Goddit versus Evolution

[tosca1]

You are cherry picking when you only use certain sentences and ignore all others.

Again, The faq answers a certain question nothing more. To actually understand the information nas is giving it is normal to read the whole booklet not just settle for a few chosen sentences that fit your preconceptions.

Nothing has gone over my head. i can see quite clearly that you will settle for anything that gives even the slightest hint of accepting creationism. Which this booklet does, Not as science which the booklet states quite clearly. But as an alternative to science. As a clear indication that man does not learn everything about life just through observation of the world around us which is science. We also learn by philosophy and story telling which is what creationism is.

If you do not want the real point of that booklet to go over your own head then i suggest you read the whole thing instead of just relying on a few cherry picked statements meant to get some religious interested in reading the booklet.

I think you're deliberately being obtuse.
We're done here....until you start discussing like a mature poster, or understand what you're reading.

 

[CrabCake]

As usual it is just the claim that there is evidence out there with out actually demonstrating it to be so. And when a demonstration is given it is shot down quite easily.

I'll let you have the last word on that one, I think most people know better and will see through this.

No, the bible is nothing more than a very badly written book of myths.

Ditto. Now people know that you don't even know what the word evidence means.

But you did when you said

That's not a definition, it's an example. Now you revealed you can't even tell when someone is giving you a definition and when they are giving you an example.

There are many ways that you can tell what kind of literature you are reading. I actually listed several other methods in the same post you lifted this one from. How you could think that this one was the definition and the others don't count is beyond me. Clearly there are many tools we use when determining what kind of literature we are looking at and giving one example about one specific situation is not synonymous with giving a definition or a comprehensive guide.

Btw, no one thinks Jesus caused manna to rain from heaven. You also seem to have revealed the fact you aren't even familiar with the content of the books you are criticizing.

So which stories apart from the one about jesus do claim to be literal instead of an allegory?

The ones that are historical narrative.

 

[ataraxia]

But we're not talking about Krishna, are we?

Don't take my response out of context.

What context? You were arguing that miracles are objective evidence of Jesus' divinity. What's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. So why are Jesus' miracles clear and objective evidence of his divinity, but not Krishna's?

 

[tosca1]

What context? You were arguing that miracles are objective evidence of Jesus' divinity. What's good for the goose has got to be good for the gander. So why are Jesus' miracles clear and objective evidence of his divinity, but not Krishna's?

But there's neither goose nor gander. We're having ducks.


This context:




Faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

God gave us intelligence that we may be able to discern.

Although there's nothing wrong with believing without any evidence for it (which according to Jesus is very much commendable), Christianity isn't based on BLIND FAITH.

Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have performed miracles to prove to people and to His apostles, that, He is who He said He is. All He had to do was say, "Believe, because I say it so."

Otherwise, God wouldn't be giving some intimate knowledge of His creation - to be consistent with, and reaffirmed by science in the 20th century - perhaps because we don't have any true prophets as they did in ancient days, which performed miracles, and prophesied!
All He had to do was say, "I'm the true God because I created everything! Believe!"




It was a response to an opinion. I'm giving Christianity as an example ......

.......why faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

 

[ataraxia]

I'm giving Christianity as an example ......

.......why faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.[/B]

OK. You are explaining what it DOESN'T mean. So What DOES it mean? Believing in something with just a little bit of evidence?

And remember, whatever your explanation, it has to explain why it can't work with someone like Krishna, or even the Revered Moon.

 

[iguanaman]

But there's neither goose nor gander. We're having ducks.


This context:




Faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

God gave us intelligence that we may be able to discern.

Although there's nothing wrong with believing without any evidence for it (which according to Jesus is very much commendable), Christianity isn't based on BLIND FAITH.

Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have performed miracles to prove to people and to His apostles, that, He is who He said He is. All He had to do was say, "Believe, because I say it so."

Otherwise, God wouldn't be giving some intimate knowledge of His creation - to be consistent with, and reaffirmed by science in the 20th century - perhaps because we don't have any true prophets as they did in ancient days, which performed miracles, and prophesied!
All He had to do was say, "I'm the true God because I created everything! Believe!"




It was a response to an opinion. I'm giving Christianity as an example ......

.......why faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

God also gave us the intelligence to build gas chambers and crematoriums to systematically murder millions of people. What does that make your God?

 

[ataraxia]

Quote Originally Posted by soylentgreen View Post

So which stories apart from the one about jesus do claim to be literal instead of an allegory?

The ones that are historical narrative.

Have you ever read Homer's epic poem The Iliad? It is about the fabled city of Troy, and the Greek invasion of that city. Up until the late 19th century, it was always thought to just be a story with no basis in historical fact. But a German archeologist, a retired businessman with a lifelong fascination in the poem, used clues from within the poem itself to finally find the site of the city. It was exactly where the poem said it might be. Archeological analysis, including carbon-dating, has found evidence of soot in the historical layer dating to about 1100 BC, exactly when the poem said these events might have happened. That's incredible objective vindication that the poem is not just a story, or an allegory, or something Homer just may have made up. Something was definitely there and some bad stuff really did happen there, when the poem says they happened.

But the poem also tells us that the Sea God Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans. Should we believe this too now as objective evidence of Poseidon's existence and his views on the Greek/Trojan conflict?

 

[tosca1]

OK. You are explaining what it DOESN'T mean. So What DOES it mean? Believing in something with just a little bit of evidence?

Well, that's just what it means. Faith does NOT NECESSARILY mean believing in something
that has no evidence to support it!

God gave us critical thinking. Christianity instructs us repeatedly to discern....thus, it isn't based on blind faith!

Performing miracles is but a small part for discerning - for even Satan can perform miracles (although his power is limited). We have to discern Godly miracles from demonic miracles.

And remember, whatever your explanation, it has to explain why it can't work with someone like Krishna, or even the Revered Moon.

Well, if you have evidence for it (or even without).....you can have faith in Krishna.
You can have faith in whomever you want.

 

[tosca1]

Have you ever read Homer's epic poem The Iliad? It is about the fabled city of Troy, and the Greek invasion of that city. Up until the late 19th century, it was always thought to just be a story with no basis in historical fact. But a German archeologist, a retired businessman with a lifelong fascination in the poem, used clues from within the poem itself to finally find the site of the city. It was exactly where the poem said it might be. Archeological analysis, including carbon-dating, has found evidence of soot in the historical layer dating to about 1100 BC, exactly when the poem said these events might have happened. That's incredible objective vindication that the poem is not just a story, or an allegory, or something Homer just may have made up. Something was definitely there and some bad stuff really did happen there, when the poem says they happened.

But the poem also tells us that the Sea God Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans. Should we believe this too now as objective evidence of Poseidon's existence and his views on the Greek/Trojan conflict?

What is the Iliad? What kind of book is it?


How about Harry Potter?
Should we believe everything in Harry Potter is true, just because it is written? Yeah, there are parts that are true. Some locations exist for real. Is that enough?


Why was Harry Potter written? For what purpose?

Where is it catalogued in the library? Fiction, or Non-Fiction?

------------------------------------


Btw, it isn't surprising that the city would be discovered where it was written to be. That's nothing new.
Some authors base their stories on events, and real locations.

 

[ataraxia]

Otherwise, God wouldn't be giving some intimate knowledge of His creation - to be consistent with, and reaffirmed by science in the 20th century - perhaps because we don't have any true prophets as they did in ancient days, which performed miracles, and prophesied!
All He had to do was say, "I'm the true God because I created everything! Believe!"[/color]

It was a response to an opinion. I'm giving Christianity as an example ......

.......why faith doesn't necessarily mean believing in something that has no evidence to support it.

For over 1600 years, the official teaching of the church, its standard doctrine, was that the Earth is unmoving at the center of the universe, and the sun, planets, and all the stars go around it. Where else, after all, would God put the culmination of his creation, man? Besides, there were many scriptural passages which they used to justify such "intimate knowledge of his creation", like in Psalms when it says that "Thou hast fixed the Earth immovable in the sky", or when God stops the sun in the sky for Joshua (He specifically does not keep the Earth from going around the sun, mind you) so he can have his revenge on the Amorites.

When some scientist began to question this view based on observations, they were literally ready to burn him alive. The Church did not accept the view that the Earth was not the center of the universe until 1820, about 200 years after the idea was first proposed. They only "forgave" Galileo of his temerity in contradicting scripture in the 1990s!

The creationist view of the universe is the same. Big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology are pretty settled science. And yet still, most Christians read their Bible and read something different into it. Some, however, have started to learn to be very clever in continuous "proper interpretation and exegesis" of the Bible to have it accord with the latest scientific theories. Their proper interpretation changes as the science changes.

Ethical/social issues are the same. There are pages and pages on how to own slaves properly so it is pleasing unto the Lord. Here are some believers to tell you:

It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere."
-Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America
~Davis

But as slavery fell out of fashion, our Christian friends found clever ways to interpret and reinterpret the Bible to have it come out NOT supporting slavery. Perhaps these passages were descriptions of how slavery was historically done, not what we were expected to do now, right? Yeah, that's the ticket... at least for now.

So it has become clear that the Bible is no guide, and gives no special insight. It is just where believers like to project their latest opinions. It is like one of those Rorschach tests psychologists use: it is just vague and abstract enough so that it can be interpreted to say whatever you may want it to say, from Mother Teresa to the KKK.

Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion.
-John Dewey

 

[ataraxia]

What is the Iliad? What kind of book is it?


How about Harry Potter?
Should we believe everything in Harry Potter is true, just because it is written? Yeah, there are parts that are true. Some locations exist for real. Is that enough?


Why was Harry Potter written? For what purpose?

Where is it catalogued in the library? Fiction, or Non-Fiction?

The Iliad is a book of mythology and legend. It was believed by the ancient Greeks to be an actual detailed recounting of the great events of the Trojan War. But then, for a long time after the Greeks, it was believed to be a book of pure fiction and fable. But then, after the archeological findings in the 19th century, it was realized that there indeed WAS some kind of historical basis to the accounts in the book. Just the fact that an archeologist was able to find its site just based on clues from within the poem itself was quite remarkable for vindicating at least SOME of the truth of the poem.

So that leaves us with the question of whether then it is reasonable to accept the poem's claim that Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans in the conflict. That would, of course, require that we accept that the sea god Poseidon exists in the first place, before we can even start debating his position in the epic conflict.

So would it be reasonable to accept the poem's claims on Poseidon's opinions just based on faith now?

 

[tosca1]

For over 1600 years, the official teaching of the church, its standard doctrine, was that the Earth is unmoving at the center of the universe, and the sun, planets, and all the stars go around it. Where else, after all, would God put the culmination of his creation, man? Besides, there were many scriptural passages which they used to justify such "intimate knowledge of his creation", like in Psalms when it says that "Thou hast fixed the Earth immovable in the sky", or when God stops the sun in the sky for Joshua (He specifically does not keep the Earth from going around the sun, mind you) so he can have his revenge on the Amorites.

When some scientist began to question this view based on observations, they were literally ready to burn him alive. The Church did not accept the view that the Earth was not the center of the universe until 1820, about 200 years after the idea was first proposed. They only "forgave" Galileo of his temerity in contradicting scripture in the 1990s!

The creationist view of the universe is the same. Big bang cosmology and evolutionary biology are pretty settled science. And yet still, most Christians read their Bible and read something different into it. Some, however, have started to learn to be very clever in continuous "proper interpretation and exegesis" of the Bible to have it accord with the latest scientific theories. Their proper interpretation changes as the science changes.

Ethical/social issues are the same. There are pages and pages on how to own slaves properly so it is pleasing unto the Lord. Here are some believers to tell you:



But as slavery fell out of fashion, our Christian friends found clever ways to interpret and reinterpret the Bible to have it come out NOT supporting slavery. Perhaps these passages were descriptions of how slavery was historically done, not what we were expected to do now, right? Yeah, that's the ticket... at least for now.

So it has become clear that the Bible is no guide, and gives no special insight. It is just where believers like to project their latest opinions. It is like one of those Rorschach tests psychologists use: it is just vague and abstract enough so that it can be interpreted to say whatever you may want it to say, from Mother Teresa to the KKK.

I beg to disagree. But I wouldn't discuss that here. I'm thinking of creating a thread about the Bible.

 

[ataraxia]

Btw, it isn't surprising that the city would be discovered where it was written to be. That's nothing new.
Some authors base their stories on events, and real locations.

So how is that different than the Bible?

The reference to "The Whore of Babylon" in Revelations, for example, is very likely referring to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans. Real events. Devastating, to the point of seeming like it was the end of the world, I am sure, to the inhabitants.

 

[tosca1]

The Iliad is a book of mythology and legend. It was believed by the ancient Greeks to be an actual detailed recounting of the great events of the Trojan War. But then, for a long time after the Greeks, it was believed to be a book of pure fiction and fable. But then, after the archeological findings in the 19th century, it was realized that there indeed WAS some kind of historical basis to the accounts in the book. Just the fact that an archeologist was able to find its site just based on clues from within the poem itself was quite remarkable for vindicating at least SOME of the truth of the poem.

So that leaves us with the question of whether then it is reasonable to accept the poem's claim that Poseidon was on the side of the Greeks against the Trojans in the conflict. That would, of course, require that we accept that the sea god Poseidon exists in the first place, before we can even start debating his position in the epic conflict.

So would it be reasonable to accept the poem's claims on Poseidon's opinions just based on faith now?

Of course not. I wouldn't. It's an epic poem written for entertainment!

The author involved gods and goddesses of Greeks - since it must've been written for Greeks!

It may've based its story on an actual event....but it's still classified as fiction!
It would be like Forrest Gump, going through all the historical event of his lifetime!


Anyone using their critical thinking will see it as fictional!

 

[ataraxia]

Of course not. I wouldn't. It's an epic poem written for entertainment!

The author involved gods and goddesses of Greeks - since it must've been written for Greeks!

It may've based its story on an actual event....but it's still classified as fiction!
It would be like Forrest Gump, going through all the historical event of his lifetime!


Anyone using their critical thinking will see it as fictional!

The Greeks certainly didn't see their book as fictional. If they divided up their libraries the way we do today, I am pretty sure they would not have put it under the fiction category. So how were they different than the Christians and their Bible today?

 

[ataraxia]

Anyone using their critical thinking will see it as fictional!

I don't see, using the best of my critical thinking skills, how the story of the sea god Poseidon favoring the Greeks over the Trojans is any more clearly fictional than a god giving birth to himself through a virgin.

 

[tosca1]

So how is that different than the Bible?

I don't know how much historicity there is in the Iliad.....but the Bible is rich in Historicity.
Archeology has found so many places depicted in the Bible, and some customs of the times came to light.

 

[ataraxia]

I don't know how much historicity there is in the Iliad.....but the Bible is rich in Historicity.
Archeology has found so many places depicted in the Bible, and some customs of the times came to light.

Ditto for the Iliad, I assure you. It is one of the most significant archeological finds in history, and was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site:

Archaeological Site of Troy - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

But it's DIFFERENCES between the two books I am looking for.

 

[tosca1]

I don't see, using the best of my critical thinking skills, how the story of the sea god Poseidon favoring the Greeks over the Trojans is any more clearly fictional than a god giving birth to himself through a virgin.

Well....critical thinking wouldn't compare the two for those.

You're comparing the Iliad, which was fictionally written for entertainment, to a religious book!
Go to a library and see if they go under the same category!

And by the looks of it, you don't know much about the Bible - so I won't go any further with you on that road.

Iliad indeed. :lol:

 

[tosca1]

Ditto for the Iliad, I assure you. It is one of the most significant archeological finds in history, and was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site:

Archaeological Site of Troy - UNESCO World Heritage Centre

But it's DIFFERENCES between the two books I am looking for.

That's only Troy!


The archeological find related to the Bible is numerous! Here.....take a look. They're still digging....

Biblical Archaeology Places Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society


It got a Unesco too!

Baptismal Site “Bethany Beyond the Jordan” Added to UNESCO World Heritage List

In 2015, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee added the archaeological complex at Al-Maghtas, Jordan—dubbed the Biblical “Bethany beyond the Jordan”—to its World Heritage List. The site has been venerated as the place where John the Baptist baptized Jesus since the late Roman–early Byzantine periods, when early Christians began making pilgrimages to the area.

Baptismal Site ?Bethany Beyond the Jordan? Added to UNESCO World Heritage List - Biblical Archaeology Society


If it's differences between the two that you're looking for - then, I bet archeology has found more about the Bible.

Anyway, we're drifting here. We're derailing the thread.....

 

[ataraxia]

Well....critical thinking wouldn't compare the two for those.

You're comparing the Iliad, which was fictionally written for entertainment, to a religious book!
Go to a library and see if they go under the same category!

And by the looks of it, you don't know much about the Bible - so I won't go any further with you on that road.

Iliad indeed. :lol:

First of all, the Iliad was not written for entertainment. It was written as an account of the events which were believed to have happened in a particular place and time. Research now shows that they were probably right in much of it.

But the the Iliad is just one book, believed to have been written by one author , and the Bible is a collection, an anthology, of many books written by many different authors, about events happening at different places and times. One feature that all of these, as well as many other ancient accounts, share, is the ancients' propensity to assign all sorts of other worldly entities and meanings to great current events of their time. Whether it's one place or many just seems to me to be a difference of degrees, not any fundamental difference of kind.

 

[Bodi]

I heard something on the Herman Caine radio show that made me shake my head. mostly because I know it's believed by many. "God made men and women."

Uh, no. Sex evolved. God didn't do it. Just like God did not create humans, we evolved...from the same ancestor as did the apes. In fact, God, if it even exists, did not do squat. Almost everything can be quite reasonably explained without the need to pull a god out of your hat.

Who made the first man and woman then??

 

[Bodi]

Evolution certainly rules out the Abarahmic take on the origin of the world.

Man is fallible... their "take" on it could be incorrect.

 

[calamity]

Who made the first man and woman then??

what not who.

 

[Bodi]

what not who.

who why what?