A Challenge To My Christian Brothers And Sisters

[bornagainathiest]

"So where are the celestial lights?"

 

I cannot answer that one directly, Justus.

However, it's important to realize that the sunlight falling on Pluto is 1,500 times fainter than that falling on the Earth.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/03/15/bafact_math_how_bright_is_the_sun_from_pluto.html

 

Therefore, the cameras on board the New Horizons probe will have been calibrated to take this faintness into account.  

These very low light levels would probably be insufficient to properly activate the rods and cones in the human eye, meaning that if we were in the vicinity of Pluto, we'd most likely be unable to distinguish any color at all.   So I'd say that this NASA image of Pluto has been re-calibrated and re-balanced, to display it in 'true color' under normal Earth lighting conditions.

 

In a not dissimilar way, the colors of these images are not what the human eye would see if a person could look upon these objects from close up.  

 

 

The Orion nebula (M 42).

 

(If you perform a Google image search for this, you will get a variety of color palettes.  In reality, these gases and dust clouds would be too faint to register any color to the human eye.)

 

 

Comet 67P/Churyumov/Gerasimenko. 

 

(This object is almost as black as coal, so the contrast has been s-t-r-e-t-c-h-ed in this image to show fine detail.)

.

.

.

The key point to assimilate here is that when we are told that something is a true color image, this usually means that the deficiencies of the human eye have been compensated for by NASA, ESA or whoever.

 

It doesn't always mean that what we see on our screens is what we would see if we were there.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Justus]

How can facts detract from the truth? Facts, by definition, are true. Facts and evidence don't take sides. 

Let's see if your quote holds true.

 

Three separate calls to 911, from three different callers reporting a semi-truck driving erratically and had nearly run them off the road, one 911 caller, another truck driver reporting that the erratic driver had bumped to his semi striking his trailer. They each describe the same vehicle, give the same license plate number and he same location where at the semi pulled into a particular truck stop.

 

Deputies from the Sheriff department are dispatched to the location given by the 911 callers where the semi was said to have pulled into.   At the truck stop they locate the truck matching the description given by the 911 callers and the license plate matches the plate number given.  The driver is exiting the the semi-truck when the Deputies pull up.

 

When questioning the driver, the Officers can smell alcohol, the driver admits to have consuming alcohol that he had purchased from store located in the truck stop but denies that it was him or his vehicle reported by the 911 callers.  Upon inspection of the reported vehicle, the Deputies find fresh scratches on the side of the flatbed trailer which appear to confirm the 911 caller which claimed his vehicle had been struck.

 

So do the facts support the allegation that the driver was driving intoxicated and had struck the vehicle of one of the 911 callers?

 

It is when facts conflict with a belief that we hear the silly accusation that the facts or evidence are "one sided" as if there is a viable alternative to factual information.

The Sheriff's deputy responds to the driver's denial to the allegation with the question, "Three different 911 callers reported that you nearly ran them off the road, they each describe this vehicle, and give this license plate number and that they followed you here and I am suppose to believe you when you say that it wasn't you."

 

So the facts can't be one-sided' then you would conclude the driver was guilty of the accusations or not?  What about the facts that 3 different 911 callers doesn't necessary mean that they true ?  Are eyewitnesses ever mistaken in their account of events?  

 

Is there any  thing the driver could say which could prove his innocence of  the accusations, if there was then would the facts be one sided which appear to represent that he had committed the acts he was accused of?

[mymistake]

 

A little honest & open minded study & research of the bible from a historical critical perspective will reveal it is a collection of myths, legends & folklore. If a person only reads & explores one source of information for any topic or subject then their views, beliefs, & opinions are skewed.

 

You exactly right about limited input, or inquiry of information skewing the opinion of people.  

 

In the passage of 1 Corinthians 13:1, in which the OP cited, in verse 6 it is written,  'Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;'   However, views, beliefs and opinions do not constitute truth, the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.  

 

Take the passage regarding the stars in Genesis, verse 16-17

"....he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"

 

Now in Isaiah 13:10 it is written, "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: 

 

So here is a pic from the NASA moon landing, 

 

 

and here is one from the NASA website for the New Horizons image of Pluto : https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/global-mosaic-of-pluto-in-true-color

 

 

So where are the celestial lights?

 

 

 

The camera is limited.  It can expose for the foreground or it can expose for the dim stars.  It can't do both.  Our eyes are a bit better at it in that we can see stars at night if there isn't much light polution.

[florduh]

The story about the allegedly drunk driver is about allegations, deduction and perception.

 

So do the facts support the allegation that the driver was driving intoxicated and had struck the vehicle of one of the 911 callers?

 

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that would probably lead a jury to convict. An actual fact might be paint chip analysis, blood alcohol test or video of the incident. Did you ever see "My Cousin Vinny?" It was about a case of detailed mistaken identity made by multiple witnesses and even physical evidence.

 

You seem to be trying to muddy the water here. A fact is by definition true. Perception, memory and investigation may lead to a fact, but allegations are not facts even though they may turn out to be correct; we don't know for sure without the facts.

[mymistake]

So the direct light from the sun being refracted by the earth's atmosphere isn't the reason that the celestial lights can't be seen during the daytime, being that time when the we are facing the direct sunlight?  

 

However, in the images, the direction of the images photographed are in the opposition direction of the sun, just as when one views the expanse during the nighttime hours on earth.   

 

 

It has to do with how sensitive the camera or eyes happen to be.  That is why the Hubble Space Telescope can pick up uncountable galaxies in a little corner of the sky that humans see as pure black.  But again, something can't be that sensitive while looking at a bright object such as the moon in sunlight.

[wellnamed]

Whoever wrote that vs was possibly influenced by the Greek philosophers. 'Through a glass darkly' predates the bible era I think. I'll google it later

The word darkly is, in the Greek, αἴνιγματι (ainigmati), that is: "in enigmas". I don't know that the entire phrase in Greek is borrowed, but from what I've read, enigma is at least something of a technical term in Greek rhetoric, referring to the idea of anagogical/allegorical or otherwise obscure meanings in a philosophical or hermeneutical context. It has always seemed to me that a lot of the possible nuance of "enigma" is lost in the translation to "darkly", even if it's supposed to suggest something like "obscure".

 

I'm afraid I can't find an easy source to cite for this on the internet; I was introduced to this idea in commentaries on Gregory of Nyssa's work, for example: here

 

Gregory uses the term and references this passage in his justification for reading various scriptural texts in an allegorical way without too much concern for its "literal" or "historical" meaning, or the aims of the original author. So for instance he gives such readings to the life of Moses in Exodus as well as the Song of Solomon.

 

In the context of 1 Corinthians 13, and given Paul's other nods to Greek philosophy, it seems reasonable to think the allusion to Greek rhetoric is intentional. Alongside Johannine assertions about the invisibility of God and Paul's usage of the word "mystery", as well as the way the chapter relates love and knowledge, it seems clear that it is intended to state that human epistemic knowledge of the divine is limited, and that love as a practical virtue is more fundamentally important than "correct" knowledge, and given that it follows and expands on a chapter encouraging church unity, the point would seem to be that making "correct" knowledge a more important criteria than love is a mistake in Paul's opinion. And the reason it is a mistake is because our knowledge is obscured. It would seem to me to be a pretty clear warning against a lack of humility regarding knowledge.

[Justus]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that would probably lead a jury to convict.

Well, I was the driver and event actually happened.  

 

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred.  [uSlegal: Soure]

 

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:  [Oxford Dict: Source]

 

the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.

 

 

 Because of the fact that I was parked where the 911 callers said I was, and the fact I had consumed alcohol then the fact I had drinken a few drinks would served to affirm the accusations even thought I had been parked at the truck stop since earlier that day hadn't driven anywhere since that time.  

 

During the summer months it is was a common practice to idle one's truck while parked to keep the cab cool.  However, my a/c had went out in route to the delivery destination.  So my response to the Deputy question if I expected him to believe me when he had 3 witnesses that described my vehicle and gave my license plate that they had just followed me into the truck stop where I was parked, to which I replied that if I had just drove into the truck stop then wouldn't my engine be hot?   Had no reason to idle my truck since the ac wasn't working.

 

However, the facts and evidence would have skewed the truth had the ac been running because it wouldn't have changed the fact that I had not driven under the influence, but I wouldn't have any way to disprove the allegations otherwise.

[sdelsolray]

 

The Professor speaks.

Sorry my question offends you, I was merely trying to either substantiate or disprove what I was told.

 

 

 

 

 

Your question does not offend me.  It's just that I'm not your research assistant.  In addition, I'm not OCD regarding conspiracy assertions.  You appear to be just that.  So, why should I spend time helping you feed your psychological dysfunction?

[Justus]

It's just that I'm not your research assistant.

Nobody asked you a thing, you simply jumped in to my question to geezer, and I realize that any post is open to comments, but I wasn't asking you anything, I guess you are upset because your erronous response about the horizon didn't hold up. I merely asking if anyone was aware of the reason that no celestial lights appear in photos taken outside our atmosphere. But you can find it out for yourself. No conspiracy, except maybe in your mind.

[mymistake]

. . .  I guess you are upset because your erronous response about the horizon didn't hold up. 

 

 

Oh really?  When did that happen?  

[midniterider]

 

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that would probably lead a jury to convict.

Well, I was the driver and event actually happened.  

 

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred.  [uSlegal: Soure]

 

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:  [Oxford Dict: Source]

 

the truth can even be skewed by facts and evidence which are one sided.

 

 

 Because of the fact that I was parked where the 911 callers said I was, and the fact I had consumed alcohol then the fact I had drinken a few drinks would served to affirm the accusations even thought I had been parked at the truck stop since earlier that day hadn't driven anywhere since that time.  

 

During the summer months it is was a common practice to idle one's truck while parked to keep the cab cool.  However, my a/c had went out in route to the delivery destination.  So my response to the Deputy question if I expected him to believe me when he had 3 witnesses that described my vehicle and gave my license plate that they had just followed me into the truck stop where I was parked, to which I replied that if I had just drove into the truck stop then wouldn't my engine be hot?   Had no reason to idle my truck since the ac wasn't working.

 

However, the facts and evidence would have skewed the truth had the ac been running because it wouldn't have changed the fact that I had not driven under the influence, but I wouldn't have any way to disprove the allegations otherwise.

 

 

The policy of the agency I was with was if the cop didn't see you behind the wheel (and you didn't confess) there was no way they could get a conviction for drunk driving. It's not really a good idea to have blood alcohol content and sit inside your vehicle, either, even if you're in a parking lot. (Not saying that you were).

 

...

 

Regarding truth and facts, courts of law don't necessarily discover the truth. They just make a decision regarding an allegation. It seems like one of the tricks of Christians is to falsely compare and bend the meaning of words (maybe this is the equivocation fallacy?) to 'allow' something that has little or no evidence seem to be true. Like your truth and facts. You would like us to believe that "truth and facts" are sorta fuzzy and variable. This variableness of reality would allow for the Bible and Jesus to be your 'truth'. This variable, shifting reality allows Christians to believe a bible that's full of contradiction as well as worship a Jesus that does not exist, based solely on opinion.

 

Now if a Christian is dead sure that his Jesus (who is never present) is absolutely real, why couldn't he just be just as dead sure that that the cop who is putting handcuffs on him is absolutely false. Power of the mind! It would be like that episode of Star Trek at the OK Corral where Spock mind melds the crew to not believe the bullets are real.

[Deidre]

We are imperfect and our view of things now is imperfect and unclear.

 

We know in part, but we do not see the big picture.

 

When this imperfection is gone and we are face to face with God,

 

we will see things are they really are and with much more understanding.

According to Christianity...God is perfect. But his creation isn't? lol

 

I’ve always likened that to I create a piece of pottery, perhaps a vase. The vase ends up leaking water when I fill it up, but instead of blaming myself, I blame the vase. Likewise, believers tend to blame people for their erroneous ways (free will), rather than the creator who created them.

 

It’s easier to believe that a god doesn’t exist, than to buy into the Christian ‘’version’’ of a god, that sets a person off into a labyrinth of contradictions.

[Guest Furball]

 

Whoever wrote that vs was possibly influenced by the Greek philosophers. 'Through a glass darkly' predates the bible era I think. I'll google it later

The word darkly is, in the Greek, αἴνιγματι (ainigmati), that is: "in enigmas". 

 

 

 

Actually darkly in greek is σκοτεινά or you could use απειλητικά.

 

The problem with the bible is that it uses words that have multiple meanings. Like the word world, can mean the local area or the entire world or even the country itself. The problem with this is that it renders multiple greek meanings. 

 

The greek word you used, is what what the writer was trying to convey to the reader. Instead of using the direct word darkly, he uses the word enigma as a representation instead. 

[wellnamed]

Actually darkly in greek is σκοτεινά or you could use απειλητικά.

 

The problem with the bible is that it uses words that have multiple meanings. Like the word world, can mean the local area or the entire world or even the country itself. The problem with this is that it renders multiple greek meanings. 

 

The greek word you used, is what what the writer was trying to convey to the reader. Instead of using the direct word darkly, he uses the word enigma as a representation instead. 

You misunderstand me, I mean that in the Greek text of 1 Cor 13:12, the word translated as "darkly" is ainigmati. I'm using the 28th edition Nestle-Aland Greek N.T. but you can also see here: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/13.htm

 

edit: I don't disagree about multiple meanings of course, and κόσμος is a good example of it, but I wasn't trying to say that in an EN->GR dictionary you'd find "darkly" rendered as "enigma", but only that the verse in question uses enigma, which I think sheds a lot of light on the meaning.

[TrueFreedom]

Not that he needs defending, but, for the record, I vouch for wellnamed's honesty and good intentions.  He is by no means a fundamentalist or disingenuous prick like most Christians we see here.  I quite like him. ((wellnamed))

[Deidre]

Not that he needs defending, but, for the record, I vouch for wellnamed's honesty and good intentions.  He is by no means a fundamentalist or disingenuous prick like most Christians we see here.  I quite like him. ((wellnamed))

agree

[wellnamed]

fwiw Orbit and I were just hanging out the other night and I signed up here on a lark because I know some of you, and I appreciate your compliments and I think you're great also ...

 

but I really don't have any desire to interfere with the mission of the site to encourage and support people deconverting (which, in probably more cases than you might guess by the "christian (ish)" tag, I would even support!), and I do intend to try to be careful in how I post and what opinions I offer, since I'm sort of an interloper. In any case, TF, if you made that post because I'm overstepping the bounds please do feel free to yell at me, I can take it.

[mymistake]

 

. . . but I really don't have any desire to interfere with the mission of the site to encourage and support people deconverting . . . 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing any problem.

[TrueFreedom]

TF, if you made that post because I'm overstepping the bounds please do feel free to yell at me, I can take it.

 

Not at all! I'm glad that you're here!

[Guest Furball]

 

 

. . . but I really don't have any desire to interfere with the mission of the site to encourage and support people deconverting . . . 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing any problem.

 

 

Neither am I. I am not sure who true freedom was referencing in post #40. I actually like wellnamed. I like to learn, and he seems like i might learn a thing or two from him. _Catt

[Guest Furball]

 

Actually darkly in greek is σκοτεινά or you could use απειλητικά.

 

The problem with the bible is that it uses words that have multiple meanings. Like the word world, can mean the local area or the entire world or even the country itself. The problem with this is that it renders multiple greek meanings. 

 

The greek word you used, is what what the writer was trying to convey to the reader. Instead of using the direct word darkly, he uses the word enigma as a representation instead. 

You misunderstand me, I mean that in the Greek text of 1 Cor 13:12, the word translated as "darkly" is ainigmati. I'm using the 28th edition Nestle-Aland Greek N.T. but you can also see here: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/13.htm

 

edit: I don't disagree about multiple meanings of course, and κόσμος is a good example of it, but I wasn't trying to say that in an EN->GR dictionary you'd find "darkly" rendered as "enigma", but only that the verse in question uses enigma, which I think sheds a lot of light on the meaning.

 

I see what your saying. Thanks for clearing it up. I look forward to more of your posts. 

[Orbit]

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

[disillusioned]

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

 

I agree. I'm curious as to why he says he's "Christian-ish" though. I'm not sure what this means. I'd like to know what he actually believes and why.

 

wellnamed? Care to elaborate? (Not trying to attack, just curious).

[wellnamed]

 

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

 

I agree. I'm curious as to why he says he's "Christian-ish" though. I'm not sure what this means. I'd like to know what he actually believes and why.

 

wellnamed? Care to elaborate? (Not trying to attack, just curious).

 

 

I was baptized in the eastern orthodox church and I would describe myself as being "theistic" in my worldview at least in comparison to something like the mainstream metaphysical naturalism of most western atheists. That said, my "theism" is heavily apophatic, influenced by Buddhism (mainly pratityasamutpada), Hinduism (the Brahman of the Upanishads, Vedanta), and certain philosophical ideas (mainly Raimon Panikkar's cosmotheandricism) and my point of view doesn't really have much in common with modern western Christianity. I still describe it as "Christian-ish" because the mystical theology of ancient Christian theologians is meaningful to me, as is a lot of Christian symbology. But it's fair to say I'm rather idiosyncratic, allergic to dogmatism, and I'm also a universalist. So, if you will, I am an atheist with regard to the common western Christian concept of God, especially the fundamentalist version, but not quite an atheist if you're comparing me to Sam Harris.

 

That's a rather condensed description and probably inadequate but I'm happy to elaborate

[disillusioned]

 

 

I think wellnamed is an awesome addition to the site. He's got an amazing knowledge of religion, reads Greek, and is supportive of deconversion. Yay!

 

I agree. I'm curious as to why he says he's "Christian-ish" though. I'm not sure what this means. I'd like to know what he actually believes and why.

 

wellnamed? Care to elaborate? (Not trying to attack, just curious).

 

 

I was baptized in the eastern orthodox church and I would describe myself as being "theistic" in my worldview at least in comparison to something like the mainstream metaphysical naturalism of most western atheists. That said, my "theism" is heavily apophatic, influenced by Buddhism (mainly pratityasamutpada), Hinduism (the Brahman of the Upanishads, Vedanta), and certain philosophical ideas (mainly Raimon Panikkar's cosmotheandricism) and my point of view doesn't really have much in common with modern western Christianity. I still describe it as "Christian-ish" because the mystical theology of ancient Christian theologians is meaningful to me, as is a lot of Christian symbology. But it's fair to say I'm rather idiosyncratic, allergic to dogmatism, and I'm also a universalist. So, if you will, I am an atheist with regard to the common western Christian concept of God, especially the fundamentalist version, but not quite an atheist if you're comparing me to Sam Harris.

 

That's a rather condensed description and probably inadequate but I'm happy to elaborate

 

 

Excellent. Thanks for clarifying. I can get on board with this. Obviously we have some different perspectives, but there's nothing there that I can't respect.

 

Welcome!