Ravenstar Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't know about the banned books thing.. christians have burned and banned books for centuries They are still asking for the banning of books, especially in school libraries. I call bullshit on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 IH lies once again (how many is this now?) Christian book (scroll) burning, documented in the bible: Act 19 17 When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor. 18 Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done. 19 A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas.[c] 20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't know about the banned books thing.. christians have burned and banned books for centuries They are still asking for the banning of books, especially in school libraries. I call bullshit on that one. But they must not be True Christians™ like Tin Pony (thinks he) is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 19, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't know about the banned books thing.. christians have burned and banned books for centuries They are still asking for the banning of books, especially in school libraries. I call bullshit on that one. But they must not be True Christians™ like Tin Pony (thinks he) is. We had several book burnings when I was in youth group and even went so far as to include cassettes, CDs, and other forms of media, such as the odd floppy disk. Maybe TinPony has never burned a book, but I agree with Ravenstar; True ChristiansTM have burned books for centuries in their insane struggle to obtain ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's a simple plan: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." ~John 4:16 no mantras no kissing a priest toes no prayer wheels no avoiding eating Twinkies or drinking buttermilk no required number of daily prayers no banned books But if you don't believe, you get cast into a lake of fire where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth. What a kind, merciful, and benevolent god! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawn Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 It's a simple plan: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." ~John 4:16 no mantras no kissing a priest toes no prayer wheels no avoiding eating Twinkies or drinking buttermilk no required number of daily prayers no banned books That is a pussy version of Christianity! The apostles were doing miracles, casting out demons, healing the sick and preaching the gospel illegally in public roman squares! They were badasses, they got jailed, tortured and killed for their faith. Now that is REAL< HARDCORE christianity. Your version sounds like its a game for kindergarten kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others. I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about. Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true? It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do. If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess. I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess. Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend. I'm not sure I understand your answer. What I was getting at was... to me it matters a great deal whether something is true. I need good evidence before I will believe something is true. Well your question was quite hard to answer ha-ha I believe it to be true, so it matters to me. However in regards to the whole fall, as we where not there we don’t the finer details. If you want evidence there was a fall, Adam and eve where real etc., well that’s a different question! I’m guessing a ‘prove it’ may be coming soon! I didn't think it was hard to answer at all. You believe it to be true, so it matters to you. Someone else has already pointed this out, but I'll do it again: you seem to have things around the wrong way. I need evidence before I can know if something is true. I don't believe in things without evidence. Call that a "prove it" if you like, but it takes nothing away from the simple fact that something being written about in the bible does not mean there is evidence for it... and therefore I cannot believe it is true. There are so many incoherent and implausible things about the story of the fall. Just the first one that pops into my head without even looking anything up: if all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, why were there not fatal birth defects in the third generation? It matters a great deal to me whether things are true or not. I'm guessing it doesn't matter so much to you at present. I saw it, perhaps wrongly, as it more of a philosophical question. The answer will depend on who you ask, Ask RNP and probably it does not matter. It does not matter to me if RNP believes it to be true or not, what does matter is that I should be able to respond and say where I feel he is wrong. (That’s not based on 'feelings', that’s just a figure of speech before I get called out on it.) With regards evidence, we should clarify what that is. Evidence is not proof. At that applies to nearly all disciplines. Evidence points to an answer but it is up the individual to make up his or her own mind. Is there evidence for the fall? Well the first thing I want to say is that this is a Christian forum. And I would hope that therefore everyone has applied the same reasoning, research and objectivity to these questions as is shouts so loudly about that we current Christians should do to everything else. To be honest, I don’t think that is the case judging by the ‘evidence’ of the questions and answers I have seen on here. There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. And no I am not going to show that evidence, anyone can go and find it themselves if they really care to do so. Atheists often insist we examine the evidence they claim in support of their views, but then clamor loudly for our evidence, only to dismiss what we offer. Therefore I will leave it to the reader to do his or her own research. Another reason I won’t get involved in scripture battle With regards to the problem with everyone being descending from Adam and Eve, well, the same problem surely lies, even more so, with man evolving, unless many spontaneously appeared from nothing? Although I have shared some of the reasons for my change of thought from non-believer to believer, one of the main was the very ‘rational thinking’ we are told to do when it comes to origin. The more I thought on it, the more preposterous the idea of all life and especially man, coming from some chemical reaction, some single cell, to create all the amazing life, diversity and above all, the ability to think, feel, love, be artistic, care, dream, hope etc. etc. could not just come from nothing. If Adam and eve is true, and we are made in the image of God, then it gives us great meaning, purpose, and explains the above. If that is not true, then we are nothing, we have no purpose, and all of out feelings etc. cannot be trusted anyway as there are just mere products of chemicals in our brain. To quote Richard Dawkins The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Please cite your source for this Gus. THEN we can discuss it. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Well the first thing I want to say is that this is a Christian forum. And I would hope that therefore everyone has applied the same reasoning, research and objectivity to these questions as is shouts so loudly about that we current Christians should do to everything else. To be honest, I don’t think that is the case judging by the ‘evidence’ of the questions and answers I have seen on here. There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. this is an EX-C forum,,,,, evidence that god is real? evidence that jesus is real person? scripture is historical fact? where and how did you arrive such conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Perhaps over the course of this thread Redneck and I will come to some mutual agreement on some areas but not others. I am not here to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, its just ideas we are talking about. Gus, does it matter whether or not these ideas are true? It matters in so much as to why people believe in what they do. If we can just say none of it matters anyway, we don’t need to have the conversation at all I guess. I believe it to be true and state why. RNP does not believe it to be true and states why. So both looking at it and coming to that mutual understanding of each other I guess. Also to Roz, I have not forgotten your question. I feel it deserves a considered response and I am thinking on how to put it. At the moment, Im quite busy but will try and post it up by the weekend. I'm not sure I understand your answer. What I was getting at was... to me it matters a great deal whether something is true. I need good evidence before I will believe something is true. Well your question was quite hard to answer ha-ha I believe it to be true, so it matters to me. However in regards to the whole fall, as we where not there we don’t the finer details. If you want evidence there was a fall, Adam and eve where real etc., well that’s a different question! I’m guessing a ‘prove it’ may be coming soon! I didn't think it was hard to answer at all. You believe it to be true, so it matters to you. Someone else has already pointed this out, but I'll do it again: you seem to have things around the wrong way. I need evidence before I can know if something is true. I don't believe in things without evidence. Call that a "prove it" if you like, but it takes nothing away from the simple fact that something being written about in the bible does not mean there is evidence for it... and therefore I cannot believe it is true. There are so many incoherent and implausible things about the story of the fall. Just the first one that pops into my head without even looking anything up: if all humans are descended from Adam and Eve, why were there not fatal birth defects in the third generation? It matters a great deal to me whether things are true or not. I'm guessing it doesn't matter so much to you at present. I saw it, perhaps wrongly, as it more of a philosophical question. The answer will depend on who you ask, Ask RNP and probably it does not matter. It does not matter to me if RNP believes it to be true or not, what does matter is that I should be able to respond and say where I feel he is wrong. (That’s not based on 'feelings', that’s just a figure of speech before I get called out on it.) With regards evidence, we should clarify what that is. Evidence is not proof. At that applies to nearly all disciplines. Evidence points to an answer but it is up the individual to make up his or her own mind. Is there evidence for the fall? Well the first thing I want to say is that this is a Christian forum. NO! This is an Ex-Christian forum. And I would hope that therefore everyone has applied the same reasoning, research and objectivity to these questions as is shouts so loudly about that we current Christians should do to everything else. To be honest, I don’t think that is the case judging by the ‘evidence’ of the questions and answers I have seen on here. There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. Yes, but by working backwards from today, we are obliged to arrive at the origin of the human species. And herein lies the problem. Genesis says one thing and the sciences say different. I would very much like you to nail your colors to the mast and declare your take on what, where and how the origin of SIN happened. From you so far on that... zip! And no I am not going to show that evidence, anyone can go and find it themselves if they really care to do so. Zip! See what I mean? You won't declare yourself on this. Atheists often insist we examine the evidence they claim in support of their views, but then clamor loudly for our evidence, only to dismiss what we offer. You haven't and won't offer any about the Fall and SIn - despite being asked. Therefore I will leave it to the reader to do his or her own research. Another reason I won’t get involved in scripture battle With regards to the problem with everyone being descending from Adam and Eve, well, the same problem surely lies, even more so, with man evolving, unless many spontaneously appeared from nothing? And what is the problem? Do tell. Although I have shared some of the reasons for my change of thought from non-believer to believer, one of the main was the very ‘rational thinking’ we are told to do when it comes to origin. The more I thought on it, the more preposterous the idea of all life and especially man, coming from some chemical reaction, some single cell, to create all the amazing life, diversity and above all, the ability to think, feel, love, be artistic, care, dream, hope etc. etc. could not just come from nothing. Who sez this? Please cite who, Gus. I'm well read when it comes to Cosmology and Bhim's an astrophysicist, so I'm sure we'd both like to see who you think is saying everything comes from nothing. If Adam and eve is true, and we are made in the image of God, then it gives us great meaning, purpose, and explains the above. If that is not true, then we are nothing, we have no purpose, and all of out feelings etc. cannot be trusted anyway as there are just mere products of chemicals in our brain. To quote Richard Dawkins The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 20, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted July 20, 2014 The answer will depend on who you ask, Ask RNP and probably it does not matter. It mattered enough for me to start this thread. With regards to the problem with everyone being descending from Adam and Eve, well, the same problem surely lies, even more so, with man evolving, unless many spontaneously appeared from nothing? No serious scientist has ever made the claim that evolution involves anything spontaneously appearing from nothing. That claim is only ever put forth by banana-wielding charlatans and washed-up 80s sitcom actors. The bible provides the basis for this claim by stating that god created everything from nothing. The more I thought on it, the more preposterous the idea of all life and especially man, coming from some chemical reaction, some single cell, to create all the amazing life, diversity and above all, the ability to think, feel, love, be artistic, care, dream, hope etc. etc. could not just come from nothing. Her Majesty's Government did a piss-poor job teaching you the basics of evolution, Gus. Again, life DID NOT evolve from nothing. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to send you a General Biology textbook (I have several lying around the house), so that you can gain a better understanding of the evolutionary process. If Adam and eve is true, and we are made in the image of God, then it gives us great meaning, purpose, and explains the above. If that is not true, then we are nothing, we have no purpose, and all of out feelings etc. cannot be trusted anyway as there are just mere products of chemicals in our brain. My life has meaning because I choose to give it meaning. I have a meaningful job helping to manufacture cancer treatments. I have a purpose in raising my son to be honest and true. I trust my feelings, but only after I've examined them with a rational eye. I am able to have what I want in this life whether Adam and Eve were made in the image of god or not. To quote Richard Dawkins The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. I agree with what Dawkins has said here. There is no goal or purpose in evolution, just as the universe has no intent. It could even be argued that life in general has no purpose, really; it just exists. But to take the intellectual leap of interpreting this statement as meaning that individual lives have no meaning is reading more into it that what is there. If you need jesus to give your life meaning, so be it. I've stated above what gives my life meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 This is my response to some of Roz’s questions that bring up some of the challenging scripture in the Old Testament. As I have recently said on a few posts, these questions can be answered apologetically with some research. However, I have been thinking that this can be bring this whole thread full circle, if I can bring into it the fall, and try to round this off, at least for me and my further contribution on this thread. First up, I think it important to acknowledge that Roz is perfectly justified in having a sense of injustice that may be given towards people and feeling angry with that if it is the case. But this sense of justice only makes sense if we can acknowledge where it came from. And if we are created in the image of God, then it makes sense. If we are not, then it does not matter what we feel, and there are no consequences to anyone’s actions anyway. How many of us right now feel angry towards those who are to blame for the shooting down of flight MH17, and that justice should be served? Taking some of the examples in the Old Testament, such as slavery. We can quickly establish that this is not slavery as we think of today. This cannot be any clearer on the matter. "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) Slavery was very different, people did not have government support in the ancient Middle East and families that could not cope and feed their members sold them into working for a wage. There where strict rules as to how these workers should be treated. Really, it not that different from people working now. We all have to work to eat, often locked in contracts, away from family, working long hours and thankfully in the west, often protected by law. There is also no mention whatsoever of rape, so I am not sure where Roz is getting that, but maybe that’s from women being taken after a war, but again there where strict rules of conduct. They didn’t have a western mind-set, and their customs where very differ from ours, but there is no allusion to rape. Now, dealing with the killing of woman and children is more challenging a topic. Going back to where I started, so we have the feeling of justice to be carried out against evil? Most of us do. The Canaanite people we are told where evil. How evil is evil we don’t know, but children sacrifice was the norm, and it was the women who the ones enticing the men into this pagan worship. The children are harder to answer but there are examples in the bible where this was not followed through and that the nation grew to be as bad if not worse than before. It was not cleansing or genocide, it was judgment, and in the Old Testament, it was often brutal, that can’t be escaped from. But God gave them time to change, it was not sudden. The death of women and children in war is inevitable; we can see it on the news right now. God has no desire to kill anyone or see anyone die. If children where killed, we can have the assurance they are now with God, in a better place. Without God, there is no hope for children who die. The Church has generally done a poor job of showing the difference between the old and new covenant. God did judge people and nations for ‘evil’ under the old convent. But this was not his desire. But if he didn’t, the world would become more and more corrupt. He had no desire to flood the world, but the reasons where made clear. The world was full of evil. Under the new convent, Christ came to restore man back to God. Elijah called down fire from heaven and burnt up many men. When the disciples asked Jesus should they do the same, he rebuked them, and said he had not come to destroy Men’s live, but save them. Sure, ‘Christianity’ is responsible for some terrible things which cannot be forgotten, but that is not from the teachings of Christ. It is man made doctrine and tradition. Atheism or the need to purge religion from society has lead to more terrible things, with many atrocities of the 20th century, notably the ‘unholy trinity’ of Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin. I would not accuse you or anyone else in believing the same because what those people have done in the name of a atheistic mindset. Although chillingly well know Atheist Sam Harris said ‘some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them’. I think your anger can justifiably be taken out on ‘religion’ and the obvious damage it has done. And Jesus most certainly would agree with you on that. I seem to be quoting Dawkins a lot recently but even he says this. “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.” Going back to the very start of this whole thread, the fall was a fall from trusting God. We don’t think he is good, that he cares for anything or us. Some of that is mis-reading the bible, some is seeing what evil people do n the name of religion and somewhat well meaning but misguided people have shown us. We can dismiss the bible and have the attitude of many thinking God is despot, a murder etc., or we can take an honest look at ourselves as human beings and admit we are the ones who bring that misery when we are not even following Christ's most basic command, love one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Please cite your source for this Gus. THEN we can discuss it. Thanks, BAA. BAA Why don't YOU look it up, not hard to find. I'm not doing all the work for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Well the first thing I want to say is that this is a Christian forum. And I would hope that therefore everyone has applied the same reasoning, research and objectivity to these questions as is shouts so loudly about that we current Christians should do to everything else. To be honest, I don’t think that is the case judging by the ‘evidence’ of the questions and answers I have seen on here. There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. this is an EX-C forum,,,,, evidence that god is real? evidence that jesus is real person? scripture is historical fact? where and how did you arrive such conclusion? Sorry my mistake, typo! As i said, do some research if you are willing, I'm not here to do it for you. Surely as an Ex-christian, you looked into this already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 20, 2014 Author Super Moderator Share Posted July 20, 2014 Going back to the very start of this whole thread, the fall was a fall from trusting God. A god who proved himself to be untrustworthy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 Well the first thing I want to say is that this is a Christian forum. And I would hope that therefore everyone has applied the same reasoning, research and objectivity to these questions as is shouts so loudly about that we current Christians should do to everything else. To be honest, I don’t think that is the case judging by the ‘evidence’ of the questions and answers I have seen on here. There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. this is an EX-C forum,,,,, evidence that god is real? evidence that jesus is real person? scripture is historical fact? where and how did you arrive such conclusion? Sorry my mistake, typo! As i said, do some research if you are willing, I'm not here to do it for you. Surely as an Ex-christian, you looked into this already? Gus we have done our research. That is how we have become ex-Chrstians. What we can't do is read your mind and tell which of the 30,000 different flavors of Christianity you think is the right one. Now that we are free of the indoctrination we tend to find apologetics to be much less impressive. So when we look into it invariably apologists who claim to have evidence can't provide any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Please cite your source for this Gus. THEN we can discuss it. Thanks, BAA. BAA Why don't YOU look it up, not hard to find. I'm not doing all the work for you. Nope! It don't work that way. You've made the claim that Dawkins said these things... so the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 did this guy simply brush some of us off like annoying flies/mozxies like asking us to fuck off? this guy gus a pompous whatever,,,,,, i think i have heard enough of this whatever,,, adios,,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Please cite your source for this Gus. THEN we can discuss it. Thanks, BAA. BAA Why don't YOU look it up, not hard to find. I'm not doing all the work for you. Nope! It don't work that way. You've made the claim that Dawkins said these things... so the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that he did. BAA, this is what you said on another thread. “The Christian apologists don't realize that there are ex-pastors, ex-missionaries and ex-lay preachers here. They don't see that individually, some of us have decades and decades of Christian life safely behind us. That collectively we've got millennia of personal experience of Christianity to look back on. That any scriptural knowledge, any spiritual gifts and any spiritual fruit they have, we've also had and in far greater abundance and with far greater understanding. That any argument they can cite, we've already seen and already seen thru and already dismantled. That any item of scientific data or any piece of history they might think about using is already known to us. That any website or book they know of, we already know of. That we will always be one step ahead of them.” So by that, you have changed my attitude somewhat as you claim you all already know everything! Why then do I need to cite my sources, don’t you already know them? Anyway this is link to a preview of the God delusion debate of which I mentioned with a link to the whole thing. But in this clip Dawkins says he does not know how the universe started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE There is a link here to Melanie Phillips website mentioning that conversation http://melaniephillips.com/the-new-intolerance You may also want to read John C Lennox book ‘Gunning for God’ of which I have taken (but checked and verified myself)) several of my used quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. Major mere assertions and yet somehow this guy is held in esteem. So, like Dawkins here, I am talking about ideas. Please cite your source for this Gus. THEN we can discuss it. Thanks, BAA. BAA Why don't YOU look it up, not hard to find. I'm not doing all the work for you. Nope! It don't work that way. You've made the claim that Dawkins said these things... so the burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that he did. BAA, this is what you said on another thread. “The Christian apologists don't realize that there are ex-pastors, ex-missionaries and ex-lay preachers here. They don't see that individually, some of us have decades and decades of Christian life safely behind us. That collectively we've got millennia of personal experience of Christianity to look back on. That any scriptural knowledge, any spiritual gifts and any spiritual fruit they have, we've also had and in far greater abundance and with far greater understanding. That any argument they can cite, we've already seen and already seen thru and already dismantled. That any item of scientific data or any piece of history they might think about using is already known to us. That any website or book they know of, we already know of. That we will always be one step ahead of them.” So by that, you have changed my attitude somewhat as you claim you all already know everything! Why then do I need to cite my sources, don’t you already know them? Anyway this is link to a preview of the God delusion debate of which I mentioned with a link to the whole thing. But in this clip Dawkins says he does not know how the universe started. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE There is a link here to Melanie Phillips website mentioning that conversation http://melaniephillips.com/the-new-intolerance You may also want to read John C Lennox book ‘Gunning for God’ of which I have taken (but checked and verified myself)) several of my used quotes. Even if I know in advance what you're going to write, the onus is still on you to cite your sources. This is a direct parallel with God's omnipresence. Even though God Knows in advance everything anyone will ever do - He permits them to do these things. That's the Christian position on free will. God's perfect foreknowledge doesn't interfere with the free decisions of humans. So, my perfect foreknowledge of your actions doesn't absolve you of the responsibility for citing your sources. . . . Btw, thanks for doing so. BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 http://melaniephillips.com/the-new-intolerance So why do I make this counter-intuitive suggestion that Judaism gave rise to rationality? The popular belief is that the roots of reason and science lie in ancient Greece. Now undoubtedly Greece contributed much to modernity and to the development of Western thought down the ages. Nevertheless, in certain crucial respects Greek thinking was inimical to a rational view of the universe. The Greeks, who transformed heavenly bodies into gods, explained the natural world by abstract general principles. By contrast, science grew from the novel idea that the universe was rational; and that belief was given to us by Genesis, which set out the revolutionary proposition that the Universe had a rational Creator. Without such a purposeful intelligence behind it, the universe could not have been rational; and so there would have been no place for reason in the world because there would have been no truths or natural laws for reason to uncover. Science could only proceed on the basis that the universe was rational and coherent and thus nature behaved in accordance with unchanging laws. The other vital factor was the Bible's linear concept of time. This meant history was progressive; every event was significant; experience could be built upon. Progress was thus made possible by learning more about the laws of the universe and how it worked. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/62720-no-shit-sherlock/page-26#.U8vv8_ldVzM In the thread I've provided the link to, Ironhorse pegged the rise of science to the date of the Protestant Reformation. He was wrong of course. There are many examples of science from many cultures that pre-date this, falsifying his claim. In the above quote, Melanie Phillips pegs the origin of science to Judaism and the book of Genesis. The same methodology applies here. If Phillips is right, then there should be no prior evidence for the scientific method to be found anywhere in the world before it's Judaic origin.. . . But there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy_and_Stonehenge That's right in your back yard, Gus. Neolithic people didn't need to derive their belief in a rational universe from any Middle Eastern monotheism. By simply observing, analyzing and using logic to understand the world around them they were able to understand it and then use that understanding to predict where and when the Sun and the Moon would rise and set on certain days. That's science. There was no need for any input from the god of the Jews about the rationality of the universe, it's coherence and it's unchanging laws. Like Kobe and Ironhorse, Phillips and Gus are wrong. Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seven77 Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 With regards evidence, we should clarify what that is. Evidence is not proof. At that applies to nearly all disciplines. Evidence points to an answer but it is up the individual to make up his or her own mind. What is evidence? the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.; proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation information given personally (personal testimony is NOT admissible in cases here in The Lion's Den due to the subjective nature of spiritual experiences), drawn from a document (preferred), or in the form of material objects (even better!), tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court. signs; indications.; signs, indications, pointers, marks, traces, suggestions, hints; manifestation (Once again, these sorts of things are not taken to kindly here in the den, as they fall into the realms of subjectivity and assertion.) be or show evidence of.; indicate, show (don't tell.), reveal, display, exhibit, manifest; testify to (don't do this UNLESS you can back it up!), confirm (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF FSM, DO THIS!), prove (AND THIS!), substantiate, endorse (don't advertise for God or puff your chest out spouting scripture or apologetic notions), bear out; formal evince The opposite (antonym) of evidence is DISPROVE. That is exactly what many crack apologists want ex-c's to do. You want us to disprove your claims. You want us to show where and how and why you are wrong and we are right. If and when we do so, you will retreat and claim that you don't wish to discuss the topic at hand any further. Perhaps you will make a snarky comment as well. Guess what? That's not how debate works. Don't treat us as if we are insolent children or rebellious n'er do-wells. We aren't. Many here were theologians, pastors, missionaries and otherwise very well-versed in the scriptures and Biblical history. Others grew up in the church. Some of us have extensive knowledge of the sciences, maths, comparative religion or other fields. We aren't incapable of understanding your arguments. None of us have failed your mythical Christianity 101 course that you mentioned in another thread. No apologist or mere believer should expect to come into the den and blab nonsense on the board without repercussions. If you or any other believer is going to participate on these boards, they should understand that they will be expected to prove evidence. That evidence should be something more substantial than Bible verses and "I" statements. It is ok to have your own opinions. You can share them if you wish. But as a believer, you should always be prepared to give a reason for your beliefs. Reasons beyond: There is evidence that God is real, that Jesus was a real person, that bible scripture is historical fact and so on, so that at least if you cant swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, you can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well. And no I am not going to show that evidence, anyone can go and find it themselves if they really care to do so. If you are going to proclaim evidence, the burden is on you to provide it. It is not upon us to disprove your non-existent evidence. Provide evidence that God is real Provide evidence that Jesus was a real person Provide evidence that the events referenced in scripture are based in historical fact Show us how one can work backward to obtain the "truth" in regards to the narrative of Adam and Eve and/or the overall "truth" of the Bible. It is NOT OUR responsibility to provide evidence of YOUR claims. It is OUR responsibility (if one chooses to engage in debate and/or discussion on the topics relevant to this thread) to provide COUNTERCLAIMS and EVIDENCE FOR OUR COUNTERCLAIMS. That is it. Ideally, we would take turns going back and forth over the evidence provided by each side, and hopefully reach respectful conclusions at some point. If not, the parties involved can do as Pratt did above and abstain from further discussion on said topics. Taking some of the examples in the Old Testament, such as slavery. We can quickly establish that this is not slavery as we think of today. This cannot be any clearer on the matter. My problem (as I cannot speak for others on the matter) is not that ancient Hebrews practiced slavery. It was common in their day and time. My problem is that IF one takes the claim that the Bible is God-breathed and flawless seriously, THEN it stands that GOD himself clearly approved of and even endorsed the human ownership of other human beings. He not only condoned the practice of slavery, but he also allowed the beating of slaves and children. He himself, the almighty supposed creator of the universe, was far from a loving being. He was instead a barbaric tyrant. It does not matter what kind of slavery was or was not explicitly contained, condoned or endorsed in the Bible, permitted under holy laws, etc. There is no such thing as a "good" form of slavery. Humans owning other humans is a terrible thing. God (if he is such a kind and loving and all-knowing being) would have known this and yet, he did NOTHING to stop it. He waited thousands of years, watched for thousands of years...for what? Free will? No, this will not do. A good God is surely more knowledgeable than a child and a great deal more so than a fully conscionable adult. A God that condones slavery, NO MATTER THE CONTEXT, CULTURAL OR OTHERWISE, is not a God that I can get behind. Nor should any decent thinking person, imho. There is also no mention whatsoever of rape, so I am not sure where Roz is getting that, but maybe that’s from women being taken after a war, but again there where strict rules of conduct. They didn’t have a western mind-set, and their customs where very differ from ours, but there is no allusion to rape. Once again, my problem is NOT with the cultural context of what was allowed or commonplace within ancient Israelite culture. In our modern times, the taking of virgin girls by anyone is a crime. It is revolting to think that a LOVING GOD allowed this. I do not wish to delve deeply into my own personal background, but let me tell you this: Little girls do not enjoy what happens when grown men take them and do certain things of a sexual nature with them. It doesn't matter if a female is 8, 18, or 58, virgin or not, she doesn't enjoy being taken from her family and given to a stranger, whatever the reason. I don't know if you have daughters or sisters or a wife or a mother, but do try and imagine for second what it would be like if Nation X invaded the UK and took the female(s) that you love dearly as a prize for their conquest. If you are holding to Biblical principles, then you may or may not be aware of this happening. Your awareness will depend on whether or not they kill you before or after they take them as spoils of war. "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves." [Num. 31:16-17, ESV] It does not matter if there is an allusion of rape or not. The use of the term "have not a known a man" strongly implies that the females in question were to be used for a sexual purpose at some point. Otherwise, I do not think it would have been stated as such by the author(s). Their use of this term, to know "yada" includes the definition: To know, carnally. [strong's, HERE]. Furthermore, in the ESV translation the term "mishkab" is used, which means "intimately, to lie down with another, sexual conduct". [strong's, HERE]. Most translations render this passage as "lying with him", which is a very PC way of saying "having sex" or more crudely put, "f***ing him". Are we to assume that all of these captive girls were eager and willing to give it up to their captors? To be taken in sexual bondage to the men who had murdered their families and burned their villages? So perhaps Roz is making a leap in saying/implying that the girls in question were raped, but it isn't a wild stretch by any means. In fact, it is within the standard definitions of the terminology used in the Bible, which is by Christian standards, perfect. It was not cleansing or genocide, it was judgment, and in the Old Testament, it was often brutal, that can’t be escaped from. But God gave them time to change, it was not sudden. The death of women and children in war is inevitable; we can see it on the news right now. God has no desire to kill anyone or see anyone die. If children where killed, we can have the assurance they are now with God, in a better place. Without God, there is no hope for children who die. Spare me the apologia-laden guesstimony on behalf of Yahweh the Tender Warrior God. All death is inevitable. God does desire it, or else he would have designed us to live forever as eternal beings from the get-go. If children are killed, we do not need assurance that they are now with God. There is no hope for anyone who dies, imho. This is just prattle, possibly sincere, but it does nothing to strengthen any of your arguments or conjectures and honestly reads as a piss-poor attempt at evangelism. Sure, ‘Christianity’ is responsible for some terrible things which cannot be forgotten, but that is not from the teachings of Christ. It is man made doctrine and tradition. The point of my response to this post is to speak to the lurkers. They need to know that Christ, good ol' JC and his father Yahweh and the holey spirit ARE INDEED VERY MUCH RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY TERRIBLE THINGS. To lie the blame solely with man is the ultimate bullshit copout farce. God's Word is supposedly inherent, wonderful, perfect, and in all ways good. God himself is love, peace, beauty, kindness, caring, GOOD. Jesus died for our sins, supposedly freeing us from the chains of guilt and accountability forever and ever. The spirit is always with us, guiding us and all of that. Yet, God is not responsible for anything that happens. It is doctrine (God-inspired, God-breathed doctrine!) and tradition (God-centered, God-approved, God-praising, loving traditions!) that are to blame. Well, I guess we can all rest easy now. Back to your regularly scheduled programming folks. And remember, it is all in your head. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 ... And no I am not going to show that evidence .... Bull. Shit. If you had an ounce of evidence, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops. You have NOTHING. And it's obvious. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted July 20, 2014 Share Posted July 20, 2014 I'm not frustrated, at least not yet. "Some are personal beliefs"? (your words). All of your statements are either (i) personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions. The fact that you base your beliefs on certain religious scripture or other readings does not change the fact that your statements are simply (i) your personal beliefs or (ii) mere assertions by you (most of which seem to come from the same certain religious scripture or other readings). You can't magically transform your beliefs and assertions into anything other than what they are. Well, you could, but that would require rational thinking, relevant evidence and analysis, something you have yet to do. (to be continued in the next post) 'Mere assertions' seems to be the favorite phrase on this site, a somewhat dismissive attitude to anyone who beliefs something different from the poster … Yes, unfortunately, and that is simply because of the quantity of mere assertions theists like you make. You make them, I point them out. Dismissive? Absolutely. "That which is [merely] asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens … Richard Dawkins confesses that he does not know what caused the origin of the universe; but he believes (his faith shining out once more) that there will be a naturalistic explanation for it. In his God delusion debate, he said he does not need to rely on magic to explain the universe. However in the press conference after, in responding to a question from journalist and author Melanie Phillips he said the universe could just have appeared from nothing. "Magic', she said. She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since than postulating a creator. Anything but God it seems. … Quote mining Melanie Phillips, herself a quote miner and disingenuous Christian apologist. Just one point, but first here is actual evidence, you know, that "stuff" you can't be bothered with. Phillips wrote: "Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?" Source: http://www.exminister.org/Phillips-is-Dawkins-evolving.html Phillips also wrote: "Let me illustrate all this with an anecdote. After a debate in which he took part some time ago, I pressed Richard Dawkins on his belief that the origin of all matter was most likely to have been an entirely spontaneous event — which meant he therefore surely believed that something could be created out of nothing. Since this ran counter to the scientific principle of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this itself seemed to be precisely the kind of irrationality which he scorns. In reply, he acknowledged that I had a point but said that the alternative explanation — God — was more incredible. But then he remarked that he was not necessarily averse to the idea that life on Earth had been created by a governing intelligence — provided, however, that such an intelligence had arrived on Earth from another planet. Leaving aside the question of how that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself been created in the first place, I put it to him that he appeared to be saying that "little green men" provided a more plausible explanation for the origin of life on Earth than God. Strangely, he didn't react to this well at all. "However, Dawkins is not the first scientist to have suggested this. It is a theory which was put forward by no less than Professor Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA. … "How can someone so committed to reason be so irrational as to entertain such a fantasy? The answer, at its deepest level, lies in the very fact that they have repudiated the religion they scorn as irrational. Religion, or more precisely the religion of the Bible, and more precisely still the Judaism at its core, is the real crucible of reason. Those who reject the religion of the Bible are rejecting reason itself." Source: http://melaniephillips.com/the-new-intolerance The "little green men" phrase (actually a noun with two adjectives) was Phillip's creation, not Dawkins. Yet you made the following claim: "She reported that after the debate that Dawkins told her that an explanation for this universe in terms of little green men made more since [sic] than postulating a creator." That is not correct. Whether you know your claim is false, or are simply confused about and/or ignorant of the actual evidence, is not important. Your claim has been refuted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts