God's Mighty Plan Of Salvation

[♦ ficino ♦]

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.

 

OK, I understand your argument.  I used to make this argument, too.  I think it relies on some tacit premise like "things have moral significance only to a being with a certain kind of mind." I'm not going into whether animals have a kind of morality, etc.

 

Then one relies on a second premise, or combination of them, something like "nothing has moral significance if the primary constituents of reality do not have mind."  I.e. on the atheist "world view," nothing has moral significance because everything boils down to atoms moving at random through the void, or something of this sort.

 

Then one concludes that there is no morality, or perhaps, no robust morality, unless we posit God.

 

This conclusion doesn't follow from the above premises.

 

To satisfy the first premise, all we need is that there exist beings with a mind that can appreciate morality.  And humans have such a mind.  So that's all we need to provide a basis for morality. The second premise is irrelevant. It would matter only if complex beings can have no property that does not belong to their simplest parts. There is no reason to suppose such a thing.

 

If we bump the basis up a level to God, then we have the problem of determining what God says about morality.  The Bible is a non-starter on that score, as you yourself deep down realize, Gus.  That's why you acknowledge at the beginning that there are many passages in the Bible that require a huge amount of what I call spin - you call it apologetics - to wash away the immorality.

 

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.

This is a false dichotomy passed around a lot among Christian apologists. The alternatives are not "either Bible God is wrong or we're wrong."  We can acknowledge that humans are wrong in many ways AND that Bible God is a bad example.

 

I think everyone advocates that we all take an honest look at ourselves and that we ferret out- and try to change - what we do that brings misery.  Would that we all change "Use people, love things" into "Love people, use things" as Arthur Brooks urged today in the NY Times.  If we do this examination seriously, I think it's not surprising that many conclude that the God of the Bible is not a moral character.

[sdelsolray]

…

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….

 

As expected.  You make claims but refuse to provide evidence.

 

And, speak for yourself.  Here, read this in front of a mirror:

 

"[i believe] 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 I can't swallow Adam and Eve wholesale, I can work backwards and think, well, if that has evidence, maybe there is a truth here as well."

 

Work backwards all you want.  This apparently has worked for you, but sloppy rationalization and wishful thinking does not necessarily work for others.

…

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.

…

But you offer no evidence. None. Indeed, you refuse to do so.  What is offered (by the others in your word "we") is typically some mixture of mere assertions, misrepresentations, outright lies and/or logical fallacies.

…

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?

…

 

Here is some evidence of my last comment:

This statement contains a strawman fallacy concerning the Biological Theory of Evolution. 

…

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.

 

And more evidence:

 

The second sentence contains an argument from incredulity fallacy with a side salad of a strawman fallacy.  Two fallacies in one sentence.  You're on a roll.

This is hardly the basis for "rational thinking" as you claim in your first sentence.

 

…

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.

And more evidence:

False dichotomy fallacy with a side salad of mere assertion fallacy.  You're quite good at this.

 

Once again, speak for yourself.  Read this in front of a mirror:

 

 

"If that is not true, then I am nothing, I have no purpose, and all of my feelings etc. cannot be trusted anyway as there [sic] are just mere products of chemicals in my brain.

 

Conclusion:  Your religious beliefs are not based on rational thinking but are instead based on irrational thinking.

 

[Ravenstar]

Fail

[centauri]

 

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.

In Deut 20, God gives instructions to kill people that didn't want to be slaves.

Would you please provide the list of rules on how these slaves were to be treated.

 

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.

Any genocide can be claimed to be a divine sort of "judgment".

All you have to do is attach "God" to it.

If dead children are with God and since that is a "better place", why the problem with abortion?

 

 

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.

So God flooded the world to get rid of evil, knowing ahead of time that it wouldn't work.

 

 

Sure, ‘Christianity’ is responsible for some terrible things which cannot be forgotten, but that is not from the teachings of Christ.

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.

Are you aware that Jesus spoke about performing mass killings when he returned?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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. 

This is simply not true.  If the genocide of the Amalekites was god's judgment for their wickedness then god would not have also commanded that the young virgins be spared.  Unless you are trying to tell me that god's idea of punishment is to make little girls into sex slaves; in which case I would be compelled to ask, "What could a ten-year-old girl possibly have done in her short life to warrant such a brutal punishment?"

 

We also have no assurance that they are now with god, but leaving that aside, why would they want to be with the very god who ordered the complete annihilation of their entire race, including their parents, brothers, sisters, aunts, and puppies?

[RipVanWinkle]

Gus: As long as you keep making the bible say what you want to it say so that it squares  with what you think it should say you'll never understand what it really says. And if you don't know what it really says, you will continue to be deluded and manipulated by others, which I think is what you really want. The truth is too hard for you to face.   bill

[sdelsolray]

 

 

…

I did say in my opening statement that some of this is probably 'gusology'.

…

 

Some of it?

 

You underestimate yourself.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Gus, there's no way to sugar-coat this, but I'm afraid you have been scammed.  Someone sold you a lie, that there is a supernatural being that cares about your day to day life and has a paradise waiting for you when you die.  If you had been scammed by a pyramid scheme, I would tell you, and this is no different.  

 

Broken arms do not straighten themselves.  If they did, do you not think that person's doctor would be straight to their computer to write up the case study, get it published and peer reviewed and win the Nobel prize for medicine?  And consequently the world's fracture clinics would close down and plaster of paris manufacturers would be relegated to being craft store suppliers?

 

I believed the xian sales pitch as an adult twice, so I know what it's like to fall for it when one should be old enough to realise it's a scam.  It's embarrassing to admit how gullible and credulous I was but I know I'm not alone in that, plenty of other people fall for it because it's such a well designed hoax.

 

It's time to think for yourself, and apply the same skepticism to xianity that (I'm hoping) you would apply to other things in the world, like pyramid schemes, homeopathy, and carrot juice-based cancer cures.  

[bornagainathiest]

Here's something else for Gus to consider re: Melanie Phillips assertions about reason and religion.

 

"Religion, or more precisely the religion of the Bible, and more precisely still the Judaism at it's core, is the real crucible of reason. Those who reject the religion of the Bible are rejecting reason itself."

 

"Science could only proceed on the basis that the universe was rational and coherent and thus nature behaved in accordance with unchanging laws."

 

By tying the origin of scientific thought (a rational understanding of the natural world) to one point of origin (Israel) and to a specific era of history (the Bronze Age) Phillips links the spread of scientific thought to the spread of Christianity. So there should be NO evidence of this mode of rational, scientific thought to be found in any society or culture BEFORE Christianity was taken there. Meaning that rational, scientific thought should be totally absent from every human civilization UNTIL the arrival of Christianity makes it possible.

 

But, is this what history records?

That rational and reasoned scientific thought was totally absent in the Americas until the arrival of Columbus? That careful observation of the cycles of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars wouldn't have lead the Mayans, the Aztecs and other advanced American cultures to conclude that nature behaved in accordance with unchanging laws? That equally careful analysis and reasoning wouldn't have lead these peoples to conclude that they inhabited a rational, coherent and even predictable universe? Does history record that the Mayans didn't have a concept of linear time?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Codex

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar

 

http://www.jqjacobs.net/mesoamerica/meso_astro.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar

 

In the light of this evidence for rational scientific thought, predictability and linear time in the pre-Christian Americas, I therefore submit that Phillips is quite wrong.  Neither Christianity nor Judaism is necessary for people to understand the universe in rational and coherent terms.  Anyone, from any culture, regardless of their religion, can understand the natural world using their skills of observation, analysis and reason.

 

This piece of Christian historical revisionism and propaganda is suitably refuted!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[Gus]

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

 

Point of clarification:  When he referred to your back yard (or more properly, "your back garden"), BAA was simply saying that Stonehenge is in England, as are you.

[Gus]

Gus, there's no way to sugar-coat this, but I'm afraid you have been scammed.  Someone sold you a lie, that there is a supernatural being that cares about your day to day life and has a paradise waiting for you when you die.  If you had been scammed by a pyramid scheme, I would tell you, and this is no different.  

 

Broken arms do not straighten themselves.  If they did, do you not think that person's doctor would be straight to their computer to write up the case study, get it published and peer reviewed and win the Nobel prize for medicine?  And consequently the world's fracture clinics would close down and plaster of paris manufacturers would be relegated to being craft store suppliers?

 

I believed the xian sales pitch as an adult twice, so I know what it's like to fall for it when one should be old enough to realise it's a scam.  It's embarrassing to admit how gullible and credulous I was but I know I'm not alone in that, plenty of other people fall for it because it's such a well designed hoax.

 

It's time to think for yourself, and apply the same skepticism to xianity that (I'm hoping) you would apply to other things in the world, like pyramid schemes, homeopathy, and carrot juice-based cancer cures.  

 

Thank you freethinkerz

 

You are someone on here I genuinely respect (along with RNP and BAA, not that I actually dis-respect anyone either) as you don't come across rude or arrogant and say it like it is.

 

Lets say I have been scammed. That scam has made my life a lot better. From being directionless in the world, drinking a lot, being very angry and unable to cope with a lot of family problems, I changed very quickly. My attitude changed, I had strength to deal with adversity, and I re-educated and made good career progression. I mended the relationships in the family, made many new friends in church (that I would trust my life with), have had a desire to help people I never had before and have genuine hope and meaning in my life.

 

If I have been scammed, I’m thankful for it.

 

And I really have looked at both sides, often to try and know what is rarely disused in church. I’ve read the works of Dawkins, I enjoy the programs of professor Brian Cox. But the argument for God always wins when I try and balance it out.

I dont know all the answers, no way. But i'm learning and I enjoy being challenged on here, it does make me think for sure.

[Gus]

 

 

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

 

Point of clarification:  When he referred to your back yard (or more properly, "your back garden"), BAA was simply saying that Stonehenge is in England, as are you.

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all. 

[Gus]

 

 

 

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

 

Point of clarification:  When he referred to your back yard (or more properly, "your back garden"), BAA was simply saying that Stonehenge is in England, as are you.

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all. 

 

 

Although I do agree with his post on astronomy and stone henge as..well..it says in Genesis that this was what the stars and planets where for us to use!

 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

 

Point of clarification:  When he referred to your back yard (or more properly, "your back garden"), BAA was simply saying that Stonehenge is in England, as are you.

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all. 

 

 

Although I do agree with his post on astronomy and stone henge as..well..it says in Genesis that this was what the stars and planets where for us to use!

 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

 

 

So how could the Mayans have known that... centuries before Christianity reached the Americas?

 

Yet the links I've posted clearly show that these people clearly understood and practiced science, long before they had access to the Book of Genesis.  And linear time.  And they had a rational, coherent and predictive comprehension of the universe.  All done without the help or input of Christianity.

 

If Christianity and Judaism is the true source of these things, then please explain to me how the Mayans did it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[seven77]

Lets say I have been scammed. That scam has made my life a lot better. From being directionless in the world, drinking a lot, being very angry and unable to cope with a lot of family problems, I changed very quickly. My attitude changed, I had strength to deal with adversity, and I re-educated and made good career progression. I mended the relationships in the family, made many new friends in church (that I would trust my life with), have had a desire to help people I never had before and have genuine hope and meaning in my life.

 

If I have been scammed, I’m thankful for it.

 

And I really have looked at both sides, often to try and know what is rarely disused in church. I’ve read the works of Dawkins, I enjoy the programs of professor Brian Cox. But the argument for God always wins when I try and balance it out.

I dont know all the answers, no way. But i'm learning and I enjoy being challenged on here, it does make me think for sure.

 

 

 

Here it is, the good ol' both sides argument.

 

The assumption: There are only two sides. Christianity is on one side and atheism on the other.

 

What about Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism, Wicca, Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Scientology, and the many other faiths in the world? What about the alternatives to atheism, such as agnosticism and the various forms of the Left Hand Path? What about cargo cults and cults of personality and the various theorist groups such as Big Foot hunters, Ancient Aliens theorists, and other such groups? Are their beliefs any less convincing than those of your particular form of Christianity? Are their adherents more easily deceived? Do they willingly deny the ultimate Truth™ that you hold so dear?

 

Please understand that I do not intend to come across as brash or smug. I am attempting to demonstrate that a personal testimony chock full of anecdote does not sufficiently demonstrate PROOF of the validity of your position(s), Gus.

 

it says in Genesis that this was what the stars and planets where for us to use!

 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

 

 

The passage from Genesis occurs BEFORE God [supposedly] creates man.

 

Genesis 1:28-30 says this:

"And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.”

 

The lights that you mentioned in your passage [Gen 1:14-17] are not given to man by God. Nor are the stars, the planets, or the heavens. Earth [dry land per Genesis 1:10] was given to man. Earth is a singular entity and does not refer to any other planet. It doesn't refer to anything other than the ground, the dirt, the surface that was not water. It is a contrast device. God gives man dominion over the fish of the sea, then birds of the "heavens", then every living thing on earth. He effectively gives them dominion over wet (sea), air (heavens), and earth (dry land).

[Gus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

It's not right back in my yard as that is not a debate I have even got involved with and does not have anything to do with this thread.

Unless of course you have used your omnipresent powers and already know what I have written on it in the future?

 

Point of clarification:  When he referred to your back yard (or more properly, "your back garden"), BAA was simply saying that Stonehenge is in England, as are you.

 

Oh right, ha-ha, I was thinking of it as american slang or something, missed that!

 

But I still have not mentioned this topic at all. 

 

 

Although I do agree with his post on astronomy and stone henge as..well..it says in Genesis that this was what the stars and planets where for us to use!

 

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

 

 

So how could the Mayans have known that... centuries before Christianity reached the Americas?

 

Yet the links I've posted clearly show that these people clearly understood and practiced science, long before they had access to the Book of Genesis.  And linear time.  And they had a rational, coherent and predictive comprehension of the universe.  All done without the help or input of Christianity.

 

If Christianity and Judaism is the true source of these things, then please explain to me how the Mayans did it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Because they did not need to have the book of Genesis!

 

Geneisis is not an instruction manaul, it is a account of the beggining.

 

It tells us what the stars and plantes where for, and that is excatly what they where used for, inluding by the Mayans. Their purpose and design worked!

[Roz]

 

 

Gus: 

It tells us what the stars and plantes where for, and that is excatly what they where used for, inluding by the Mayans. Their purpose and design worked!

 

The stars and planets, the different galaxies and hey, the whole universe were made so that we could tell time.  Wow. 

 

And just in time too, because there's a girl who testified that she believes that the moon, the stars, and everything else in space are really angels (science is the work of the devil, you know?)

 

Christians, here's a question.  What makes you right and her wrong, or could it be that you're both wrong?

 

[Roz]

Gus, are you a YEC?

 

(Young Earth Creationist)

[Gus]

BAA I appreciate your respect for science, but in some ways you are turning it into your new religion.

 

You say science and religion (or in this case Christianity) are incompatible.

 

But many Scientists who are Christians would disagree with you.

 

I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that. The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up. I think most have probably done that.

 

But I wonder if they have really read some of the works of prominent scientists such as Alistair McGrath and Francis Collins.

 

I mean, take at a look at this list of scientists who are Christians (you may know a few) including many ‘fathers’ of modern science.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

 

Are they all delusional? Mis-guided? Irrational?

 

Science and God do not have to be seen as two incompatible things.

[Roz]

 

 

Gus: 

 

1.  I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that.

 

2.  The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up.

 

Can't...  I'm doing my damn best to hold back... 

[Gus]

Gus, are you a YEC?

 

(Young Earth Creationist)

 

To be honest Roz, I don't really know. I'm currently reading up on this subject. I'm more inclined to think genesis was a lot longer than six 24hour days. 

They could have been 24-hour days, and then that creative process was set on a course for a period of time before the next 24-hour day intervention. So, one thing added over a long periods of time.

Even in Genesis, it starts by saying God created the heavens and the earth. How long that time lasted before the 'first day' could be a very long time.

Anyway, the book I am currently reading on it is 'Seven days that divide the world' by John C Lennox. (yes him again)

[Gus]

 

Gus: 

 

1.  I know people are frustrated with me on this thread now because I would not give evidence to prove God etc. But I can't just do that.

 

2.  The reader needs to look themselves at the evidence and make their mind up.

 

Can't...  I'm doing my damn best to hold back... 

 

 

What I mean is Roz, it would take far too long, and people just won’t really read it in on a forum.  So I can recommend literature by people who are far smarter and far better writers than me, if people are willing to go read it.

[Roz]

Instead of apologist books, I recommend Lawrence Krauss.  The vid below was very educational.

 

 

EDIT:  I'm sure you've seen it by now, but here's why you're wrong about what your god ordered regarding slavery, rape, and genocide. 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63738-slavery-rape-and-genocide/#.U82dq7EzJ8E

[Gus]

Instead of apologist books, I recommend Lawrence Krauss.  The vid below was very educational.

 

 

EDIT:  I'm sure you've seen it by now, but here's why you're wrong about what your god ordered regarding slavery, rape, and genocide. 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63738-slavery-rape-and-genocide/#.U82dq7EzJ8E

Thanks for the Vid, I do actually enjoy listening to some of these guys.

 

You may be interested in this vid too