Instead of SAYING you base your faith on evidence, list the evidence for us. I don't know of any

evidence except the bible which has never been authenticated. What do you contend is solid evidence?

 

You remind me of the story of Jesus after his resurrection walking and talking to men along the road.

He reviewed for them the OT and explained how it all pointed to Jesus', the Savior, life, death and

resurrection, etc. The most important thing that Jesus said in his entire visit to earth and the

Gospels don't report it. Would it take up too much space or too much time? Did they want people to

dispute with each other about what he said for thousands of years? Didn't Jesus want the full

explanation of how the OT connects with his life, death, resurrection and and ascension to be clear?

 

You tell us you have the best evidence, but won't tell what that evidence is? I wonder why. bill

[boftx]

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

You have stated elsewhere that you are "an old earth Christian":

 

The universe is 13.5 byrs old. I'm an old earth Christian. The Bible does not teach the earth is 6000 yrs old. People have read this into the Bible. Now, I don't fault someone for believing the earth is 6000 years old. It is not bad to believe such a thing, but I don't hinge my faith on that.

 

Do you also accept (note that I did not say believe in) the theory of evolution, including that of Homo Sapiens from earlier forms? Why or why not? (If you don't mind.)

 

How do you decide what parts of the Bible are subjective and which are objective?

 

As a  specific example since you brought it up in the quoted comment above, what part(s) of the creation story do you accept at face value, if any?

 

If I might use your phrase, how do you decide what to "hang [your] faith on"?

 

I am not asking these to put you on that spot, but rather, I am trying to understand your position a little better. It will be much easier for any future discussions if I have some idea of how you perceive Bible inerrancy since it is clear you do not hold that it is literally true word-for-word.

I believe the science. The best science gives strong evidence for common descent. So I do believe there is common ancestry. Most people need to take the time to dig deeper than simple phrases such as "The Theory of Evolution". What science cannot do is provide answers on how the large leaps in genome complexity occurred. Just claiming long periods of time will allow for any possible change is not scientific and is a cop out. Just finding evidence for common descent does not mean it occurred via a materialistic means.

 

I believe the Bible is God's inerrant word. I partition the Bible into two sets of verses. The verses I believe I understand, and the verses I believe I don't understand. I gain understanding through study, thought and prayer.

 

As an example, Gen 2:21, did God actually use Adam's rib to create Eve.  I believe it is physically metaphorical, but believing it is physically true is not a problem for me. If a Christian chooses to believe that than okay.

 

Let me ask you a question, if we assume the Creator of the universe exists and was revealing Himself to neolithic tribes what should He have written in His book of revelation. How should He have described the process of creation. Should He have used quantum theory? Should He have written a biochemical treatise on evolution? Critics never think completely through their own rhetoric.

 

It makes perfect sense that God would use the language and thought of the animals He was revealing Himself to when revealing Himself.

 

 

In view of your reference to Gen 2:21, does that mean that you believe "God" created man, or that man evolved? If man evolved, are you implying that such would not have occurred without divine intervention?

 

Let's grant for the moment that it might be reasonable for "God" to reveal himself in a simplistic fashion geared to the audience of the time. Why would there be a need to tell the story twice, in different fashions? In one, both Adam and Eve are created from the dust of the Earth, in the other Eve is created from Adam's rib (not ignoring your comment above, just using this for illustrative purposes.) Which is correct? Or are both merely simple stories for simple minds? If that is the case, then what exactly is inerrant about them?

 

It would appear that you are being a bit loose with your definitions in order to make the Bible support just about any position you wish to take at the time.

 

I seem to recall you strongly implied in a different topic that the serpent really did tempt Eve, thereby causing her to introduce sin into the world. That implies that you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, which in turn weakens your statement that you accept a common ancestry for man and presumably the other primates.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm actually laughing.  This is getting funny.

[Fernweh]

OC is either a highly developed troll, employing and embodying nearly every logical fallacy, or he is like the kid in 6th grade who still believes in Santa from suspending disbelief and he wants us to do the same.

[sdelsolray]

I'm actually laughing.  This is getting funny.

OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is important.

[Thurisaz]

Yeah he's an idiot but somehow a funny one. I keep grinning reading his crap... not always laughing but grinning

[emshi21]

 

I don't think that I have the energy to present the current fundie argument for the long-term consistency and reliability of radiometric dating, latest human footprint claim or tree growing through all layers of rock derptitude.

 

As far as metaphor in the creation accounts in Genesis, Joseph Campbell has presented an interesting take on the garden of Eden and and alternative perspective on the Cherubim in light of Eastern mythology and symbolism (as well as Western aboriginal myths).  Were the Cherubim physically guarding the tree of life, or were they symbols of the journeyman's anxiety, signaling for the weary traveler to calm his fears and enter bravely?

 

Where is our biblical champion who dares to defy the lions?  I lack energy and crave flesh!

What drivel. You have arbitrarily chosen to believe one myth over another. That is not rational.

 

 

Tee hee! Pot calling kettle or what!

[Ravenstar]

"He is here to tell us we are wrong and try to do it using science."

 

bwahahahahahahahahaha... oh stop!   ROTFLOL!!!!!

[OrdinaryClay]

 

The truth is that, whatever supernatural concept/idea/entity may be true (most people here will say "none at all", some, like me, will disagree), yours clearly ain't.

So tell us why you believe in thor or whatever it is you believe in?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Anti-Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of truth. You crave self adulation.

 

 

 

Hmmm. Who mentioned cop out?

 

I suppose if our motive was actually a differing opinion supported by facts, that would be harder for you to deal with. You might have to consider the facts, but I realize that's not likely. Don't forget, we were once stuck in your delusion and understand cognitive dissonance; you don't yet.

 

cognitive dissonance?

 

You mean like believing in thor. Or calling oneself a pagan atheist. Or deluding oneself that the only evidence is emperical evidence.

[florduh]

 

 

Anti-Christians lie to themselves because they are afraid of truth. You crave self adulation.

 

 

 

Hmmm. Who mentioned cop out?

 

I suppose if our motive was actually a differing opinion supported by facts, that would be harder for you to deal with. You might have to consider the facts, but I realize that's not likely. Don't forget, we were once stuck in your delusion and understand cognitive dissonance; you don't yet.

 

cognitive dissonance?

 

You mean like believing in thor. Or calling oneself a pagan atheist. Or deluding oneself that the only evidence is emperical evidence.

 

I rest my case.

[OrdinaryClay]

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

[OrdinaryClay]

OC: Instead of SAYING you base your faith on evidence, list the evidence for us. I don't know of any

evidence except the bible which has never been authenticated. What do you contend is solid evidence?

The Bible is an example of Special Revelation. Take some time to understand Natural Theology.

 

I hear how people on here put great thought into their leaving Christianity, but I sincerly doubt many took the time to understand Natural Theology.

[mymistake]

In 1 Cor 7:25 the Bible tells us that the Bible is not the word of God.

 

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/7-25.htm

 

 

Behold the Word of the Lord:  "This is not the Word of the Lord"

 

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

You have stated elsewhere that you are "an old earth Christian":

 

The universe is 13.5 byrs old. I'm an old earth Christian. The Bible does not teach the earth is 6000 yrs old. People have read this into the Bible. Now, I don't fault someone for believing the earth is 6000 years old. It is not bad to believe such a thing, but I don't hinge my faith on that.

 

Do you also accept (note that I did not say believe in) the theory of evolution, including that of Homo Sapiens from earlier forms? Why or why not? (If you don't mind.)

 

How do you decide what parts of the Bible are subjective and which are objective?

 

As a  specific example since you brought it up in the quoted comment above, what part(s) of the creation story do you accept at face value, if any?

 

If I might use your phrase, how do you decide what to "hang [your] faith on"?

 

I am not asking these to put you on that spot, but rather, I am trying to understand your position a little better. It will be much easier for any future discussions if I have some idea of how you perceive Bible inerrancy since it is clear you do not hold that it is literally true word-for-word.

I believe the science. The best science gives strong evidence for common descent. So I do believe there is common ancestry. Most people need to take the time to dig deeper than simple phrases such as "The Theory of Evolution". What science cannot do is provide answers on how the large leaps in genome complexity occurred. Just claiming long periods of time will allow for any possible change is not scientific and is a cop out. Just finding evidence for common descent does not mean it occurred via a materialistic means.

 

I believe the Bible is God's inerrant word. I partition the Bible into two sets of verses. The verses I believe I understand, and the verses I believe I don't understand. I gain understanding through study, thought and prayer.

 

As an example, Gen 2:21, did God actually use Adam's rib to create Eve.  I believe it is physically metaphorical, but believing it is physically true is not a problem for me. If a Christian chooses to believe that than okay.

 

Let me ask you a question, if we assume the Creator of the universe exists and was revealing Himself to neolithic tribes what should He have written in His book of revelation. How should He have described the process of creation. Should He have used quantum theory? Should He have written a biochemical treatise on evolution? Critics never think completely through their own rhetoric.

 

It makes perfect sense that God would use the language and thought of the animals He was revealing Himself to when revealing Himself.

 

 

In view of your reference to Gen 2:21, does that mean that you believe "God" created man, or that man evolved? If man evolved, are you implying that such would not have occurred without divine intervention?

 

Let's grant for the moment that it might be reasonable for "God" to reveal himself in a simplistic fashion geared to the audience of the time. Why would there be a need to tell the story twice, in different fashions? In one, both Adam and Eve are created from the dust of the Earth, in the other Eve is created from Adam's rib (not ignoring your comment above, just using this for illustrative purposes.) Which is correct? Or are both merely simple stories for simple minds? If that is the case, then what exactly is inerrant about them?

 

It would appear that you are being a bit loose with your definitions in order to make the Bible support just about any position you wish to take at the time.

 

I seem to recall you strongly implied in a different topic that the serpent really did tempt Eve, thereby causing her to introduce sin into the world. That implies that you believe Adam and Eve were the first humans, which in turn weakens your statement that you accept a common ancestry for man and presumably the other primates.

 

Yes, I believe God did intervene miraculously at many critical points in the Universe's history such as at the point of life's initial creation. Despite what has been said science has not demonstrated abiogenesis. Far from it.

 

No, I'm not loose with my definitions. I said earlier I simply admit there are verses I don't understand. As I've said before given the fact that I am overwhelmed with the preponderance of evidence for the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I'm not troubled by the small minority of verses I don't understand. For example, the verses in the Bible that refer to extraordinary human ages. I don't understand them so they simply set in a set of verses that I set aside for later study.

 

Regarding your last point about the serpent in the Garden I don't recall what you are implying I said. You would have to find the post. I do accept common ancestry.

[sdelsolray]

 

Your logic posits that everything needs a creator except the creator.

That's a form of special pleading.

It is not special pleading anymore than defining axioms is special pleading. God is by definition the first cause. If He is not than He is not God. The claim is that all natural matter, space and time need a creator. Not that anything you can think of in your mind needs a creator.

 

Regardless, it remains Special Pleading, a logical fallacy.

[sdelsolray]

 

OC: Instead of SAYING you base your faith on evidence, list the evidence for us. I don't know of any

evidence except the bible which has never been authenticated. What do you contend is solid evidence?

The Bible is an example of Special Revelation. Take some time to understand Natural Theology.

 

I hear how people on here put great thought into their leaving Christianity, but I sincerly doubt many took the time to understand Natural Theology.

 

Is Special Revelation related to Special Pleading?  After all, they are both "Special".

[OrdinaryClay]

OC is either a highly developed troll, employing and embodying nearly every logical fallacy, or he is like the kid in 6th grade who still believes in Santa from suspending disbelief and he wants us to do the same.

Another possibility is that you don't understand what logical fallacies are.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

I'm actually laughing.  This is getting funny.

OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is important.

 

Actually, I don't. I'm extremely ordinary.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

I'm actually laughing.  This is getting funny.

OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is important.

 

Actually, I don't. I'm extremely ordinary.

 

Well, "important" was not the best choice of words.  Let me rephrase it:

 

"OrdinaryClay actually thinks he is special."

 

How's that?  Better?  More accurate?

 

After all, you have access to special revelation, you use the special pleading fallacy, you have special conversations with certain sky fairies, particularly an alleged holy ghost, you believe in special dispensation, and you believe you get to go to a special place when you die.  I could go on.

 

Based on this empirical evidence, all of which is taken from your posts on this forum, I conclude, quite logically, that you think you are special.