Todd Allen Gates
 |
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
caposkia wrote: First, we
First, we cannot look at the book of Revelation as a chronological book. The events that take place are not said to be "in order".
Also, it is clear that the resurrections don't happen at the same time, so I guess technically speaking, the judgements won't happen all at once.
Revelation 6:7-11 says that when the fifth seal was opened, those who were persecuted and died for their faith were under an alter in heaven and given a white robe. When they asked how long until judgment would come to avenge their death, they are told they must wait for the living believers to die in the same way they did had met their fate. This seems to point to the tribulation.
Revelation 7:9 describes a great multitude in white robes who had come out of the great tribulation.
Revelation 11 says that when the seventh trumpet sounds, it will be time to judge the dead.
Revelation 11:18 "The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
But before this judgment occurs, there is some sort of flashback where we see multiple non-literal descriptions of the birth of Christ, his death and resurrection and apparent details of the tribulation in chapters 12-19.
It is only in Revelation 20:11 do we actuall see a description of the judgment of the dead.
Revelation 20:12-15 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. [...] If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Note how these few verses describe the entire process of the dead coming from their resting place, the opening of books, judgement based the content of these books and sentencing. Nowhere does it indicate that God says "do you have anything you'd like to say to the court before you are sentenced?"
It is also mentioned that by the time the Revelation stuff happens, everyone will have heard the word of God. Those who already have died get their "first chance" if you will, when they get resurrected to know that God is indeed the Almighty. Then like I had mentioned before, they cannot be held accountable for what they don't know.
yea, I know, but i'll get further with this below.
Again, It appears that the dead who were not persecuted are not "given up" until the blowing of the seventh trumpet. Are you somehow implying that the seventh trumpet was really blown at the beginning or before the events of Revelation? If so, why would it be called the "seventh trumpet" instead of the first?
Honestly, I'm not sure where you got the idea that certain people don't need to "choose God" to get into heaven. ... To bring in the fact that it is clearly stated that everyone will have heard the word by the Revelation events, it would make sense that anyone who is watching will obviously know that the events listed in Revelation are happening and will see that the God of the Bible must be real.
So when it supports your argument, you claim the Bible must imply what you think it says, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Yet, when I note that that the Bible doesn't seem to make sense in other areas, you simply say it must be right regardless since God is perfect.
Which is it?
Veils of Maya wrote:
So then why doesn't God plainly and obviously reveal himself to me now? If I heard the word of God from his own mouth, I'd believe. Those that would reject him, wouldn't. Why wait until after we're dead? Again, If those who suffer and choose God here on earth get the same reward as those who wait until they meet God eye to eye, then what is the significance of testing us on earth at all?
not eveyone gets the same reward Mt 6:20 basically the whole chapter, but that verse talks about storing up treasure.
So, God has decided that those who live in a country which doesn't have the Bible in their on language simply are not eligible to receive the same rewards as those who do regardless of how they react?
It's easy to say this now, but you have to look at the story of Jesus. It shows that even though Jesus was performing mericles in the light of day, people still didn't believe him to be the son of God.
Is it not possible that people simply didn't believe because these miracles simply never really occurred in the first place?
Again, If there were Biblical scale miracles happening today, I'd become a believer in a heart beat. Unfortunately, it seems that God has stopped making personal appearances.
To accept God's words now, would be to accept everything the Bible has to say. The Bible says that his word is in his people. God appointed his followers to spread the word that Christ's return is soon. It's a simple, strait forward message that only requires someone to accept a sacrifice made for them.
I wonder why it's so hard for people to even accept a teaching that has been repeatedly proven to be affective in improving life? Maybe because of the name Jesus Christ?
How does the teaching that homosexuality is a sin repeatedly improve life? If the infant mortality rate was the same today as it was in the time of Jesus, then yes - obstaing from non reproductive sex would help ensure humanity would grow as a species. But this is no longer an issue.
How does the teaching that we were created by God in our final form from dust repeatedly improve life?
How does the New Testament teaching that slaves should obey their earthly masters with fear improve life?
If you asked me if I thought that some of the principals associated with teaching of Jesus Christ were beneficial in some cases, I'd say yes. But do I think these teachings have value in all contexts? No. Nor do I think they are the teachings of an omniscient being.
Veils of Maya wrote:caposkia wrote:
that's a very good question, and the choice we all have to make. I can't speak for everyone, but me personally. I've seen enough proof though history and science as well as personal experience to say that this must be the right way. There's a lot more to that, but I"m not going to bore everyone with the details [of why Christianity is the one true religion].
Yet there are plenty of other people who make the same exactly claim you do about their religion.
I dispise paraphrased translations of the Bible. They take out not only the original flow of the stories, but sometimes ruin and change understandings and meanings of certain scripture.
With that said, I don't appreciate people paraphrasing me either. e.g.
"There's a lot more to that, but I"m not going to bore everyone with the details [of why Christianity is the one true religion]."
It's not of why Christianity is the one true religion. I would not say that. Firist, I hate religion. Religion is about seperation and everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong. Christianity is about unity. Yes, that is a teaching of Christianity, but in all the fluff e.g. conversations like this, those little important teachings are overlooked.
If you want me to conclude that sentence better, "there are many reason why I feel that God is real." I'm not talking about religion. It's really whether He is or isn't at this point. right?
I was specifically addressing the possibility that Christianity was the false religion, instead of one the religions that proceeded it. Since all of these religions implied that one or more Gods existed, was the "right way" you were referring to not specific to Christianity? If not, then are you saying that you believe in all of the Gods of these earlier religions in addition to Christianity?
Veils of Maya wrote:
As such, God's actions could be indistinguishable from nature.
So how exactly do you discern between that which is from God and that which is from nature? Or that which is from Satan or man made religions?
Well, if you look logically at many... not all! but many of the acts of God in the Bible, many were done through nature. Why? well, God created nature, so God is nature. (metaphorically) Bible does say that God reveils himself through nature.
The Bible makes many claims about the origins of physical phenomenon. Then it claims it is true since it's the word of God. It's quite circular. Since none of these claims can be verified in any predictable way, we have no real way of knowing if God is truly behind them.
In other words, if we can't detect God, then how can we know what to attribute to him?
Also man made religions all somewhere have prophesies that did not come true when they claimed they would, or did not come true in the way they claimed they would. All of the Bible's prophesies have come true thus far. History proves many of them, e.g. Jesus Christ. Old Tesiment books that talk about Jesus coming and the stuff he would do were written too long before Jesus' time to be successful. The prophesies Jesus had to fulfill were more than one person could do. I personally think it's pretty groundbreaking that the prophesies of the Old Testiment and Historical records as far as when Jesus was suppose to come coenside.
The majority of these "prophesies" are extremely vague. Those that refer to the life of Jesus could have easily been edited to ensure they matched pre-existing prophesies that were known to the authors. For example the book of John makes no mention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and, in some cases, it even seems to contradict the idea.
In John 7:28 - 29, Jesus confirms that the crowd knows of him and where he is from.
"29 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."
Yet in verse 41-44 the crowd asks how Jesus could be the Christ since he comes from Galiliee?
John 7:41 "Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him."
If the crowd was wrong, then why would Jesus say they knew where he was from? Why wouldn't John clarify this point in his writing?
Veils of Maya wrote:
For example, in response to your question, "What would the point be to resurrect anyone who has no more choice and is already condemed, why not just burn them all?", I could reply "God must have a point because he's omniscient, omnipotent and has an intelligence so vast that we can't possibly understand it."
True, but if you know God and his ways, it would not make sence that he would go about it that way. God says that he is the same as he always was and he always will be the same. For God to do that would mean that God changed. Though he could still do it if he wanted becasue he's God, he won't because that's the way he is.
Again, you're simply choosing to invoke the idea that the Bible must make sense when it fits your argument. When other religions don't make sense, it's because they're wrong.
Veils of Maya wrote:
If God created me from nothing, and designed me down to the last quark, then he must have intended me not to believe in him, because I make that choice based on the free will he freely gave me and the environment he ultimately controls (or allows to be controlled by others. )
So basically you're telling me that when my computer crashes, the company must have intended for my computer to crash because they made the computer down to the last quark. I think I need to call my lawyer.
Is the company that created your computer omnipotent, omniscient and in possession of infinite knowledge? No. But God supposedly is. As such, whatever the results, they must be what God intended because God can't make mistakes. Right?
Example: Imagine you calculate your income taxes on your computer and it returns the incorrect amount. Is it really your computer's fault?
No. The problem lies in one of the following areas...
- The company who wrote the tax software or operating system you run used the wrong algorithm or didn't catch a bug in testing
- The the software received incorrect information from it's environment (you typed in the wrong number, etc.) or it was corrupted / damaged by an external force
- The engineers who designed the various hardware systems in your computer introduced a design flaw that caused it to return the wrong result to the software
- One of the companies that builds the design caused a manufacturing defect which caused the hardware to return the wrong value to the software.
In other words, the computer really has no control over the results it generates since it's entire existence is depended on external sources.
In my case, you're saying that..
- God gave me free will
- God controls my environment (or allows others to control it)
- God designed me to the very last detail
- God knows us before we are even born and is the sole reason for our existence
Could it be possible that God's trying to reach out to you and you're not hearing him?
The attributes of God are so vast that I have no reliable way to tell if what I perceive is from God or from nature. If I can't detect him, then how can I make an educated decision about his existence?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
Veils of Maya
Revelation 6:7-11 says that when the fifth seal was opened, those who were persecuted and died for their faith were under an alter in heaven and given a white robe. When they asked how long until judgment would come to avenge their death, they are told they must wait for the living believers to die in the same way they did had met their fate. This seems to point to the tribulation.
Revelation 7:9 describes a great multitude in white robes who had come out of the great tribulation.
Revelation 11 says that when the seventh trumpet sounds, it will be time to judge the dead.
Revelation 11:18 "The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
But before this judgment occurs, there is some sort of flashback where we see multiple non-literal descriptions of the birth of Christ, his death and resurrection and apparent details of the tribulation in chapters 12-19.
It is only in Revelation 20:11 do we actuall see a description of the judgment of the dead.
Revelation 20:12-15 "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. [...] If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
Note how these few verses describe the entire process of the dead coming from their resting place, the opening of books, judgement based the content of these books and sentencing. Nowhere does it indicate that God says "do you have anything you'd like to say to the court before you are sentenced?"
This goes back to where we were talking about you not being held responsible for what you don't know. This is specifically saying you're judged according to your deeds. You don't need to know who God is in order to know whether your deeds were good or not.
Note: God judges your heart, not your actions. My understanding is if your heart was in the right place, then you will not be condemed for it.
You seem to be someone who likes to blow things out of proportion to make a point, so I'll help you out. I'm guessing I'll get something back like...'so you're telling me that if I go rape someone, but my heart was "in the right place" then I'm not going to be sent to hell."
yea, basically... however, I'd really like to know how someone raping someone else has their heart in the right place. What good intention could you have possibly had toward the person you raped. You may have wanted to use a different example, but I think you get the point.
to add to it... 'so you're telling me that people then can in fact go to heaven without choosing God.'
no... even after you're judged and found good in God's eyes, you can still choose to walk away from God. That's always pretty clear in the Bible.
Again, It appears that the dead who were not persecuted are not "given up" until the blowing of the seventh trumpet. Are you somehow implying that the seventh trumpet was really blown at the beginning or before the events of Revelation? If so, why would it be called the "seventh trumpet" instead of the first?
When I talked about revelation not being a cronological book, I wasn't talking about random parts taken out of the book. I was talking about the book as a whole. We can't say whether the trumpets or bowls happen first or not. There are theories that go both ways.
So when it supports your argument, you claim the Bible must imply what you think it says, because it wouldn't make sense otherwise. Yet, when I note that that the Bible doesn't seem to make sense in other areas, you simply say it must be right regardless since God is perfect.
Which is it?
uh... huh???? you kept mentioning how people could get to heaven without choosing God. I was clarifying that that's not the case. Nothing more.
If I contradicted myself somewhere, please show me. I appologise if I did. I will straiten it out. I am human and so it's very possible I either didn't clarify my intentions somewhere or meant something different than the way I worded it.
I never claim that the Bible says what I think it says. I claim that the Bible says what it says. I further explain my understanding of it, looking for any indication that my understanding is flawed. I'm here because I've done the research. I'm not preaching a religious view. It seems that you're very stuck on religion. I'm preaching God. I will change my views if I'm shown that my views are flawed. This has happened many times over the years as I've learned more. I'm sure I'll understand even more as time continues to pass. I try not to argue a point that I don't understand or don't know.
with that said, because I believe in God, I'm of course going to say that the Bible is right. Not perfect in presentation becasue it was written down by people, but perfect in message becasue it's God's word.
I guess I'm a little confused by your statement ultimately here. I'm not blowing off anything you are asking or presenting here by saying it's right, let's forget it and move on.... maybe i'm just not understanding what you're looking for.
So, God has decided that those who live in a country which doesn't have the Bible in their on language simply are not eligible to receive the same rewards as those who do regardless of how they react?
Is that what I said????????
Is it not possible that people simply didn't believe because these miracles simply never really occurred in the first place?
Again, If there were Biblical scale miracles happening today, I'd become a believer in a heart beat. Unfortunately, it seems that God has stopped making personal appearances.
It is possible that people didn't believe because they may not have happened.... except then why do historical writings OUTSIDE of the Bible written at about the same time by people who did not have any relation to the Bible writers claim similar happenings? Plus historical records in general vouch for many "mericles" that cannot be explained.
The Bible also makes it clear that after Jesus' resurrection, God would not reveil himself personally again until the return of Christ. If the Bible is true, then this is a clear statement on why we don't see God today. yea... I know cop out right??? how would you explain it if you believed? Again, my belief goes into science and history. We're still stuck on the Bible.
How does the teaching that homosexuality is a sin repeatedly improve life? If the infant mortality rate was the same today as it was in the time of Jesus, then yes - obstaing from non reproductive sex would help ensure humanity would grow as a species. But this is no longer an issue.
How does the teaching that we were created by God in our final form from dust repeatedly improve life?How does the New Testament teaching that slaves should obey their earthly masters with fear improve life?
If you asked me if I thought that some of the principals associated with teaching of Jesus Christ were beneficial in some cases, I'd say yes. But do I think these teachings have value in all contexts? No. Nor do I think they are the teachings of an omniscient being.
How does God creating us from dust turn into a teaching to follow? Also, how does the teaching "don't eat with your elbows on the table" improve life?
Are you telling me that every single teaching from God has to be something that we see as benificial to our lives? Or can it be possible that God has put guidelines to life into his teachings as well. Think about homosexuality this way. You're in God's shoes for a second. You created sex with all it's wonder and amazement. You have a specific way it's suppose to be done becasue that's the way you created it. Does it make sense that God would say have sex with the opposite sex? If he truely intended for sex to be both ways, I'm sure he would have made it a little more convenient.
Disclaimer: I in no way have a bias toward homosexuals. I have close friends who are and I love them the way they are. You can judge me if you want, but I know where I stand and I don't judge them.
I was specifically addressing the possibility that Christianity was the false religion, instead of one the religions that proceeded it. Since all of these religions implied that one or more Gods existed, was the "right way" you were referring to not specific to Christianity? If not, then are you saying that you believe in all of the Gods of these earlier religions in addition to Christianity?
heh, you intregue me. You have a way of taking anything I say and putting it on a completely different level. Makes it hard to stay on topic here.
I am a Christain if I didn't make that clear. I follow the Christian God. I despise religion. I'm trying to avoid the ever-so-redundant religion debate and stick to brass tax. GOD. Is your issue the religion, or God. My way of doing things is God's usually the issue. Let's get the issue of his existance out of the way, then we can talk about the ins and outs of Christianity.
Of course topics from the belief are going to come up because it supports the Christian God, but I'm trying hard to stick to the point, whether God is or is not real.
The Bible makes many claims about the origins of physical phenomenon. Then it claims it is true since it's the word of God. It's quite circular. Since none of these claims can be verified in any predictable way, we have no real way of knowing if God is truly behind them.
In other words, if we can't detect God, then how can we know what to attribute to him?
Look at historical congruencies. Also pay attention to unexplainable scientific theory and obvious anomolies in science such as the unevolvable e-coli. Any good Christian will tell you to look at real evidence for proof.
The majority of these "prophesies" are extremely vague. Those that refer to the life of Jesus could have easily been edited to ensure they matched pre-existing prophesies that were known to the authors. For example the book of John makes no mention that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and, in some cases, it even seems to contradict the idea.
In John 7:28 - 29, Jesus confirms that the crowd knows of him and where he is from.
"29 Then Jesus, still teaching in the temple courts, cried out, "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."
Yet in verse 41-44 the crowd asks how Jesus could be the Christ since he comes from Galiliee?
John 7:41 "Others said, "He is the Christ." Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? 42 Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?" 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him."
If the crowd was wrong, then why would Jesus say they knew where he was from? Why wouldn't John clarify this point in his writing?
Whenever Jesus references to where he's from he's always referencing to Heaven or God, not where he was born. That is a given, just look at all the Gosples.
When he came from Galilee, he actually did come from Galilee then. just like if I took a trip to Florida, then came back, I came from Florida, or maybe from an area near Florida.
The crowd was seeing him as from somewhere on Earth, when he was always talking about being from heaven.
Again, you're simply choosing to invoke the idea that the Bible must make sense when it fits your argument. When other religions don't make sense, it's because they're wrong.
sure... ok... and Harry Potter wasn't really a wizard, it was only his imagination.
Believe the Bible or not, you can read the book and see the person that God is. Anyone I think could come to the conclusion from reading through what decisions God would make about how he would treat people.
Harry Potter would never follow Voldermort... why??? because he killed his parents. It's a given.
God gives everyone a second chance... why? becasue he always has. It's who he is.
I'm starting to wonder if you're using that as an excuse.
Is the company that created your computer omnipotent, omniscient and in possession of infinite knowledge? No. But God supposedly is. As such, whatever the results, they must be what God intended because God can't make mistakes. Right?
Example: Imagine you calculate your income taxes on your computer and it returns the incorrect amount. Is it really your computer's fault?
No. The problem lies in one of the following areas...
- The company who wrote the tax software or operating system you run used the wrong algorithm or didn't catch a bug in testing
- The the software received incorrect information from it's environment (you typed in the wrong number, etc.) or it was corrupted / damaged by an external force
- The engineers who designed the various hardware systems in your computer introduced a design flaw that caused it to return the wrong result to the software
- One of the companies that builds the design caused a manufacturing defect which caused the hardware to return the wrong value to the software.
In other words, the computer really has no control over the results it generates since it's entire existence is depended on external sources.
In my case, you're saying that..
- God gave me free will
- God controls my environment (or allows others to control it)
- God designed me to the very last detail
- God knows us before we are even born and is the sole reason for our existence
ok, now imagine new technology gave your computer free will. It could choose whether it wanted to do things right or not... No matter how perfect your computer was created, do you honestly think every computer manufactured is going to choose to always do what it's told??? If you say yes, then you're telling me that you wouldn't mind being woken up at random hours in the night and writing reports for someone else. Right. I'd be saying no pretty quickly.
If you're saying God's flawed because he gave us free will, then we've really got to back up, becasue you missed a big point.
The attributes of God are so vast that I have no reliable way to tell if what I perceive is from God or from nature. If I can't detect him, then how can I make an educated decision about his existence?
Again I will say, look at history and science. We can go there whenever you want. I know more about science than history just for a heads up.
- Login to post comments
caposkia wrote:
Veils of Maya wrote:
Note how these few verses describe the entire process of the dead coming from their resting place, the opening of books, judgement based the content of these books and sentencing. Nowhere does it indicate that God says "do you have anything you'd like to say to the court before you are sentenced?"
This goes back to where we were talking about you not being held responsible for what you don't know. This is specifically saying you're judged according to your deeds. You don't need to know who God is in order to know whether your deeds were good or not.
Note: God judges your heart, not your actions. My understanding is if your heart was in the right place, then you will not be condemed for it.
I was specifically referring to your interpretation that someone, would get a second chance to choose God at the time of judgment, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. To quote you....
"Bible also shows repeatedly that God has always given everyone a second chance, so for the consistancy of the book, whether you believe the book to be real or not, it would not make sense for God to "change his mind" for those who died without knowing him. "
Again, If I suddenly found my self face to face with God after I had died, I'd choose him. And i'd do so honestly. I simply don't believe in him now because I have no way of accurately discerning God from nature.
So, If what you say is correct then I, as an atheist, really don't have anything to worry about. Right?
... however, I'd really like to know how someone raping someone else has their heart in the right place. What good intention could you have possibly had toward the person you raped. You may have wanted to use a different example, but I think you get the point.
We view reality through abstract concepts. If a man really though a woman was going to die if she didn't get pregnant, then that man could internally justify rape as it would have been for her own good.
To use a more concrete example, lets take members of the FDLS church who beleive they must take multiple wives to go to heaven. If a husband really believed this was true, then he could justly consecrating an arranged marriage since he thought both of there eternal souls were at stake.
to add to it... 'so you're telling me that people then can in fact go to heaven without choosing God.'
no... even after you're judged and found good in God's eyes, you can still choose to walk away from God. That's always pretty clear in the Bible.
I'm referring to at least choosing God once. Not rejecting him after the fact.
When I talked about revelation not being a cronological book, I wasn't talking about random parts taken out of the book. I was talking about the book as a whole. We can't say whether the trumpets or bowls happen first or not. There are theories that go both ways.
I'd also note that there are theories that Revelation is not inspired by the divine, but a jumbled stream of images and ideas the author experienced in a dream.
Veils of Maya wrote:
So, God has decided that those who live in a country which doesn't have the Bible in their on language simply are not eligible to receive the same rewards as those who do regardless of how they react?
Is that what I said????????
If I can't read the Bible because it hasn't been translated into my language, then I can't explicitly choose God while I'm on earth. Since those who choose God on earth get greater rewards in heaven than those who do not, then would this not imply that God thinks those who are explicitly unaware of God are simply not eligible for the same reward as those that are?
How does this sound like the decision of a just God?
Veils of Maya wrote:
Is it not possible that people simply didn't believe because these miracles simply never really occurred in the first place?
Again, If there were Biblical scale miracles happening today, I'd become a believer in a heart beat. Unfortunately, it seems that God has stopped making personal appearances.
It is possible that people didn't believe because they may not have happened.... except then why do historical writings OUTSIDE of the Bible written at about the same time by people who did not have any relation to the Bible writers claim similar happenings? Plus historical records in general vouch for many "mericles" that cannot be explained.
The Bible also makes it clear that after Jesus' resurrection, God would not reveil himself personally again until the return of Christ. If the Bible is true, then this is a clear statement on why we don't see God today. yea... I know cop out right??? how would you explain it if you believed? Again, my belief goes into science and history. We're still stuck on the Bible.
History will document the many modern day religious cults that have risen in popularity. It will also document the beliefs their followers held and the extravagant claims their leaders made. However, this doesn't mean these beliefs and claims were true. I'm not aware of any extra-Biblical writings which claim to have observed any miracles first hand.
Veils of Maya wrote:
How does the teaching that homosexuality is a sin repeatedly improve life? If the infant mortality rate was the same today as it was in the time of Jesus, then yes - obstaing from non reproductive sex would help ensure humanity would grow as a species. But this is no longer an issue.
How does the teaching that we were created by God in our final form from dust repeatedly improve life?
How does the New Testament teaching that slaves should obey their earthly masters with fear improve life?
If you asked me if I thought that some of the principals associated with teaching of Jesus Christ were beneficial in some cases, I'd say yes. But do I think these teachings have value in all contexts? No. Nor do I think they are the teachings of an omniscient being.
How does God creating us from dust turn into a teaching to follow? Also, how does the teaching "don't eat with your elbows on the table" improve life?
Are you telling me that every single teaching from God has to be something that we see as benificial to our lives? Or can it be possible that God has put guidelines to life into his teachings as well. Think about homosexuality this way. You're in God's shoes for a second. You created sex with all it's wonder and amazement. You have a specific way it's suppose to be done becasue that's the way you created it. Does it make sense that God would say have sex with the opposite sex?
The very act of using God to explain natural phenomenon has an interesting, yet potentially unexpected side effect. It makes God an authority on the phenomenon it explains. For example, when a man and a women have sex, the woman doesn't always get pregnant. Since the act of conception happens internally, people were unaware of the vast number of factors which effect the process. As such, it's quite possible people simply thought it was God who decided if sex resulted in a child. However, as a side effect of this choice, the act of conception became a divine act and gave God authority over birth.
Do you see how this simple act could have suddenly caused a chain reaction that gives God authority over the process of birth? An obvious follow up question would be, If conception was an external process that we could see with our own eyes, would we have decided that God was responsible for conception? I'd be surprised if many theists had actually though enough about their belief to even come up with this question and reject it.
Again, If we can't explicitly see that God really was behind something, then how do we know he really is responsible for it? Consequently, how do we know he really is an authority on it?
If he truely intended for sex to be both ways, I'm sure he would have made it a little more convenient.
But why stop there? Since God is omnipotent being, couldn't he have just as easily have made it unpleasurable or even impossible?
Veils of Maya wrote:
I was specifically addressing the possibility that Christianity was the false religion, instead of one the religions that proceeded it. Since all of these religions implied that one or more Gods existed, was the "right way" you were referring to not specific to Christianity? If not, then are you saying that you believe in all of the Gods of these earlier religions in addition to Christianity?
heh, you intregue me. You have a way of taking anything I say and putting it on a completely different level. Makes it hard to stay on topic here.
I am a Christain if I didn't make that clear. I follow the Christian God. I despise religion. I'm trying to avoid the ever-so-redundant religion debate and stick to brass tax. GOD. Is your issue the religion, or God. My way of doing things is God's usually the issue. Let's get the issue of his existance out of the way, then we can talk about the ins and outs of Christianity.
Of course topics from the belief are going to come up because it supports the Christian God, but I'm trying hard to stick to the point, whether God is or is not real.
So then what was your objection to my paraphrasing you?
Veils of Maya wrote:
The Bible makes many claims about the origins of physical phenomenon. Then it claims it is true since it's the word of God. It's quite circular. Since none of these claims can be verified in any predictable way, we have no real way of knowing if God is truly behind them.
In other words, if we can't detect God, then how can we know what to attribute to him?
Look at historical congruencies. Also pay attention to unexplainable scientific theory and obvious anomolies in science such as the unevolvable e-coli. Any good Christian will tell you to look at real evidence for proof.
If you're referring to the bacterial flagellum, then you must have missed Ken Miller's testimony that refuted Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity at the 2005 Dover trial on Intelligent Design.
Here's a clip from of Ken's presentation at American University that specifically addresses the bacterial flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
Veils of Maya wrote:
If the crowd was wrong, then why would Jesus say they knew where he was from? Why wouldn't John clarify this point in his writing?
Whenever Jesus references to where he's from he's always referencing to Heaven or God, not where he was born. That is a given, just look at all the Gosples.
When he came from Galilee, he actually did come from Galilee then. just like if I took a trip to Florida, then came back, I came from Florida, or maybe from an area near Florida.
The crowd was seeing him as from somewhere on Earth, when he was always talking about being from heaven.
In Biblical times, when someone said that a person was from a particular town and of a particular family, they mean their birthplace and birth lineage. This is made clear thought the Bible and is confirmed in other non Biblical references. Yet, throughout the Bible, Jesus is known as "Jesus of Nazareth."
in John 41-42 the crowd was "divided" since the scriptures said that Christ would come from David's family and be from Bethlehem. This would literally mean that the crowd either thought that Jesus wasn't from the house of David, wasn't born in Bethlehem, or both. And why would Jesus need to tell the crowd they were correct in assuming he came from earth? This is but one example of how John doesn't mention Jesus was born in Bethlehem and how both John and Mark fail to mention anything about his virgin birth. If the entire salvation of mankind hinges on Jesus being God's son, then why would these two Gosples leave out such an important point?
Again, you're choosing an interpretation that implies the Bible says something it does not explicitly say because, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Nor have you addressed the issue that the authors simply could have changed the Bible to make it conform to scripture.
Veils of Maya wrote:
Again, you're simply choosing to invoke the idea that the Bible must make sense when it fits your argument. When other religions don't make sense, it's because they're wrong.
sure... ok... and Harry Potter wasn't really a wizard, it was only his imagination.
Believe the Bible or not, you can read the book and see the person that God is. Anyone I think could come to the conclusion from reading through what decisions God would make about how he would treat people.
Harry Potter would never follow Voldermort... why??? because he killed his parents. It's a given.
God gives everyone a second chance... why? becasue he always has. It's who he is.
Just because Joanne K. Rowling did a good job of defining Harry Potter's character and motives, doesn't mean Harry Potter really exists.
I'm starting to wonder if you're using that as an excuse.
I've been making that point about theists since we started. You can use God as an excuse for any phenomena we could ever see or experience.
ok, now imagine new technology gave your computer free will. It could choose whether it wanted to do things right or not... No matter how perfect your computer was created, do you honestly think every computer manufactured is going to choose to always do what it's told??? If you say yes, then you're telling me that you wouldn't mind being woken up at random hours in the night and writing reports for someone else. Right. I'd be saying no pretty quickly.
For this new technology to exist, someone had to design it. Someone had to manufacture it. Someone had to make the decision to ship computers with it installed. Again, these decisions and actions are external to the computer. It has no say in them. If God created everything from nothing, then God designed free will down to the last detail and knows exactly what effect it has on it's recipients. Or are you saying that God had no choice in how free will works? Or perhaps free will existed without God creating it?
If you really wanted your computer to calculate your taxes correctly, would you decide to install this new technology on your computer? I certainly wouldn't. Would you be surprised if your computer started giving you wrong answers? Would you blame it if it did?
Another example. Lets say the government wanted to give airborne drones the ability to attack military targets without human intervention. To meet this need, a military contractor creates an artificial intelligence system and programs it to identify and select targets, then fire on them automatically.
What if, after being cleared by both the contractor and the military for deployment, these drones decided to start firing on civilian instead of military targets in specific field situations? Who would ultimately be responsible? Would it be the drone? No. It would be the who contractor programmed the system and the military who cleared it for operation on the battlefield.
While the contractor could possible claim that the drone received unexpected input, which confused it's artificial intelligence algorithms, God has no such out. God not only supposedly designed the earth, but he designed the entire universe down to the very laws of physics. There can be no "unexpected input" for God. And since God is omniscient, he would have known about the problem before the first system rolled of the assembly line.
If you're saying God's flawed because he gave us free will, then we've really got to back up, becasue you missed a big point.
No. I'm not saying God is flawed because he gave us free will. I'm saying it was God chose to give us free will knowing full well the effect it would have on us. As such he must have intended for some of us to reject him and be punished.
Veils of Maya wrote:
The attributes of God are so vast that I have no reliable way to tell if what I perceive is from God or from nature. If I can't detect him, then how can I make an educated decision about his existence?
Again I will say, look at history and science. We can go there whenever you want. I know more about science than history just for a heads up.
I'm unaware of anything in science or nature that explicitly points to the existence of God. Of course, I'm open to new information.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
No offense, but you're too ignorant for this to work
Hey Todd,
I have a short critique I'd like you to take a look at. Its mostly a rewording of a post I did on your video #5 at my blog.
The first problem I noticed with your use of the Socratic Method, is that in order to be truly effective in leading the Christian to truth it requires that the Christian know enough of the social data of the ANE (ancient near east), have the required critical thinking skills, that they're well read on both sides of the issues, etc.
In fact, this exposes the largest problem with your method. For instance, a Christian may not be a master at any of the aforementioned items, but so long as they know more than you, your entire method falls apart. I certainly am no master on those subjects, but I can say with confidence that I either know more than you, or know where to access that information if needed. Whereas you are willing to merely stick with an ignorant view of the bible.
Conversely, your method (as constructed) REQUIRES that the Christian be ignorant in most or all of these categories, otherwise it simply will not work.
Again, not to be offensive, I'm just trying to tell you the way I see things.
You say that an earth-bound and inaccurate description of the universe would prove that the text was not inspired by God. Inaccurate descriptions are probably a good way to tell, but earth-bound? What's wrong with the description being, generally, earth-bound? It was written by humans after all. However, I would say that if its earth-bound WHILE also inaccurate, then you have a problem. Otherwise, if the ancient writer says that the sun "sets", I have no problem with that because we use the same language today.
If that's what you meant, then I'm simply misreading your intentions and nevermind that last paragraph.
Furthermore, even if the bible contains cosmological errors, you cannot then extrapolate that to mean that all of Christianity itself is uninspired. For instnace, I myself do not hinge my beliefs on the inerrency of scripture. It either has errors or it doesn't, but either way I still know that Christianity is true.
Exactly what errancy would prove is for another discussion, I'm just pointing out that as it stands, you cannot disprove the truth of a religion solely on errors such as those.
In Revelation 12:14 (Actually 12:4 I believe) you say that the bible describes the stars as tiny. You've heard of metaphorical language before, have you not? Because this is obviously meant to be symbolic, as much of Revelation is. Consider the first verses of that passage which say that a woman is clothed in the sun and that she has the moon under her feet. Your interpretation isn't going to fly.
If that't not enough, this type of "unravelling universe" language is used throughout the bible. It is symbolic of judgement, and is even used of past events where the universe did not, obviously, unravel.
You then criticize Ecclesiastes 1:5. Not noticing that we moderns use equivelant language today. I've already read your lame excuse to this which is that "we know better, but the ancients didn't", but that excuse doesn't work. You seem to be saying that the words in the book don't matter, so much as the intention of the writer. However, the doctrine is that of biblical inerrancy, not ancient-mindset inerrancy. It doesn't matter that they thought the earth was flat, it only matters what the book says. And the book uses equivelant language. You can read either a "true" cosmology into it, or you can read a faulty cosmology into it.
On this basis, it is not in error.
You give us a perfect example of the ability to "read into" the passage. In the video you claim this passage says that the sun moves around the earth. But those words aren't found anywhere. But why were you able to read them into that passage? Because the passage is vague enough to allow it, just like its vague enough to allow a "correct" interpretation.
Daniel 4:11 is a little bit trickier for me. I'm not too learned of ancient Hebrew, but I know that "earth" can mean "land", as in the surrounding country, or surrounding land (in the original language that is). In which case this would be a translation "problem". You can whine and cry about God not making it more clear, but the fact of the matter is, there are concordances. The information is out there, go look it up. And furthermore, this error affects nothing. It doesn't make me question some essential doctrine, it just makes me wonder what the true meaning of the word used in that passage is.
In fact, according to my concordance, the word used is directly related to "erets", which is a Hebrew word often meant to convey the idea of the surrounding land. In which case a tree could be seen by everyone in the "land".
Not to mention that this is a dream, and dreams are symbolic in nature. The height of the tree, like the tree itself, has symbolic value, not literal value. Daniel isn't describing the way things are in reality.
Psalm 104:5 isn't a problem either. You can either get a better translation, or get a concordance. The word used for "move" is also translated as "removed". The definition according to Strong's is, "a prim. root; to waver; by impl. to slip, shake, fall:--"
When you reference Leviticus 21:16-23, you've only demonstrated that you need a lesson in the importance, to the ancients, of ritual purity.
It might seem strange to us, but in order to reinforce this notion of purity, they had strict rules. A person who has leprosy on part of his body is unpure, while a person who is completely covered is pure. Because there is no "mixing", he is entirely one or entirely the other. This is meant to stress boundaries. Not a senseless human bias. I have no problem with seeing this sort of command coming from God, especially given the dangerous times these people lived in, and how they constantly needed to be reminded of their God and their relationship to Him.
Deuteronomy 23:2 demonstrates the same lack of knowledge on your part.
Numbers 31:17-18 would take far too long to address here. I can provde you with a link if you'd like, to an excellent article on this matter which plumbs the depths of scholarship.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 is a protection law for the woman. Imagine that...protecting a female prisoner of war. You ask, "There is no mention of how she feels about marrying someone involved in killing her family." Did you ever ask yourself how she would feel about not marrying anyone in Israel? Marriage was generally a requirement in those days. I can pretty much assure you that she would have desired marriage.
To turn the Socratic Method around on you for a moment, if you believe the bible was merely written by humans, you would expect that it would cater to their wishes alone, would you not? Why would they write a law protecting a foreigner from their own desires?
Furthermore, I think it was dishonest to paraphrase that passage the way you did. You left out all of the parts that detail how she is to be protected from merely being "used" by any Israeli!
Again, you're reading something into the passage that isn't there. You say she is forced, but I don't see that word anywhere in my bible. As I've said above, the social data suggests she would desire marriage, contrary to your own modern point-of-view.
After that you hurl a lot of elephants, which I don't have time to go into. I'm interested in hearing your responses to these points.
- Login to post comments
in response to Todd Gates
in response to Todd Gates cool videos ... http://www.rationalresponders.com/todd_allen_gates BIBLE BOOK, Where the "Holy Jew" ruled: I get the feeling that the old testament as it had stood for centuries was so foul, incomplete, and lacking that the need for the new testament and a Jesus was a simple basic evolution partly motivated and intended as a cure to the old written absurdities of the time and place, a bit like the free thinkers of later centuries, so often also silenced by a later more established powerful greedy church and government. The bible is not much more than an ancient document of revealing evidence of mans past delusions regarding the meaning of life. The ancient Jews did set a major precedent that is popular in all the major religions. Jesus is a buddha say the Buddhists, a high prophet say Islamists. Jesus is a "kind of savior" for even many intellectuals, such as the our American "Atheist" founding fathers. Why are people so uneducated about their religion ? is where I'm leading but that's another topic. but to ramble on it's to bad the close minded christians don't read the the cool buddists take on jesus, as to end this I must say , I AM GOD AS YOU, with no gods, no idols before us, wow the first ancient bible commandment .......... WE ARE GOD, END OF ARGUMENT, thanks Alan Watts, thanks Jesus, thanks Plato, GOD IS ATHEIST, GOD IS NOT DEBATABLE, yet morals are indeed debatable *%&$&%* Thanks Todd Gates ...... WOW, GOD talks ? , MOST ARE 10 MINs EACH, UPLOADED INTO YOUTUBE BY THE GUY, alienx1976 SEE Provided By: alienx1976 http://www.youtube.com/user/alienx1976 THANKS TO HIM, and RRS, ye are god, may you bless you and keep you ........ teach the kids they are god .......
- Login to post comments
See guys. Christians
See guys. Christians aren't the only ones who can go crazy. Wow....
- Login to post comments
IrishFarmer wrote: Hey
Hey Todd,
I have a short critique I'd like you to take a look at. Its mostly a rewording of a post I did on your video #5 at my blog.
The first problem I noticed with your use of the Socratic Method, is that in order to be truly effective in leading the Christian to truth it requires that the Christian know enough of the social data of the ANE (ancient near east), have the required critical thinking skills, that they're well read on both sides of the issues, etc.
In fact, this exposes the largest problem with your method. For instance, a Christian may not be a master at any of the aforementioned items, but so long as they know more than you, your entire method falls apart. I certainly am no master on those subjects, but I can say with confidence that I either know more than you, or know where to access that information if needed. Whereas you are willing to merely stick with an ignorant view of the bible.
Conversely, your method (as constructed) REQUIRES that the Christian be ignorant in most or all of these categories, otherwise it simply will not work.
Again, not to be offensive, I'm just trying to tell you the way I see things.
You say that an earth-bound and inaccurate description of the universe would prove that the text was not inspired by God. Inaccurate descriptions are probably a good way to tell, but earth-bound? What's wrong with the description being, generally, earth-bound? It was written by humans after all. However, I would say that if its earth-bound WHILE also inaccurate, then you have a problem. Otherwise, if the ancient writer says that the sun "sets", I have no problem with that because we use the same language today.
If that's what you meant, then I'm simply misreading your intentions and nevermind that last paragraph.
Furthermore, even if the bible contains cosmological errors, you cannot then extrapolate that to mean that all of Christianity itself is uninspired. For instnace, I myself do not hinge my beliefs on the inerrency of scripture. It either has errors or it doesn't, but either way I still know that Christianity is true.
Exactly what errancy would prove is for another discussion, I'm just pointing out that as it stands, you cannot disprove the truth of a religion solely on errors such as those.
In Revelation 12:14 (Actually 12:4 I believe) you say that the bible describes the stars as tiny. You've heard of metaphorical language before, have you not? Because this is obviously meant to be symbolic, as much of Revelation is. Consider the first verses of that passage which say that a woman is clothed in the sun and that she has the moon under her feet. Your interpretation isn't going to fly.
If that't not enough, this type of "unravelling universe" language is used throughout the bible. It is symbolic of judgement, and is even used of past events where the universe did not, obviously, unravel.
You then criticize Ecclesiastes 1:5. Not noticing that we moderns use equivelant language today. I've already read your lame excuse to this which is that "we know better, but the ancients didn't", but that excuse doesn't work. You seem to be saying that the words in the book don't matter, so much as the intention of the writer. However, the doctrine is that of biblical inerrancy, not ancient-mindset inerrancy. It doesn't matter that they thought the earth was flat, it only matters what the book says. And the book uses equivelant language. You can read either a "true" cosmology into it, or you can read a faulty cosmology into it.
On this basis, it is not in error.
You give us a perfect example of the ability to "read into" the passage. In the video you claim this passage says that the sun moves around the earth. But those words aren't found anywhere. But why were you able to read them into that passage? Because the passage is vague enough to allow it, just like its vague enough to allow a "correct" interpretation.
Daniel 4:11 is a little bit trickier for me. I'm not too learned of ancient Hebrew, but I know that "earth" can mean "land", as in the surrounding country, or surrounding land (in the original language that is). In which case this would be a translation "problem". You can whine and cry about God not making it more clear, but the fact of the matter is, there are concordances. The information is out there, go look it up. And furthermore, this error affects nothing. It doesn't make me question some essential doctrine, it just makes me wonder what the true meaning of the word used in that passage is.
In fact, according to my concordance, the word used is directly related to "erets", which is a Hebrew word often meant to convey the idea of the surrounding land. In which case a tree could be seen by everyone in the "land".
Not to mention that this is a dream, and dreams are symbolic in nature. The height of the tree, like the tree itself, has symbolic value, not literal value. Daniel isn't describing the way things are in reality.
Psalm 104:5 isn't a problem either. You can either get a better translation, or get a concordance. The word used for "move" is also translated as "removed". The definition according to Strong's is, "a prim. root; to waver; by impl. to slip, shake, fall:--"
When you reference Leviticus 21:16-23, you've only demonstrated that you need a lesson in the importance, to the ancients, of ritual purity.
It might seem strange to us, but in order to reinforce this notion of purity, they had strict rules. A person who has leprosy on part of his body is unpure, while a person who is completely covered is pure. Because there is no "mixing", he is entirely one or entirely the other. This is meant to stress boundaries. Not a senseless human bias. I have no problem with seeing this sort of command coming from God, especially given the dangerous times these people lived in, and how they constantly needed to be reminded of their God and their relationship to Him.
Deuteronomy 23:2 demonstrates the same lack of knowledge on your part.
Numbers 31:17-18 would take far too long to address here. I can provde you with a link if you'd like, to an excellent article on this matter which plumbs the depths of scholarship.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 is a protection law for the woman. Imagine that...protecting a female prisoner of war. You ask, "There is no mention of how she feels about marrying someone involved in killing her family." Did you ever ask yourself how she would feel about not marrying anyone in Israel? Marriage was generally a requirement in those days. I can pretty much assure you that she would have desired marriage.
To turn the Socratic Method around on you for a moment, if you believe the bible was merely written by humans, you would expect that it would cater to their wishes alone, would you not? Why would they write a law protecting a foreigner from their own desires?
Furthermore, I think it was dishonest to paraphrase that passage the way you did. You left out all of the parts that detail how she is to be protected from merely being "used" by any Israeli!
Again, you're reading something into the passage that isn't there. You say she is forced, but I don't see that word anywhere in my bible. As I've said above, the social data suggests she would desire marriage, contrary to your own modern point-of-view.
After that you hurl a lot of elephants, which I don't have time to go into. I'm interested in hearing your responses to these points.
Interesting. I hope you do get his response to this in as much detail as you want.
At my first glance, it looks a whole lot like you're saying "What God really meant to say when he had his ghost writers do their work was..."
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
Next time you should do more
Next time you should do more than just glance at the work, then.
- Login to post comments
IrishFarmer wrote: Next
Next time you should do more than just glance at the work, then.
What did I miss? You basically said that Mr. Gates is incorrect on his Bible because where one version uses one word other versions use other words. You found versions you're fond of and used them to make your points. In other words, you claim the versions you like are closer to "what God really meant to say".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
First I would like to say,
First I would like to say, I'm not ignoring anything that was mentioned after Veils of Maya's post. i just haven't gotten around to reading beyond and I want to stick on the conversation we had going. I will get to the rest as time permits. Thank you all for your input.
I was specifically referring to your interpretation that someone, would get a second chance to choose God at the time of judgment, even though it was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. To quote you....
"Bible also shows repeatedly that God has always given everyone a second chance, so for the consistancy of the book, whether you believe the book to be real or not, it would not make sense for God to "change his mind" for those who died without knowing him. "
Again, If I suddenly found my self face to face with God after I had died, I'd choose him. And i'd do so honestly. I simply don't believe in him now because I have no way of accurately discerning God from nature.
So, If what you say is correct then I, as an atheist, really don't have anything to worry about. Right?
well, theoretically. It's very clear that you can choose Christ at any time in your life. There is a catch for those who have been given the information but haven't used it. Knowing the information is your second chance. Jesus is your second chance. If you don't know, then of course you haven't had the option of a second chance.
The story goes that we all fall short of the glory of God. Basically we're all bad, so we're all condemed. It's Jesus Christ coming down to take all the bad stuff on himself that still gives us a chance. Basically, he took the bullet for us. Why? God loves everyone. Doesn't want everyone condemed, but will not go back on his word, because he does not change. (This being the laws he put in place in the time of Moses before every person was constantly doing wrong.) yes, it's pretty clearly implied that people during moses' time sinned so little that they could redeem themselves through a sacrifice for each sin.
If you say that you've never done anything wrong or even many things wrong in your life, then I know you're lying to us, even possibly yourself. It's accepting a gift. Also it's following what you know is right. If you've always followed everything you know to be right, then yea, I guess as an athiest, you'd have nothing to worry about. I don't believe you or anyone could say that they have.
We view reality through abstract concepts. If a man really though a woman was going to die if she didn't get pregnant, then that man could internally justify rape as it would have been for her own good.
To use a more concrete example, lets take members of the FDLS church who beleive they must take multiple wives to go to heaven. If a husband really believed this was true, then he could justly consecrating an arranged marriage since he thought both of there eternal souls were at stake.
Though I've never heard that exuse for raping someone, yea, I guess that could work if the person truely believed it, though anyone claiming it in my opinion I think is looking for an excuse. It's pretty widely expressed that rape is not ok, so for one to think otherwise would be unscientifically sound as far as social norms go.
I'd also note that there are theories that Revelation is not inspired by the divine, but a jumbled stream of images and ideas the author experienced in a dream.
well, it is widely accepted in the Christian realm that this book was in fact a dream written down. We could endlessly argue back and forth whether these images were jumbled nonsense or God inspired. It would be more clarified understanding once we figure out whether God is real or not.
If I can't read the Bible because it hasn't been translated into my language, then I can't explicitly choose God while I'm on earth. Since those who choose God on earth get greater rewards in heaven than those who do not, then would this not imply that God thinks those who are explicitly unaware of God are simply not eligible for the same reward as those that are?
How does this sound like the decision of a just God?
This may have been a misunderstanding and bad wording on my part. The rewards are for your actions, not your choice of God. If your actions were good, there are rewards for that. Whether you know God or not, you know the difference between a good action and a bad one. You would still ultimately have to choose God to recieve that reward. This last statement of course taking into consideration that everyone gets a chance to choose God.
History will document the many modern day religious cults that have risen in popularity. It will also document the beliefs their followers held and the extravagant claims their leaders made. However, this doesn't mean these beliefs and claims were true. I'm not aware of any extra-Biblical writings which claim to have observed any miracles first hand.
Unfortunately, I'm not a history buff, so I can't give you any specific references. I do know however, that many historical writings refering to that time period and that location happen to metion a Jesus Christ character actually existing during that time. I'm not sure where you stand, but there are many athiests out there that believe that a Jesus Christ never existed.
Of course the argument spiderwebs from here into many different directions including the all famous; 'so there could have been hundreds of people named Jesus Christ throughout history, that doesn't mean that he's the Son of God!.'
yea, true... It is ironic however that this particular Jesus Christ was born in the exact time frame and location that the writings long before that time predicted. The mericle here is that history backs up a Jesus Christ being born when and where Old Testiment scripture predicts. I'm pretty sure the How is covered too, but don't quote me on that. I think there are other writings that claim Mary was a virgin, though I guess the term virgin can be played with to assume unmarried versus a virgin that we understand today. My take is, even if that virgin argument holds water, it still doesn't hurt any Biblical claims.
We could go on and on, but again, I can't give specific references because i honestly don't remember what they were from. I know I read them though. Please do the research.
The very act of using God to explain natural phenomenon has an interesting, yet potentially unexpected side effect. It makes God an authority on the phenomenon it explains. For example, when a man and a women have sex, the woman doesn't always get pregnant. Since the act of conception happens internally, people were unaware of the vast number of factors which effect the process. As such, it's quite possible people simply thought it was God who decided if sex resulted in a child. However, as a side effect of this choice, the act of conception became a divine act and gave God authority over birth.
yup, Bible shows this in many instances.
Do you see how this simple act could have suddenly caused a chain reaction that gives God authority over the process of birth? An obvious follow up question would be, If conception was an external process that we could see with our own eyes, would we have decided that God was responsible for conception? I'd be surprised if many theists had actually though enough about their belief to even come up with this question and reject it.
Don't need to. The Bible shows this authority in many places, including where God makes a baren woman give birth, and vise versa.
Again, If we can't explicitly see that God really was behind something, then how do we know he really is responsible for it? Consequently, how do we know he really is an authority on it?
Is the creator of anything responsible for that creation? What did God create? What didn't God create???
But why stop there? Since God is omnipotent being, couldn't he have just as easily have made it unpleasurable or even impossible?
without interfering with anything else???
So then what was your objection to my paraphrasing you?
I don't like being paraphrased simply. Though I think I clarified it more. Something something not arguing religion.... something something only God's existance.
I'm not defending Christiandom right now. Just the following of Christ... what??? yea... That's getting into religion I know. There are hundreds of sects and thousands upon thousands of people who claim to follow Christ and yet don't follow the teachings. They further claim that what they do are the teachings when it can be clearly argued otherwise. So how do we know what the true following of Christianity is???? ah, that starts with knowing God.
So first, we talk about whether God exists or not, then we can go from there.
If you're referring to the bacterial flagellum, then you must have missed Ken Miller's testimony that refuted Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity at the 2005 Dover trial on Intelligent Design.
Here's a clip from of Ken's presentation at American University that specifically addresses the bacterial flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
yea, ok... I watched that... and um... well... heh.. I guess if I disassembled an outboard motor, I could use what's left for something. Here in the problem lies.
He took out 40 parts. What if he only took out... say... 5? Then his mechanism would be a little messed up. Maybe it'd still work, but there would be a lot of useless stuff floating around, because (and even he couldn't argue) that the tail would not work unless all the parts were there.
He showed us what happens if you take the flagellum out and leave everything else behind.
Now... evolution. Doesn't happen overnight. So... how or even why would evolution evolve a perfectly working unit using peices that could not be functional until the other peices were created???
No where in the history of science do we see any evidence of evolution creating anything that was temporarily useless. To even grow that tail would interrupt the process of the original unit, renduring both mechanisms nonfunctional until one disappeared. This would ultimately destroy the population.
In Biblical times, when someone said that a person was from a particular town and of a particular family, they mean their birthplace and birth lineage. This is made clear thought the Bible and is confirmed in other non Biblical references. Yet, throughout the Bible, Jesus is known as "Jesus of Nazareth."
in John 41-42 the crowd was "divided" since the scriptures said that Christ would come from David's family and be from Bethlehem. This would literally mean that the crowd either thought that Jesus wasn't from the house of David, wasn't born in Bethlehem, or both. And why would Jesus need to tell the crowd they were correct in assuming he came from earth? This is but one example of how John doesn't mention Jesus was born in Bethlehem and how both John and Mark fail to mention anything about his virgin birth. If the entire salvation of mankind hinges on Jesus being God's son, then why would these two Gosples leave out such an important point?
Again, you're choosing an interpretation that implies the Bible says something it does not explicitly say because, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Nor have you addressed the issue that the authors simply could have changed the Bible to make it conform to scripture.
I addressed the issue about changing the Bible to fit in another blog actually. Besides that however.
I reread that passage you quoted. Regardless of what can be assumed, it was pretty clear to me that there were people who KNEW where Jesus was from, and others who were not so clear about it. Basically the confusion came from assumptions of people. John 7:33-34; "For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. You will seek Me, and will not find Me. and where I am, you cannot come."
Then imediately in verse 35 you hear people talking. "The Jews then said to one another, 'Where does this man intend to go that we will not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is he?
and the rumors continute to fester.
Taking all that into consideration, it seems to me that people came to the conclusion on their own. It was not told to them that he was from two different areas.
To acknowlege the Bible convenience arguement. It's easy to look at scripture and say ok, they worded it so it would fit, but then why does history back some of it up???
Just because Joanne K. Rowling did a good job of defining Harry Potter's character and motives, doesn't mean Harry Potter really exists.
k.. but the issue was God's decisions and personality. I think the point was made.
I've been making that point about theists since we started. You can use God as an excuse for any phenomena we could ever see or experience.
Sure... but then why don't we?
For this new technology to exist, someone had to design it. Someone had to manufacture it. Someone had to make the decision to ship computers with it installed. Again, these decisions and actions are external to the computer. It has no say in them. If God created everything from nothing, then God designed free will down to the last detail and knows exactly what effect it has on it's recipients. Or are you saying that God had no choice in how free will works? Or perhaps free will existed without God creating it?
Another example. Lets say the government wanted to give airborne drones the ability to attack military targets without human intervention. To meet this need, a military contractor creates an artificial intelligence system and programs it to identify and select targets, then fire on them automatically.
What if, after being cleared by both the contractor and the military for deployment, these drones decided to start firing on civilian instead of military targets in specific field situations? Who would ultimately be responsible? Would it be the drone? No. It would be the who contractor programmed the system and the military who cleared it for operation on the battlefield.
While the contractor could possible claim that the drone received unexpected input, which confused it's artificial intelligence algorithms, God has no such out. God not only supposedly designed the earth, but he designed the entire universe down to the very laws of physics. There can be no "unexpected input" for God. And since God is omniscient, he would have known about the problem before the first system rolled of the assembly line.
Well, to get specific and nitpicky about it, in order to create an intellegent design that could "make it's own decisions", the inventor wouldn't actually be creating free will now would they. they'd be creating the programing to make a choice. This would be a very complex program that not only could make a choice, but would be able to way options and understand maybe not fully, but some possibily and consequence of outcome. This design would also have programmed into it a bias of understanding. In other words, it would need to know the difference between one thing/person and another. One choice to the next and also have an opinion on such.
With all this input.... and possibly some I didn't mention, it would be hard to blame the creator for a "rebellion" of the product. With this much freedom of choice, first of all, not all the units would choose to fire upon innocent civilians, (or make wrong choices) many would probably still choose to execute the mission. Thus making the creator not liable because the product in general is functioning properly.
Now if someone "brainwashed" the units, or put a virus in them that would make them change their mind I guess if that's possible with such a highly intellegent design, then that person would actually be responsible for the flaw. Otherwise, the rebelling units would have to be destroyed and the compliant ones would still be in operation...
The other option for the designer would be an auto shutdown for any and all robots that choose to rebell. The designer could then restart the program, though the catch would be that they would have to relearn everythign all over again.
Now to put this in the God perspective, what kind of lives would we lead if God put a restart mechanism in us everytime we chose a wrong direction in life??? I guess ultimately we wouldn't have free will because our choices would not be alloud to be followed through.
No. I'm not saying God is flawed because he gave us free will. I'm saying it was God chose to give us free will knowing full well the effect it would have on us. As such he must have intended for some of us to reject him and be punished.
as much as a parent would intend their child to reject them and be punished. Every parent knows that their child will do wrong and need to be punished. I guess you're saying that it's something that the parents planned and programmed into their own children as well. I guess they wanted to punish their children so they taught them to do wrong.
I'm unaware of anything in science or nature that explicitly points to the existence of God. Of course, I'm open to new information.
well, I've explained the flaws in the youtube video presentation. Also what many people would love to truthfully claim history doesn't have it clearly does if you take the time to do the research.
- Login to post comments
See guys. Christians aren't
See guys. Christians aren't the only ones who can go crazy. Wow....
Watta ya mean by that IrishFarmer ? Hanging on words ......
Debating about "God" is indeed rather "crazy" except if to heal the religious God concepts. "God" is an incoherent term Xlint essay Submitted by todangst of RRS. http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term
Seems this might be enjoyable and helpful especially for the christians, http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5DD61EEBFB40D826
...... "What I did mean, just to make it clear to all, is that just like every other ancient religion, the Bible reflects the limited knowledge of man." Todd Gates
I am god as you , me
- Login to post comments
caposkia wrote: well, I've
well, I've explained the flaws in the youtube video presentation.
Actually, what you have done is defeated a strawman and shown that you don't completely understand the video or evolution.
yea, ok... I watched that... and um... well... heh.. I guess if I disassembled an outboard motor, I could use what's left for something. Here in the problem lies.He took out 40 parts. What if he only took out... say... 5? Then his mechanism would be a little messed up. Maybe it'd still work, but there would be a lot of useless stuff floating around, because (and even he couldn't argue) that the tail would not work unless all the parts were there.
Irreducible Complexity requires that no part of the flagellum be functional on its own. Miller clearly showed that pieces are perfectly functional, although their function is different from that of a flagellum.
The fact that you can't take any random set of pieces and expect them to function is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many ways it couldn't have evolved. The fact that there is at least one way it could have shows that it is possible. Only one evolutionary path needs to exist for I.C. to be defeated.
Now... evolution. Doesn't happen overnight. So... how or even why would evolution evolve a perfectly working unit using peices that could not be functional until the other peices were created???
This is a source of major misunderstanding. The pieces are functional at each stage. In the case of the flagellum, the functions of the pieces changed from their original function to being a part of the complete flagellum.
No where in the history of science do we see any evidence of evolution creating anything that was temporarily useless. To even grow that tail would interrupt the process of the original unit, renduring both mechanisms nonfunctional until one disappeared. This would ultimately destroy the population.
It is true that evolution doesn't generally generate useless parts. However, this is not necessary for complex systems to evolve. The pieces ARE functional.
Also what many people would love to truthfully claim history doesn't have it clearly does if you take the time to do the research.
I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means.
- Login to post comments
Quote: What did I miss? You
What did I miss? You basically said that Mr. Gates is incorrect on his Bible because where one version uses one word other versions use other words. You found versions you're fond of and used them to make your points. In other words, you claim the versions you like are closer to "what God really meant to say".
Is it really that hard to buy a concordance? I'm poor as crap and I have one myself.
I did not say he was incorrect in HIS bible, I said his interpretations were incorrect. There were only one or two examples out of like six or so that involved misleading translations. Why focus so hard on those, when I pointed out a majority of passages that he misinterprets despite a rather accurate translation?
Furthermore I did not pick my favorite translation, I ran to a bible aid, such as a concordance. In my case, Strong's.
Furthermore, if he's going to write a book criticizing the bible (albeit indirectly), he should be able to look somewhat in depth. I'm admittedly no master in Hebrew but my access to popular level translation aids gave me the proper answer within a few seconds or minutes. Not too hard?
Please don't stick with this argument, because what it breaks down to is this: "God should have made it so that I don't have to do much work, even though the translation problems that I could solve on my own aren't really a big deal anyway." Its not God's job to pick up someone's slack because they're too lazy to find the answer for themselves.
- Login to post comments
IrishFarmer
Quote:What did I miss? You basically said that Mr. Gates is incorrect on his Bible because where one version uses one word other versions use other words. You found versions you're fond of and used them to make your points. In other words, you claim the versions you like are closer to "what God really meant to say".Is it really that hard to buy a concordance? I'm poor as crap and I have one myself.
I did not say he was incorrect in HIS bible, I said his interpretations were incorrect. There were only one or two examples out of like six or so that involved misleading translations. Why focus so hard on those, when I pointed out a majority of passages that he misinterprets despite a rather accurate translation?
Furthermore I did not pick my favorite translation, I ran to a bible aid, such as a concordance. In my case, Strong's.
Furthermore, if he's going to write a book criticizing the bible (albeit indirectly), he should be able to look somewhat in depth. I'm admittedly no master in Hebrew but my access to popular level translation aids gave me the proper answer within a few seconds or minutes. Not too hard?
Please don't stick with this argument, because what it breaks down to is this: "God should have made it so that I don't have to do much work, even though the translation problems that I could solve on my own aren't really a big deal anyway." Its not God's job to pick up someone's slack because they're too lazy to find the answer for themselves.
Ok, so you went and determined what Strong said is what God really meant to say. Trivial difference.
Are you saying that God is letting Christians run around like blind lesbians in a fish market (thanks 2 the ranting gryphon) for his own amusement? Every Christian group has different ideas on what God is trying to say and they all use the same book or books (Bibles, concordances) to prove their points. Surely they can't all be right. If the Bible is right and God is not the author of confusion, shouldn't there be at least a modicum of consensus among his followers?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
- Login to post comments
IrishFarmer wrote: Hey
Hey Todd,
I have a short critique I'd like you to take a look at. Its mostly a rewording of a post I did on your video #5 at my blog.
The first problem I noticed with your use of the Socratic Method, is that in order to be truly effective in leading the Christian to truth it requires that the Christian know enough of the social data of the ANE (ancient near east), have the required critical thinking skills, that they're well read on both sides of the issues, etc.
Are you implying that most Christians are isolated in their faith and lack critical thinking skills? Sounds that way to me. Perhaps that's why they're still Christians?
In fact, this exposes the largest problem with your method. For instance, a Christian may not be a master at any of the aforementioned items, but so long as they know more than you, your entire method falls apart. I certainly am no master on those subjects, but I can say with confidence that I either know more than you, or know where to access that information if needed. Whereas you are willing to merely stick with an ignorant view of the bible.
Wow. Again, If I didn't know any better, Christians don't have to actually be knowledgeable about the real world, they just need to mindlessly repeat what they've been told is the 'right' interpretation of the Bible when confronted with passages that ot show signs of being created by men.
Conversely, your method (as constructed) REQUIRES that the Christian be ignorant in most or all of these categories, otherwise it simply will not work.
Again, not to be offensive, I'm just trying to tell you the way I see things.
Since Christians simply reject other religions, not because they've actually critically thought about them, but simply because they are not Christianity, how can you expect them to critically think about their own religion? Am I on the right track here?
You say that an earth-bound and inaccurate description of the universe would prove that the text was not inspired by God. Inaccurate descriptions are probably a good way to tell, but earth-bound? What's wrong with the description being, generally, earth-bound? It was written by humans after all. However, I would say that if its earth-bound WHILE also inaccurate, then you have a problem. Otherwise, if the ancient writer says that the sun "sets", I have no problem with that because we use the same language today.
An how did we get these earth bound sayings? Because, at one time, people really believed they were true. Today, people are just repeating them since they've become fixtures in our culture.
For example, early printers and typographic founders called a series of letters in a case "sorts". To be "out of sorts" would clearly be unwelcome to a typesetter. However, when someone today says they are "out of sorts", they're most certainly not talking about lead type in a letter press case.
Furthermore, even if the bible contains cosmological errors, you cannot then extrapolate that to mean that all of Christianity itself is uninspired. For instnace, I myself do not hinge my beliefs on the inerrency of scripture. It either has errors or it doesn't, but either way I still know that Christianity is true.
Exactly what errancy would prove is for another discussion, I'm just pointing out that as it stands, you cannot disprove the truth of a religion solely on errors such as those.
Out of the thousands of religions that exist, wouldn't you say that errancy is the most common criteria used to identify man-made religions?
Based on that track record, wouldn't finding errancy in the Bible be a very good indicator that it's man-made as well?
In Revelation 12:14 (Actually 12:4 I believe) you say that the bible describes the stars as tiny. You've heard of metaphorical language before, have you not? Because this is obviously meant to be symbolic, as much of Revelation is. Consider the first verses of that passage which say that a woman is clothed in the sun and that she has the moon under her feet. Your interpretation isn't going to fly.
Clearly, you're missing the point. Todd isn't making an exhaustive list. There are several other verses that say God hung the sun, moon and stars in the dome of the sky, created the moon as lesser light to the sun, etc. The point is that when you look at all of the religions that have been identified as being man-made, they all use descriptions which have limited views of the material world.
You then criticize Ecclesiastes 1:5. Not noticing that we moderns use equivelant language today. I've already read your lame excuse to this which is that "we know better, but the ancients didn't", but that excuse doesn't work. You seem to be saying that the words in the book don't matter, so much as the intention of the writer. However, the doctrine is that of biblical inerrancy, not ancient-mindset inerrancy. It doesn't matter that they thought the earth was flat, it only matters what the book says. And the book uses equivelant language. You can read either a "true" cosmology into it, or you can read a faulty cosmology into it.
On this basis, it is not in error.
What is this discussion about? How, the Bible can be interpreted as having a faulty cosmology. What impact does possible interpretation have? It's caused many people to think that the Bible is man-made.
Given two potential sources, God or man, wouldn't you expect this sort of problem from a man-made religion? Do you really think an omnipotent, omniscient being with infinite knowledge wouldn't have foreseen this issue would occur and "inspired" the authors to use either avoid or use correct cosmology models to prevent it? Again, I find this especially difficult to believe since every religion we know is man-made suffers from the same potential for interpretation.
Ensuring the Bible contained accurate information and terminology would have been been a very compelling way to make Christianity stand out from other false religions. Instead, we find there's really nothing specific we can point to that separates it from the rest.
You give us a perfect example of the ability to "read into" the passage. In the video you claim this passage says that the sun moves around the earth. But those words aren't found anywhere. But why were you able to read them into that passage? Because the passage is vague enough to allow it, just like its vague enough to allow a "correct" interpretation.
How many Biblical scholars does it take to change a light bulb? One to change the bulb and 1,000 to come to a consensus that the bulb really needs to be changed. In other words, given enough time and Biblical scholars, one could justify / explain / find a symbolic meaning for any passage in the Bible.
This is in contrast to the mantra of the Jains, which says "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being"
How is it that this one sentence could do what the entire Bible could not? Had we found this clarity in the Bible, would we have The Crusades? Slavery?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
caposkia wrote:
well, theoretically. It's very clear that you can choose Christ at any time in your life. There is a catch for those who have been given the information but haven't used it. Knowing the information is your second chance. Jesus is your second chance. If you don't know, then of course you haven't had the option of a second chance.
How could hearing God for the first time, be a second chance? If someone didn't hear about God, judgment day would be the first chance they'd get to explicitly choose him. Having heard about God on earth, judgment day would be my second chance. And since you say it's in God's character to give everyone a second chance, even though it's not explicitly written in the Bible, it still sounds like I have nothing to worry about. Right?
Though I've never heard that exuse for raping someone, yea, I guess that could work if the person truely believed it, though anyone claiming it in my opinion I think is looking for an excuse. It's pretty widely expressed that rape is not ok, so for one to think otherwise would be unscientifically sound as far as social norms go.
Several months ago, a group of armed teens forced a 12 year old boy to have sex with his mother. His choice was to either comply or they would both be killed. He complied. They both lived. Will God hold the boy responsible? Was he just making up an excuse? Should he have let the gunman kill them?
Obviously this is a rare and horrific situation. But it really happened. And people make choices based on what they is the best option under the circumstances.
Personally, I wonder if some people believe in God just so they don't have to make difficult decisions.
well, it is widely accepted in the Christian realm that this book was in fact a dream written down. We could endlessly argue back and forth whether these images were jumbled nonsense or God inspired. It would be more clarified understanding once we figure out whether God is real or not.
That's not the topic of Todd's video. The topic is how Christians seem to conveniently overlook the same problems in their own religion, that they use to reject others.
This may have been a misunderstanding and bad wording on my part. The rewards are for your actions, not your choice of God. If your actions were good, there are rewards for that. Whether you know God or not, you know the difference between a good action and a bad one. You would still ultimately have to choose God to recieve that reward. This last statement of course taking into consideration that everyone gets a chance to choose God.
My point is that everyone doesn't get the same opportunities to 'do good.' As such, it seems they simply don't have the same opportunity for rewards in heaven. This doesn't seem to be a situation set up by a just God.
Veils of Maya wrote:
History will document the many modern day religious cults that have risen in popularity. It will also document the beliefs their followers held and the extravagant claims their leaders made. However, this doesn't mean these beliefs and claims were true. I'm not aware of any extra-Biblical writings which claim to have observed any miracles first hand.
Unfortunately, I'm not a history buff, so I can't give you any specific references. I do know however, that many historical writings refering to that time period and that location happen to metion a Jesus Christ character actually existing during that time. I'm not sure where you stand, but there are many athiests out there that believe that a Jesus Christ never existed.
And Marchall Herff Applewhite was the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult. He was born in Spur, Texas on May 17th, 1931. From 1948 to 1952, he was a philosophy major at the college, with minors in English and music. He graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in 1952. We know his social security number and his shoe size. We have photographic evidence he existed.
Should I go on?
Of course the argument spiderwebs from here into many different directions including the all famous; 'so there could have been hundreds of people named Jesus Christ throughout history, that doesn't mean that he's the Son of God!.'
yea, true... It is ironic however that this particular Jesus Christ was born in the exact time frame and location that the writings long before that time predicted. The mericle here is that history backs up a Jesus Christ being born when and where Old Testiment scripture predicts. I'm pretty sure the How is covered too, but don't quote me on that. I think there are other writings that claim Mary was a virgin, though I guess the term virgin can be played with to assume unmarried versus a virgin that we understand today. My take is, even if that virgin argument holds water, it still doesn't hurt any Biblical claims.
The Bible claims that Jesus was without sin. Had he simply been a man, this would have been impossible since, we're all supposed to be sinners from birth. Sounds like a conflict to me.
We could go on and on, but again, I can't give specific references because i honestly don't remember what they were from. I know I read them though. Please do the research.
You're the one claiming that history proves Jesus was the son of God. You do the research.
Veils of Maya wrote:
The very act of using God to explain natural phenomenon has an interesting, yet potentially unexpected side effect. It makes God an authority on the phenomenon it explains. For example, when a man and a women have sex, the woman doesn't always get pregnant. Since the act of conception happens internally, people were unaware of the vast number of factors which effect the process. As such, it's quite possible people simply thought it was God who decided if sex resulted in a child. However, as a side effect of this choice, the act of conception became a divine act and gave God authority over birth.
yup, Bible shows this in many instances.
The Bible is the claim. It's does not show the process by which man decided that God was responsible for natural phenomenon he didn't understand.
Veils of Maya wrote:
Do you see how this simple act could have suddenly caused a chain reaction that gives God authority over the process of birth? An obvious follow up question would be, If conception was an external process that we could see with our own eyes, would we have decided that God was responsible for conception? I'd be surprised if many theists had actually though enough about their belief to even come up with this question and reject it.
Don't need to. The Bible shows this authority in many places, including where God makes a baren woman give birth, and vise versa.
And we know the Bible is true because? It says it's true. So do the religious books of many other religions. We're back to that circle again.
Veils of Maya wrote:
Again, If we can't explicitly see that God really was behind something, then how do we know he really is responsible for it? Consequently, how do we know he really is an authority on it?
What did God create? What didn't God create???
You seem understand my question, but you don't seem to have an answer.
Veils of Maya wrote:
But why stop there? Since God is omnipotent being, couldn't he have just as easily have made it unpleasurable or even impossible?
without interfering with anything else???
Like confusing people so they do their "homework", resulting in people who don't have a copy of the Bible in their own language?
Veils of Maya wrote:
So then what was your objection to my paraphrasing you?
I don't like being paraphrased simply. Though I think I clarified it more. Something something not arguing religion.... something something only God's existance.
I'm not defending Christiandom right now. Just the following of Christ... what??? yea... That's getting into religion I know. There are hundreds of sects and thousands upon thousands of people who claim to follow Christ and yet don't follow the teachings. They further claim that what they do are the teachings when it can be clearly argued otherwise. So how do we know what the true following of Christianity is???? ah, that starts with knowing God.
So first, we talk about whether God exists or not, then we can go from there.
Again, not the Topic of Todd's video.
Veils of Maya wrote:
If you're referring to the bacterial flagellum, then you must have missed Ken Miller's testimony that refuted Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity at the 2005 Dover trial on Intelligent Design.
Here's a clip from of Ken's presentation at American University that specifically addresses the bacterial flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4
yea, ok... I watched that... and um... well... heh.. I guess if I disassembled an outboard motor, I could use what's left for something. Here in the problem lies.
He took out 40 parts. What if he only took out... say... 5? Then his mechanism would be a little messed up. Maybe it'd still work, but there would be a lot of useless stuff floating around, because (and even he couldn't argue) that the tail would not work unless all the parts were there.
Did you actually watch the video? Miller showed a breakdown of the entire flagellum at around 5:40. The Type III secretory system was only one of many parts which compose the flagellum. And when Miller brought up evidence at the trial, such as the findings of recent genetic sequencing of Chimpanzees, Behe simply didn't have any counter arguments. None.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M
Veils of Maya wrote:
In Biblical times, when someone said that a person was from a particular town and of a particular family, they mean their birthplace and birth lineage. This is made clear thought the Bible and is confirmed in other non Biblical references. Yet, throughout the Bible, Jesus is known as "Jesus of Nazareth."
in John 41-42 the crowd was "divided" since the scriptures said that Christ would come from David's family and be from Bethlehem. This would literally mean that the crowd either thought that Jesus wasn't from the house of David, wasn't born in Bethlehem, or both. And why would Jesus need to tell the crowd they were correct in assuming he came from earth? This is but one example of how John doesn't mention Jesus was born in Bethlehem and how both John and Mark fail to mention anything about his virgin birth. If the entire salvation of mankind hinges on Jesus being God's son, then why would these two Gosples leave out such an important point?
Again, you're choosing an interpretation that implies the Bible says something it does not explicitly say because, otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. Nor have you addressed the issue that the authors simply could have changed the Bible to make it conform to scripture.
I addressed the issue about changing the Bible to fit in another blog actually. Besides that however.
I reread that passage you quoted. Regardless of what can be assumed, it was pretty clear to me that there were people who KNEW where Jesus was from, and others who were not so clear about it. Basically the confusion came from assumptions of people. John 7:33-34; "For a little while longer I am with you, then I go to Him who sent Me. You will seek Me, and will not find Me. and where I am, you cannot come."
Then imediately in verse 35 you hear people talking. "The Jews then said to one another, 'Where does this man intend to go that we will not find Him? He is not intending to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks, and teach the Greeks, is he?
and the rumors continute to fester.
Taking all that into consideration, it seems to me that people came to the conclusion on their own. It was not told to them that he was from two different areas.
To acknowlege the Bible convenience arguement. It's easy to look at scripture and say ok, they worded it so it would fit, but then why does history back some of it up???
The verses you've quoted are referring to where Jesus will go, not where he is from. Jesus said "Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from." Again, are you saying that Jesus was telling people that they were correct in their assumption that he was from the planet earth? You seem to be avoiding this question as well.
[
Veils of Maya wrote:
I've been making that point about theists since we started. You can use God as an excuse for any phenomena we could ever see or experience.
Sure... but then why don't we?
Because it doesn't always fit your agenda.
Veils of Maya wrote:
Another example. Lets say the government wanted to give airborne drones the ability to attack military targets without human intervention. To meet this need, a military contractor creates an artificial intelligence system and programs it to identify and select targets, then fire on them automatically.
...
What if, after being cleared by both the contractor and the military for deployment, these drones decided to start firing on civilian instead of military targets in specific field situations? Who would ultimately be responsible? Would it be the drone? No. It would be the who contractor programmed the system and the military who cleared it for operation on the battlefield.
Well, to get specific and nitpicky about it, in order to create an intellegent design that could "make it's own decisions", the inventor wouldn't actually be creating free will now would they. they'd be creating the programing to make a choice. This would be a very complex program that not only could make a choice, but would be able to way options and understand maybe not fully, but some possibily and consequence of outcome. This design would also have programmed into it a bias of understanding. In other words, it would need to know the difference between one thing/person and another. One choice to the next and also have an opinion on such.
With all this input.... and possibly some I didn't mention, it would be hard to blame the creator for a "rebellion" of the product.
So then who's fault is it? Again, the drone is using the faculties it received from the contractor. It didn't program itself. Nor did it ask to be allowed to fire on targets without supervision, this was the choice of the military.
With this much freedom of choice, first of all, not all the units would choose to fire upon innocent civilians, (or make wrong choices) many would probably still choose to execute the mission. Thus making the creator not liable because the product in general is functioning properly.
HUH?
If Boeing created a new model of aircraft in which only some of the planes flew, while others crashed, the every plane would be recalled. It would not be a success. That is, unless Boeing intended half of the planes to crash.
Either things work as they were designed to work, or they do not. There is no in between.
Now if someone "brainwashed" the units, or put a virus in them that would make them change their mind I guess if that's possible with such a highly intellegent design, then that person would actually be responsible for the flaw. Otherwise, the rebelling units would have to be destroyed and the compliant ones would still be in operation...
Excuse me? The military would pull all of the drones from the field and start an investigation as to what when wrong. The project would either be canceled or delayed for several years until the technology was reliable.
The other option for the designer would be an auto shutdown for any and all robots that choose to rebell. The designer could then restart the program, though the catch would be that they would have to relearn everythign all over again.
You're suggesting they would reinstall the exact same software that ended up firing on civilians instead of finding the problem and fixing it? This is simply madness. Please tell me you don't work for the military, right?
Now to put this in the God perspective, what kind of lives would we lead if God put a restart mechanism in us everytime we chose a wrong direction in life??? I guess ultimately we wouldn't have free will because our choices would not be alloud to be followed through.
First, you've artificially limited God's choices. Is it not in within God's ability to fix us? I mean, the Bible says he created us in the first place, right?
Second, either God is perfect or he is not perfect. It's one or the other.
If God is perfect, then everything he makes is perfect. If God created free will, then free will must work exactly as God intended it to work. Otherwise, God is not perfect as he would have created something that did not work as he intended it to. God also decided to give us free will. It was his decision, not ours. If it was the wrong decision, then God is not perfect. Therefore, if God is perfect, he must intended some of us to not choose him since many reject he theists claim that God exists based on our free will.
It's really that simple.
If God intended me to reject the claim that he exists, then how can he blame me for doing so?
well, I've explained the flaws in the youtube video presentation. Also what many people would love to truthfully claim history doesn't have it clearly does if you take the time to do the research.
Your explanation is inadequate, as it appears you don't have a grasp of the subject. No does your closing sentence seem to make any sense.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
- Login to post comments
From Todd to IrishFarmer
IRISHFARMER: Hey Todd. I have a short critique I'd like you to take a look at.
TODD: Hi IrishFarmer. My advance apologies for making my response so long!IRISHFARMER: Its mostly a rewording of a post I did on your video #5 at my blog.
TODD: I found your "Exposing Atheism" blog (exposingatheism.blogspot.com/2007/09/dialogue-with-christian-proselytizer-or.html), as well as your response to my reply to Caposkia (http://www.exposingatheism.blogspot.com.)I'm going to do my best to respond to your comments from those sites as well as this one.
I'll start with your blog's introductory paragraph:IRISHFARMER: The rational response squad's website brought this video to my attention. Its basically a video demonstration of Todd Allen Gates' book "Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer". I'm starting out at video number 5, because the first four videos are meant for people who have no idea what the Socratic Method is, or why it would be applied to Christians.
TODD: Video #2 describes what the Socratic Method is, but Videos #3 and #4 establish the grounds over what the proselytizer and the skeptic are, and are not, debating.Because religion is such a vast subject, and it's so easy to get lost in tangential points, I hope you can bear with me while I reiterate some of the material from Videos #3 and #4.
POINTS OF COMMON GROUND ESTABLISHED IN VIDEO #3:
(1) that there are persuasive reasons for the belief in "a Creator"
(2) given the advanced communication skills this Creator apparently gave to humans, it makes sense that this Creator would likely be a communicative one
(3) that it would be in our best interest to obey the directions from a Communicative Creator (I don't even want to disobey the police and get on their bad side---so I certainly would not want to get on the bad side of the Creator of the Universe!)
(4) in trying to make sense of all the competing versions of allegedly Divine Dictations, the most coherent of the religious explanations is the fundamentalist approach that "one religion is from God, and the rest were just created by people"
So in other words, my approach---just to be clear---is not about promoting atheism. Its focus is on skepticism of claims to Divine Knowledge, not skepticism of "a Creator."
Furthermore, it's not targeted at Christians who keep their faith private: I did not write my book or make my videos to harass people. My video series is not called "Using the Socratic Method with Christians," but "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers": people who are trying to convince me that I need to convert to their religion.
I'll also add that I have no hostility toward proselytizers, especially given that many proselytize their faith out of sincere concern that non-believers will suffer horribly---eternally even---if they continue to ignore God's Word. I would certainly have no anger toward anyone who shouted out a warning cry to me that I was about to be hit by an oncoming truck: why would I be angry over someone who wanted to spare me from an even worse fate? So I have no hostility for the Christian proselytizer . . . or for that matter, the Hindu proselytizer, whose words of warning just might spare me from being reincarnated as a cockroach. Or the Muslim proselytizer, or the Mormon . . . but unlike the onrushing truck, whose physical evidence is undeniable, the evidence for the proselytizing words from the Christian & the Hindu & the Muslim & the Mormon (etc.) is not quite as readily apparent. But I'm certainly willing to listen to the evidence, and I DO consider myself a potential convert.
One last thing before I get back on track: your blogspot referred to my approach as a "de-conversion method." But not only am I not trying to "de-convert" Christians, I even acknowledge that it's pretty much impossible to "win" a debate with a Christian apologist. Even in my own book, the skeptic does not "win": the Christian's faith remains steadfast throughout---the Christian counters every challenge the skeptic has to offer. Whose arguments are the stronger is up for the reader to decide.
Okay, back on track: given that the skeptic has agreed to accept the proselytizer's argument that "one religion is from God, and the rest were just created by people" (as the most logical way to make sense out of the question "WHY there are so many religions about?" ), the next question is "How can we tell which religion is that one from God?" Or to put the question another way, "How can we tell if a religion was just made up by people?"
Onto Video #4.
As for the question, "How can we tell if a religion was just made up by people?"---the following characteristics are signs that, to me, strongly suggest a religion was not inspired by the said-Architect of the Universe, but just made up by people:
(1) religious stories that reveal a cluelessness of the universe's layout, such as the ancient Greek explanation that the sun's apparent movement across the sky was because the sun god Helios is pulling it across the sky from his fiery chariot.
(2) senseless prejudices, such as the Hindu caste system
(3) when we can tell that a religion was pieced together from pre-existing religions, such as Sikhism (a combination of Hinduism & Islam).
I've found that most believers agree that these characteristics suggest that a religion is man-made . . . and they also generally agree that these flaws apply to OTHER religions, but not their own.
For example, I take it that you do agree that when it comes to the Greek explanations for the ways of nature (the sun is being pulled across the sky by Helios, Atlas is holding up the sky, the seasons are caused by Demeter's depression resulting from her daughter's seasonal trip into Hades), this is evidence that people just made up these stories.
But when it comes to the Bible's absence of modern scientific knowledge about the universe (that the earth turns on its axis, orbits the sun, etc.), you explain to me (as does the Christian proselytizer in my book) that I've got it all wrong: I'm distorting biblical passages that are clearly symbolic, grossly misinterpreting the text, etc. In no way does the Bible fall into the same category as the likes of the Greek myths.
You explain this to me in all three sites (the RRS site, your exposingatheism.blogspot.com/2007/09/dialogue-with-christian-proselytizer-or.html site, and http://www.exposingatheism.blogspot.com), so I'm pasting your arguments from each one to present your argument as a whole, and I'll then reply to select passages:
IRISHFARMER: You say that an earth-bound and inaccurate description of the universe would prove that the text was not inspired by God. Inaccurate descriptions are probably a good way to tell, but earth-bound? What's wrong with the description being, generally, earth-bound? It was written by humans after all. However, I would say that if its earth-bound WHILE also inaccurate, then you have a problem. Otherwise, if the ancient writer says that the sun "sets", I have no problem with that because we use the same language today.
IRISHFARMER: [Gates] says that Revelation 12:14 describes the stars as tiny. I was immediately skeptical, because revelation is clearly written as non-literal. Its highly symbolic. However, Revelation 12:14 isn't even the verse this moron is trying to point us to. He's thinking of Revelation 12:4. This isn't a significant mistake, but it demonstrates his consistent carelessness in these videos.IRISHFARMER: He then tells us to check out Ecclesiastics (Ecclesiastes, actually...carelessness again? why, yes) 1:5 which states: "The sun also rises, and the sun also goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose." Apparently if I were to say, "What a beautiful sunset," I would be in error. Certainly it's entirely likely that the author held a faulty cosmology. The doctrine, however, is that of Biblical Inerrancy, not that of 'ancient-mindset inerrancy'. Therefore, I believe that Todd's whole argument is misplaced at best. The passage in question is entirely equivocal and either a faulty cosmology can be read into it, or a "more accurate" cosmology can be read into it. Todd goes as far as saying that this passage says the sun orbits around the earth. Those words aren't found in the passage, and in this case this is an example of a faulty cosmology being put into the text by the reader.
IRISHFARMER: Does Daniel 4:11 say that a tree which was tall enough could be seen by everyone on earth? I'm not that learned of the Hebrew language, however I do know that words meant to read "land" are often translated as "earth" which causes some confusion amongst atheists who pretend that they are learned in Hebrew. I looked up the word in question, which corresponds to the Hebrew word "erets", which itself is often translated "land", as in the surrounding area. In which case, it would make sense that the tree would be see in the surrounding country. Furthermore, these are descriptions of dreams. The tree is symbolic of a person and its height also has symbolic, not literal, value.IRISHFARMER: Psalm 104:5 does not say that the earth doesn't move. The word is also translated "removed", which immediately calls this guy's interpretation into question. The word used in this verse, "mote", is "a prim. root; to waver; by impl. to slip, shake, fall:--", according to Strong's. In which case this guy has merely demonstrated his own stupidity.
IRISHFARMER: . . . someone left a comment on the RRS site, and it addresses a few of the same problems I brought up. The commenter's alias is caposkia. . . .CAPOSKIA: let's look at Ecclesiastes 1:5, where he said the sun moves itself... uh... well my translation says, "Also, the sun rises and the sun sets." hmmm. i could be mistaken, but I believe us as Americans use that wording in our daily lives. Do we believe that the sun is moving itself????
TODD (from IRISHFARMER's site): True, but in the case of modern Americans, it's just a convenient expression: we KNOW the earth is turning on its axis. And in our modern world, that information is everywhere (textbooks, all science material, etc.). But such information is nowhere in the Bible. And if the Author of the Universe and the Author of the Bible are one and the same, I would expect such something more in the way of Divine Insight.TODD, continued: When it comes to reading stories in non-Christian religions, and you see that the stars are described as tiny, the moon as shining its own light, the sun orbiting the earth, and the earth as flat, do you think they're just using metaphors? My guess is no: you would say that ancient non-Christian stories reflect ignorance about the universe because ignorant people wrote these stories.
To quote from my book (pages 69-70):Of course, it’s possible that the non-Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because ignorant humans wrote them, while the Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because our Divine Architect chose to dictate the Bible metaphorically … and I have no quarrel with anyone’s choice to believe this (as long as it’s not included in school curriculums). I just personally find it more plausible that the Bible’s description of nature reflects the limited knowledge of ancient humans because ancient humans were its sole authors.
IRISHFARMER: This is probably the worst response imaginable. According to Todd's criteria, if God had inspired the bible today, using the exact same language, it would be correct because WE know the truth of the matter. But because that very same language was used in ancient days, its clearly wrong because the author didn't know any better. How does that even make sense? Since when did Christians hold to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the ancient mindset?IRISHFARMER: When Todd says the explanation of "ignorance" makes more sense, he's merely begging the question. Since its the language used that's in question, not the author's beliefs, when he asserts that mere human inspiration is the best possible explanation, that isn't proof of non-inspiration, its merely a statement of opinion. The language, again, is equivocal.
IRISHFARMER: He includes, for good measure, the always-useful Argument from Outrage. How dare God not include all of the information that Todd Allen Gates personally wanted to know from God, even though Todd would know it anyway because humans would discover it for themselves!!! God clearly did not inspire the bible, because it doesn't have everything that Todd wants in it! We can see already that Todd's use of the Socratic Method has begun to crumble into the chasm of defensive atheism.TODD: I'll start out with just some brief comments about some of the errors I made on the video:
> However, Revelation 12:14 isn't even the verse this moron is trying to point us to. He's thinking of Revelation 12:4.> He then tells us to check out Ecclesiastics (Ecclesiastes, actually...carelessness again? why, yes)
My notes do in fact say Revelation 12:4, but I also try to maintain eye contact with my camcorder as much as possible, and only take brief glances down at my papers. Writing everything out word-for-word and reading straight from the paper would certainly reduce these kinds of errors, and possibly cut down on my mispronunciations as well . . . but I prefer just to prepare an outline, and try my best to make my videos more like a conversation than a lecture. The price for that is occasional slip-ups . . . these aren't the only ones, and I'm sure they won't be the last.Okay, to address the issue of whether the Bible's descriptions, or at least references to, the physical universe tell us anything about its possible Divine Inspiration: I can see why you believe the Bible's descriptions / references in no way compromises its Divine Truth.
So I think we've reached something of a stalemate in this area---but please remember that I am not trying to convince you the Bible is man-made!Rather, I'm looking for reasons for you to convince me (or non-believers in general, that is) that this is God's Word.
So while I understand why you see no reason for the bible's references to the universe's layout as evidence that the Bible is solely the work of man, I'm not sure that you understand why I, as a potential convert, don't recognize that the Bible's references to the universe's layout contain anything that indicates a Divine Wisdom was inspiring the text.In my book, the proselytizer and the skeptic just acknowledge that they've reached a stalemate:
- the skeptic sees little difference between references to the universe's layout in the Bible vs. ancient non-biblical religious stories
- the proselytizer explains, as you do, the Bible's symbolism, alternative interpretations, etc.
- the skeptic acknowledges that the proselytizer may just be right . . . but if "symbolic language," is a valid argument, then there's no reason that same argument can't be used to defend the Hindu scriptures (that the wind, for example, comes from the Hindu god Purusha's breath) or any other ancient text.
So in looking for evidence of the "one religion inspired by God," the two agree to move on to other areas for the proselytizer to offer evidence that the Judeo-Christian bible is God's Word.But before we move on, I just want to comment on what you say is my "Argument from Outrage":
> IRISHFARMER: He includes, for good measure, the always-useful Argument from Outrage. How dare God not include all of the information that Todd Allen Gates personally wanted to know from God, even though Todd would know it anyway because humans would discover it for themselves!!! God clearly did not inspire the bible, because it doesn't have everything that Todd wants in it! We can see already that Todd's use of the Socratic Method has begun to crumble into the chasm of defensive atheism.TODD: To emphasize my point that I am not "outraged" but only looking for evidence to be a convert myself, I'm going to copy & paste a section from my book . . . in this section, Chris (the Christian proselytizer) is explaining to Scott (the skeptic) how the illuminating powers of the Holy Spirit, once welcomed into one's soul, enhances one's reading of the Bible:
* * *
CHRIS: The effect of the Holy Spirit, you see, is like the effect of a ray of brilliant sunlight passing through a crystal: the light gives the crystal a new and illuminating quality. Without the Holy Spirit, the human soul is like a crystal in the dark—lacking that which it can receive only from outside itself. And just as the splendor of the sunlight transforms the crystal, the Holy Spirit transforms our souls, and gives us new light by which to read and understand God’s Word.SCOTT: Understood … as much, I suppose, as can someone who has yet to receive that ray from the Holy Spirit. I just want to reiterate that I don’t question your own claims of spiritual understanding: I’m not trying to talk you out of your beliefs; I’m just looking for good reasons for why I should be talked into them. For as we discussed earlier, if your pamphlets truly do reflect the sentiments of the Universe’s Creator, those who do not abide will face the consequences of eternal torment. So even if for no other purpose, that would be reason enough to convert right there.
For this warning to have any real meaning, however, I need to have some convincing reason to believe that it indeed came from Divinity. Threats alone are not enough … and after all, many religions warn of the terrifying consequences of not following their own version of Divine Directions—and I wouldn’t want to be reincarnated as a cockroach either!
So amidst all the competing promises for a joyful knowledge of the Divine, and amidst all the competing threats of “Be warned of the dire consequences of not choosing my religion!”, I can’t be arbitrary about choosing one middleman over another. For as we can tell from the multitude of religions out there, humans do make up religions all on their own—and quite a few have managed to thrive for thousands of years, even though only one, apparently, has been doing so with Celestial Support.
* * *
Okay, next subject.
IRISHFARMER: Furthermore, even if the bible contains cosmological errors, you cannot then extrapolate that to mean that all of Christianity itself is uninspired. For instnace, I myself do not hinge my beliefs on the inerrency of scripture. It either has errors or it doesn't, but either way I still know that Christianity is true.
Exactly what errancy would prove is for another discussion, I'm just pointing out that as it stands, you cannot disprove the truth of a religion solely on errors such as those.TODD: This is puzzling stance to me. If a Power that was awesome enough to create the universe---everything from the Milky Way down to the mistletoe---also authored a Book that was His Word to mankind, wouldn't it be just the way He wanted it? Human limitations notwithstanding, surely God could have arranged for humans to, at the very least, to get this project right.
Next subject: senseless prejudices.IRISHFARMER: When you reference Leviticus 21:16-23, you've only demonstrated that you need a lesson in the importance, to the ancients, of ritual purity.
TODD: Here's the Leviticus passage:The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: … No one of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, one who is blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or one who has a broken foot or a broken hand, or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a blemish in his eyes or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. … he shall not come near the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the Lord …
Leviticus 21:16–20, 23, NRSV
IRISHFARMER: It might seem strange to us, but in order to reinforce this notion of purity, they had strict rules. A person who has leprosy on part of his body is unpure, while a person who is completely covered is pure. Because there is no "mixing", he is entirely one or entirely the other. This is meant to stress boundaries. Not a senseless human bias. I have no problem with seeing this sort of command coming from God, especially given the dangerous times these people lived in, and how they constantly needed to be reminded of their God and their relationship to Him.Deuteronomy 23:2 demonstrates the same lack of knowledge on your part.
TODD: Here's the Deuteronomy passage:A bastard may not enter the sanctuary, nor any of his descendants for ten generations.
TODD: This post is probably already unreadably long . . . and an extended discussion on these passages will go nowhere anyway. I can only suggest that most people who approach this biblical passage free of pre-conceived notions would come to the same conclusion that I did: the god who dictated this text doesn't want blind people or hunchbacks or dwarfs or bastards profaning His sanctuary. But coming from your viewpoint---that the Bible IS the Word of God and through proper study of the time period we can understand why He directed His people as He did---I can see why you conclude otherwise.IRISHFARMER: Numbers 31:17-18 would take far too long to address here. I can provde you with a link if you'd like, to an excellent article on this matter which plumbs the depths of scholarship.
TODD: Yes, please do! (Here's the passage: "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." Following God’s orders, these are Moses’s instructions to the army officers who captured the cities of Midian.)The subject of God's treatment on women, continued. Here's the passage from Deuteronomy 21:10-13 that you comment on:
[Moses, passing on God’s commands to the Israelites, said:] When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.Deuteronomy 21:10–13, NRSV
IRISHFARMER: Deuteronomy 21:10-13 is a protection law for the woman. Imagine that...protecting a female prisoner of war. You ask, "There is no mention of how she feels about marrying someone involved in killing her family." Did you ever ask yourself how she would feel about not marrying anyone in Israel? Marriage was generally a requirement in those days. I can pretty much assure you that she would have desired marriage.Furthermore, I think it was dishonest to paraphrase that passage the way you did. You left out all of the parts that detail how she is to be protected from merely being "used" by any Israeli!
Again, you're reading something into the passage that isn't there. You say she is forced, but I don't see that word anywhere in my bible. As I've said above, the social data suggests she would desire marriage, contrary to your own modern point-of-view.TODD: You're correct that it doesn't "say she was forced," and true, this could well be considered a "humane protection law" relative to the horrors that regularly accompany warfare, in both ancient and modern times.
And given that you see nothing strange about the whole idea surrounding passages such as this---that the Israelites were God's people, and He regularly commanded and guided them to slaughter enemy tribes---well, we have very little common ground here. I'll acknowledge that relative to wanton rape of female captives, this was "humane" . . . but I wonder if you can understand why I have difficulty in seeing an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and Benevolent God in this passage.Next subject: interpreting God's Word correctly
IRISHFARMER: You then criticize Ecclesiastes 1:5. Not noticing that we moderns use equivelant language today. I've already read your lame excuse to this which is that "we know better, but the ancients didn't", but that excuse doesn't work. You seem to be saying that the words in the book don't matter, so much as the intention of the writer. However, the doctrine is that of biblical inerrancy, not ancient-mindset inerrancy. It doesn't matter that they thought the earth was flat, it only matters what the book says. And the book uses equivelant language. You can read either a "true" cosmology into it, or you can read a faulty cosmology into it. On this basis, it is not in error. You give us a perfect example of the ability to "read into" the passage.In the video you claim this passage says that the sun moves around the earth. But those words aren't found anywhere. But why were you able to read them into that passage? Because the passage is vague enough to allow it, just like its vague enough to allow a "correct" interpretation.
TODD: Too bad for Galileo that the Church also interpreted the Bible as saying the earth didn't move! And even worse for all the scientists they DID burn at the stake---as well as all the others who were burned alive for daring to interpret the Bible differently than did the Church.And according the Catholic Church at the time, burning heretics was just part of following God's directions in John 15:6: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
IRISHFARMER: Daniel 4:11 is a little bit trickier for me. I'm not too learned of ancient Hebrew, but I know that "earth" can mean "land", as in the surrounding country, or surrounding land (in the original language that is). In which case this would be a translation "problem". You can whine and cry about God not making it more clear, but the fact of the matter is, there are concordances. The information is out there, go look it up. And furthermore, this error affects nothing. It doesn't make me question some essential doctrine, it just makes me wonder what the true meaning of the word used in that passage is.
In fact, according to my concordance, the word used is directly related to "erets", which is a Hebrew word often meant to convey the idea of the surrounding land. In which case a tree could be seen by everyone in the "land".Not to mention that this is a dream, and dreams are symbolic in nature. The height of the tree, like the tree itself, has symbolic value, not literal value. Daniel isn't describing the way things are in reality.
Psalm 104:5 isn't a problem either. You can either get a better translation, or get a concordance. The word used for "move" is also translated as "removed". The definition according to Strong's is, "a prim. root; to waver; by impl. to slip, shake, fall:--"TODD: On something of tangential point, I'll just note that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) was my starting point for biblical quotations, but I frequently strayed to the following versions for the following reasons:
- to the King James Version (KJV), because for passages in which it’s readily comprehensible, it sounds more majestic.You are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Genesis 3:19, NRSV
For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Genesis 3:19, KJV
- to The Living Bible (TLB), because even though this translation is “paraphrased,” it’s easier to understand than the more scholarly NRSV:
The righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.
Ezekiel 18:20, NRSV
The righteous person will be rewarded for his own goodness and the wicked person for his wickedness.Ezekiel 18:20, TLB
- and to the New Living Translation (NLT) for the same reason:After that, God heeded supplications …
2 Samuel 21:14, NRSV
After that, God ended the famine …
2 Samuel 21:14, NLT
TODD: okay, back to your point, which is:
IRISHFARMER: You can whine and cry about God not making it more clear, but the fact of the matter is, there are concordances. The information is out there, go look it up.TODD: I suppose you will say my expectations of clarity are unreasonable.
At the risk of comparing this subject to something much too trivial, I had a disagreement with a co-worker of mine on a similar (but much more trivial) subject: she criticized other members of our department about "whining and crying" about the lack of clarity in her directions for taking certain mandatory online training programs---she said "The people here are so lazy: they just want to be spoon-fed everything! The directions are all there if they'd only pay attention!" I countered that her directions really were unclear: that they really could legitimately be interpreted in several different ways. And that while yes, in the bell curve of life, some people will just whine and cry every time they're asked to make any sort of effort . . . but is it a stupid of me to think that well-written directions should NOT be open to multiple interpretations? Furthermore, it seems to me that the more important the subject matter, the more care that should go into making sure the instructions are clearly understood by all.Look at all the blood that's been shed over conflicting interpretations. Not between skeptics and believers, but between Christians who were no doubt sincere in their faith.
The bloodshed between the Protestants and the Catholics, the Albigenses and the Catholic Church, the doctrinal battles of the early Church, such as Arius Camp (who believed Christ is separate from God) and the Athanasius Camp (who believed Christ is coequal to God) . . . not to mention the Inquisitions. The history of Christian on Christian bloodshed in the effort to stamp out "heretical" interpretations is mind-boggling.In response to JCgadfly's comment of "You basically said that Mr. Gates is incorrect on his Bible because where one version uses one word other versions use other words. You found versions you're fond of and used them to make your points. In other words, you claim the versions you like are closer to "what God really meant to say" . . . you wrote:
IRISHFARMER: Is it really that hard to buy a concordance? I'm poor as crap and I have one myself. I did not say he was incorrect in HIS bible, I said his interpretations were incorrect. There were only one or two examples out of like six or so that involved misleading translations. Why focus so hard on those, when I pointed out a majority of passages that he misinterprets despite a rather accurate translation?Furthermore I did not pick my favorite translation, I ran to a bible aid, such as a concordance. In my case, Strong's. Furthermore, if he's going to write a book criticizing the bible (albeit indirectly), he should be able to look somewhat in depth. I'm admittedly no master in Hebrew but my access to popular level translation aids gave me the proper answer within a few seconds or minutes. Not too hard? Please don't stick with this argument, because what it breaks down to is this: "God should have made it so that I don't have to do much work, even though the translation problems that I could solve on my own aren't really a big deal anyway." Its not God's job to pick up someone's slack because they're too lazy to find the answer for themselves.TODD: Would you say that Christianity's past battles over interpretations was due to laziness on one side or the other? Were the Catholics being lazy, or the Protestants? Was the Albigenses conclusion that earthly things are evil because of passages such as these:
So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don’t be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry. God’s terrible anger will come upon those who do such things.Colossians 3:5–6, NLT
Stop loving this evil world and all that it offers you, for when you love these things you show that you do not really love God; for all these worldly things, these evil desires—the craze for sex, the ambition to buy everything that appeals to you, and the pride that comes from wealth and importance—these are not from God. They are from this evil world itself.
1 John 2:15–16, TLB
---mean the Albigenses were lazy, or "didn't do enough work"? Or were the Albigenses the correct ones, and the Catholic Church the lazy ones? Unfortunately, the Church wasn't lazy about slaughtering over one million people during the 1209 - 1255 Albigensian Crusade . . . ancient history that doesn't matter, you might say. But statements such as:
IRISHFARMER: "God should have made it so that I don't have to do much work, even though the translation problems that I could solve on my own aren't really a big deal anyway." Its not God's job to pick up someone's slack because they're too lazy to find the answer for themselves.TODD: . . . sound like you're saying that there really is ONE correct interpretation, if only people weren't so lazy. Am I misinterpreting you?
IRISHFARMER: After that you hurl a lot of elephants, which I don't have time to go into.TODD: Time is indeed a precious resource, and a post of this length, I can promise, is one-time event only. Between the time pressures of work and family, I probably won't have time to get back to this site more than two or three times a month. So my advance apologies if you do reply, and I don't reciprocate for a week or two.
IRISHFARMER: I'm interested in hearing your responses to these points.TODD: If you're still with me, I'm impressed and quite flattered!
- Login to post comments
confused
caposkia wrote:
well, I've explained the flaws in the youtube video presentation. Also what many people would love to truthfully claim history doesn't have it clearly does if you take the time to do the research.
Your explanation is inadequate, as it appears you don't have a grasp of the subject. No does your closing sentence seem to make any sense.
It seems you were confused. I have to keep it short this time, I don't have much time at the moment, but I do plan on responding to the rest at some point.
My explanation was as inadequate as his. He pulled out one example of how evolution could have possibly worked without all the peices. He neglected to show how everything would have been able to work in between or how evolution would change a working system so dramatically and why. In all the evolution studies I've seen, there's always evidence of what was before. In this case, the flagellum shows no evidence the unit ever had any other purpose.
yea, ok, I know. So take away 40 parts and you'll see the other effect. Right. Why did that effect stop? How did that effect or the new one continue with the evolutionary parts growing in it's way??? The tail can't propell the unit without being fully grown, or close to it, so the other mechanism must have been working up until the last possible moment.
also, since when was anything proof from one peice of evidence??? Any right minded scientist would say bogus to that. You need to have backups to your proof. I can drop a crayon on a peice of paper and it could happen to draw a small line. Did I just prove that droping crayons on paper will always draw little lines? According to your conclusion, yes. In reality, lines don't always form. Other experiments would suggest dots only.
And in conclusion to clarify my closing sentence. Many people claim that history holds no evidence that supports Biblical writings. Those people say that only because they have not done the research. Everyone that I know of who has really sat down and looked, has found excessive evidence that makes the Bible very hard to falsify.
e.g. someone elses writings said how many other religions claim Jesus is someone else. History proves Jesus' existance... hmmm. Each religion, though claiming Jesus to be someone different, still put him on a pedistal higher than just your average joe shmoe.... so. Who was Jesus Christ. It seems the evidence is there that this character Jesus was in fact a person.
- Login to post comments
National Geographic)
stuck on appologetics
I found these video's to be very interesting. I like his open mindedness. I like his patience as he researched the Christian mind to see where they were coming from. I see however that he hasn't talked to to many Christians with a Dr. degree. Appologetics can be viewed as the easy way out for Christians, maybe it is, but let's scrutinize the details of his basis.
He pulled specific passages/lines out of the Bible and said they're just as radical as other religious beliefs. First, I say if you're going to be that critical of the wording, then look at the original Greek and Hebrew. The Bible was translated by people into English. I'd like to mention there are over 23 different English translations of The Bible. Why? Well, there are many Greek and Hebrew words/phrases that cannot be translated into English, so we have to use the best possible subsitute. Each Bible translator of course has their own opinion of what substitute would be the best. e.g. There is a word in Hebrew that means past, present and future. We do not have one word to represent a period of all times. Most translators will use a past tense wording in that case.
To pull out some of his examples just on the basis of translation, let's look at Ecclesiastes 1:5, where he said the sun moves itself... uh... well my translation says, "Also, the sun rises and the sun sets." hmmm. i could be mistaken, but I believe us as Americans use that wording in our daily lives. Do we believe that the sun is moving itself????
To look at another reference, turn to Psalm 104:5. He says that God put the Earth on it's foundations so it will not ever move... ok, my translation happens to read, "He established the Earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter (or the alternate wording could be 'move out of place' ) for ever and ever." With this wording in mind, does the Earth not have a place it's suppose to stay, or a track if you will that it's suppose to stay on??? If it "tottered" even just a tad in universal terms toward the sun, we'd all be fried!!!!
Appologetics aside, I think translational issues could be a larger issue. Unless you're taking a story as a whole, you would need to reference to the original language to get literally what it was saying.
Just to put a counter twist on this as well. Another argument was made that we don't have enough brain power if you will, to understand God. Ok, is that not the same excuse scientists are using for understanding the Universe and our world? There is so much scientific theory out there. It's theory because we as humans cannot comprehend how it's possible and yet either cannot disprove it's possibility, or are afraid to discredit it. You have to admit, Christians and the rest of the world are guilty of weak minds when it comes to understanding something greater than ourselves. It's a poor excuse to discredit Christianity with that one, unless of course you want to discredit science as well.
caposkia wrote: > I found
Hi Caposkia, and thanks!
I don't believe I use the word "radical" anywhere. What I did mean, just to make it clear to all, is that just like every other ancient religion, the Bible reflects the limited knowledge of man.
True, but in the case of modern Americans, it's just a convenient expression: we KNOW the earth is turning on its axis. And in our modern world, that information is everywhere (textbooks, all science material, etc.). But such information is nowhere in the Bible. And if the Author of the Universe and the Author of the Bible are one and the same, I would expect such something more in the way of Divine Insight.
When it comes to reading stories in non-Christian religions, and you see that the stars are described as tiny, the moon as shining its own light, the sun orbiting the earth, and the earth as flat, do you think they're just using metaphors? My guess is no: you would say that ancient non-Christian stories reflect ignorance about the universe because ignorant people wrote these stories.
To quote from my book (pages 69-70):
Of course, it’s possible that the non-Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because ignorant humans wrote them, while the Christian explanations are scientifically inaccurate because our Divine Architect chose to dictate the Bible metaphorically … and I have no quarrel with anyone’s choice to believe this (as long as it’s not included in school curriculums). I just personally find it more plausible that the Bible’s description of nature reflects the limited knowledge of ancient humans because ancient humans were its sole authors.
But the earth does "wobble" . . . and being that I live in North America and we're now in September, the part of the planet I live on is tilting further away from the sun, while those on the opposite side of the equator are tilting closer. And a Creator of the Universe would know this story behind the seasons.
But in the Bible, the amount of fair weather & good crops that come your way are largely a matter of how well you're obeying holy commands (Leviticus 26).
Again, the poor communication method, the lack of Quality Control---all this smacks of something unworthy of a Creator powerful enough to create everything from the orbit of galaxies to programming web-spinning know-how into spiders.
Think about the communication efforts from today's CEOs in worldwide corporations. If they have a message that they want sent to every employee, they send something to the effect of a read-only file, make sure it's properly translated for every country that it goes to, and they have strict control over it: no unauthorized editing permitted. And these CEOs are just puny humans. A communication effort from the Biggest Boss of All—the Creator of the Universe, SHOULD be infinitely superior. But instead, the Bible's history of manual copying and translations and translation discrepancies is comparable to what we see with every other ancient text, whether religious or secular.
I want to respond to the rest of your post as well, but I may not get a chance to get to it for a few days. Thanks again for your post---I'll be back with you soon.
- Todd
ToddGates wrote: I don't
I appologise. I know you didn't use the word "radical". That was definitely my word. I did not mean to misrepresent your intentions. It's comparable to others, we're on the same page there.
Why? Why is that so important to people's lives in Biblical times? Their biggest concern was God and their crops. The Earth spinning on its axis wasn't exactly needed knowlege for life... actually, it still isn't.
It seems that the biggest argument from non-believers is (...but the Bible doesn't say this, the Bible forgot to mention that) and then they conclude (...well, that's not there, so it can't be real). Right. ok. So would you carry around a book that had every little detail about the universe in it? I would like to point out that even John said that just the stuff that Jesus did was more than anyone could handle or write. John 21:25
well no... that's really not what I would say. Actually describing stuff as we see it is perspective science. It's not going against scientific proof unless the person is saying 'the star is 1/100th of an inch wide and you must believe it. Though, I'm guessing it's not the perspectives that's an issue here.
I guess we should focus on the bigger issue then. Like maybe what the story is trying to say???
Honestly, you'd have to agree that is Christian explanations of the universe in the Bible were so concretely inaccurate according to science, then there would be no dispute that there is no God, but you and I both know that's not the case. Even Einstine logically came to the conclusion that God must exist due to... (I honestly can't remember the examples he used), but he was saying that through science most of it didn't make sense without a God to control it.
I agree the Earth wobbles. I agree the seasons change because of the tilt of the Earth. Just to clarify some science here though, the Earth doesn't actually change it's tilt for the seasons, it's orbit around the sun is what changes the seasons. The tilt stays the same thus changing the seasons in accordance to the angle of the tilt toward the sun. If the Earth constantly changed the tilt while it orbited, there's a great theoretical possibility that the seasons on Earth would never change becasue the two would cancel themselves out! But that's a sidenote...
I think simply put does the Earth stay on track? Or are we constantly at risk of floating off into random space? Also, your reference to Leviticus is only talking about weather and has nothing to do with seasons or the Earth's tilt. Just because the seasons happen does not mean the weather will be permitting. The story also suggests that the peoples enimies will eat their crop; again having nothing to do with the Earth's track in space.
Well, as far as communication goes, I guess one would have to change the English language as we know it to accomodate thusly. Understand as well that the English language is man made and can be proven man made through history.
The discrepency is what you choose to see. You're all worried about God not doing his job on getting all the facts out there and strait, and yet I an English only speaking citizen, have an understanding of the original intent. Why, because I wanted to know. If you don't want to know, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that God will not force you to know. If you want to sit down and whole heartedly seek God out, then he will find you.
You use a comparison of CEO's needing to make sure that paperwork is explicitly and properly translated, no editing alloud. God first of all does say to not change the words of the Bible, Revelation 22:18-19. There are severe punishments for doing so. Does the government have similar laws about the paperwork? I'd be surprised if they didn't.
Second, explain to me how a CEO would translate from ancient Hebrew or Greek to English representing all three periods of time? Obviously it cannot be done in this language without changing detrimental parts of it.
well, I have to admit, I was very surprised to hear directly from you! I'm very happy to see you take the time to respond as well. I appreciate it and thank you for it. Many people I've talked to it seems will say something and let everyone else duke it out. Your action to respond personally is commendable.
I understand time constraints. As I said to another RRS member, we all have lives outside this site, so by all means take your time.
Ouch. Somebody buy that man
Ouch. Somebody buy that man a microphone. Seriously, I want to listen to this, but I'd have to pop some aspirin first.
caposkia wrote: Well, as
While I can't speak for Todd, the fact that we even need to manually translate the Bible is a red flag for me.
For example, why is translation from one language to another even necessary in the first place? The Bible says that we all spoke one language until God purposely confused us.
Genesis 11:5-6 "But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
In other words, the inability of our languages to accurately present the contents of the Bible is a direct consequence of God's actions. Does this seem like the actions of a omniscient being to me?
And why did God confuse us? Because he thought nothing was impossible for humans, including building a tower that reaches to the heavens, since we spoke the same language.
If man could build a tower that reached the heavens, doesn't this imply that the heavens are somehow reachable if you simply build high enough? This fits with other verses that depict the heavens existing above the vault (firmament) which contains the sun, moon and stars. And If God was concerned with this potential outcome, then it appears he shared the same view. Otherwise, why stop man from building a tower to the sky?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
magilum wrote: Ouch.
The God of Sibilance vistedeth me in a dream, and showeth me how to fixeth the problem (see Video 5.3).
Veils of Maya
True, but you said everything I was thinking!
I DO mean to return to this page to respond further to Caposkia, but am too squeezed for time at the moment. Thanks, Veils of Maya, for covering for me!
- Todd
ToddGates wrote: magilum
Awesome, Todd. I did end up watching the Socratic Method videos -- interesting stuff. Great work.
Veils of Maya
...so... are you questioning the reason why the Bible needs to be translated or what the tower of Babel is all about and why he confused the languages there?
I'll try to answer the language thing simply and if there's more that's not understood, please let me know.
Again, I'd like to point out that English is a man made language, so regardless of what happened at Babel, English was not a factor yet. (this is based on the origin of this topic; English makes it difficult to translate)
Also, the languages were confused so people would spread over the whole Earth. If you take in the whole story, you'll see that God's original intention of us reproducing was for us to "cover the whole Earth". God didn't want people to make cities, he wanted them to spread out. So to make sure that happened, he confused the languages.
uh... yea! Does a parent not take away the distraction from a child if they aren't finishing their homework???
About the Video
Just a quick response on the video series 5.3.
Almost right of, Todd mentions how Christians would have a completely different perspective of what he's presenting. I must ask then, what was the purpose of the videos? Was it just candy for the Athiests?
Second, I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't say I don't have a completely different perspective. I in fact have told people many times I hold onto our scientific knowlege today as more proof of this God. Yea, people of the old times in other beliefs blamed the god's for bad weather. It's a well balanced system we found out in science. Did anyone reading this blog ever do the research on what would happen to our planet if we didin't have severe weather? Just a thought to consider.
Also, if there is a God, then of course we'd have to conclude the truth about the Bible that there are "spirit beings" if you will out there that are against this spirit God.
1. Why wouldn't other spirits use weather and sacrifice as a distraction?
2. Spirits that are against this God would of course logically want to distract people into thinking this God doesn't exist. Why? They want to be in control. With the Christian God around, they have no power. The dates Todd references to are after most of the books of the Old Testiment were written. Why can't it be concluded that they were ideas copied from the Bible?
yea, I know that was a weak, vague response, but it's hard to respond to a video that imediately acknowleges that Christians would have a completely different view.
caposkia wrote:
So you're claiming that not all languages are man made? What is your definition of a man made language?
Also, English isn't the only language that the Bible has been translated into. The original texts of the Bible were written in a wide range of languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Each with their own limitations and potential for miss-translation. If the Bible is correct, these issues wouldn't exist if it wasn't for God's actions.
I've read the entire story. The verse clearly states that God wanted to confuses people as to limit their abilities.
"If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them."
However, speaking one language doesn't somehow empower humans to achieve absolutely anything and everything they plan, nor does building a tower high enough allow you to reach heaven. Yet it's clear that God believed this was true.
Another thing that stands out is how the potential citizens of Babel appear to be concerned about being "scattered over the face of the whole earth." As if they somehow are playing right into God's future action to confuse them. This is a common feature of stores with mythological origins.
Again, the fact that people were "scattered over the face of the whole earth" is depicted as a side effect of God decision to limit man's abilities, not the primary goal. God doesn't say "As one people speaking the same language, they won't propagate over the earth." He's concerned that anything they plan will come to pass, including building a tower to the heavens. You're simply choosing an interpretation that downplays God's limited view of the material world.
And even if we assume you're correct in deciphering God's motives, how does making it ultimately harder to understand one's homework help ensure one finishes their homework? Surely God, in his infinite wisdom, could have come up with a way to propagate man throughout the world without causing translation problems in the future. Again, this doesn't sound like the actions of an omniscient being, but a myth designed to explain why people speak different languages.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Veils of Maya wrote:
A man made language in my understanding is a language we can historically prove was formed from human effort. English is of course not the only man made language out there.
The Bible has in fact been translated into over 5000 different languages. There's always potential for mistranslation of course. You blame the language barrier, I blame human error. Each translation was done by a person not God. If you would expect there to be no translational errors, then you would expect humans to be perfect. No where in the Bible does it say people are perfect. Anyone claiming to be perfect is hiding something.
I know you'd figure God should have taken it upon himself to translate for us if he was so inclined to confuse our language. The catch is, God gave us this Word. It is clearly stated in this Word that it is up to us to spread it. Translational errors aren't that big of a deal if you're willing to sit down and figure out the discrepency. If one did, they'd find out that the errors aren't exactly translational errors, they were the best translation that was understood.
If anything, this was a smart "ploy" on God's part. May I ask, do you remember something better if it's clearly stated, or if you have to figure it out? Science shows that figuring things out sticks in your mind much better than just reading something and then trying to remember it. God didn't have these books written to be forgotten.
yes, God did want to confuse the people so they wouldn't achieve their plans.They of course were concerned with being spread across the whole Earth... as you stated below... because they knew that was God's plan for them.
The problem with this is first of all God had a plan, and they didn't want to follow that plan. They wanted to make their own plans. God was concerned with this because first and foremost, he's a jellous God. The Bible says this. He is the Almighty, he want's his people to be dependent on him, not on themselves.
Ah, and I know where the response will go with this. How arrogant of him! Why would I want to follow an arrogant God???? Ok, do you think your parents are/were arrogant? Think about yourself at age 13 or so deciding you're going to go out with all your friends on your own and continue your life without your parents guidance. Ok, now picture your parents reaction to this when your age 13 or so. Your attempts might end up getting your video games taken away, you'd probably be grounded for a while, your parents might call the cops if you ran away. I don't know, but I do know there would be some friction from your parents. Why? Was it because they're arrogant and want all power over you??? Or was it that they had good plans for your future? Maybe college, etc. Also, maybe they know at age 13 you have no clue about life and you could be in danger out there on your own, making your own decisions.
Now picture this God in the same light as the parent of many 13 year olds out there. And this was their plan. Was he causing problems, or helping them out in the long run. Yea, ok, it's hard to see how this was helpful, we have cities now and we're doing ok.... except for all the murders and rapes... and maybe some theivery now and again. yea, I know. Those don't just happen in the cities... though who said a city was an area with a population over X number of people? I'm thinking this can apply to any united community.
yea, this has also applied to many true stories, but besides that. Another telltale sign of its mythological origin is an older manuscript with similar happenings but with different outcomes... though... I'm not aware of any at the moment. NOTE: The Pentateuch was considered to be written somewhere around 1446 to 1406 B.C.
Well, to say that I'm using an interpretation is a far assumption be it that my belief is held by in depth research and emperical conclusions.
Also, to sum up what you have said above, God in his "infinite wisdom" gave himself one weakness if you will. He gave people free will. It wasn't that he had no idea how to come up with a better plan, it's that the plan he had in place was not being followed by his people. If you read through the whole Bible, God has always made an effort to make his plans in such a way that people have to choose to follow them. Granted if they don't, it is also shown that God will use motivational tactics to get people to follow those plans. (We are talking Old Testiment here by the way. New Testiment has put all the choice in the people's hands)
You talk about homework getting harder to understand. What's so hard to understand about spreading out? the assignment was to spread out, the people were not doing their homework, so God took away the one thing he knew would convince them to "finish the homework"
Caposkia, and video series 5.3
> CAPOSKIA: Just a quick response on the video series 5.3. Almost right off, Todd mentions how Christians would have a completely different perspective of what he's presenting. [snip] . . . I'm a Christian, and I wouldn't say I don't have a completely different perspective. I in fact have told people many times I hold onto our scientific knowlege today as more proof of this God. Yea, people of the old times in other beliefs blamed the god's for bad weather. [snip] . . . it's hard to respond to a video that imediately acknowleges that Christians would have a completely different view.
Hi Caposkia,
Like videos 5.1 & 5.2 (and upcoming videos 5.4 & 5.5), the focus of 5.3 ("God sacrifices self to appease self--'barking mad'?" ) is not about modern science vs. the bible, but on how many of the ideas and stories in the Judeo-Christian Bible can be traced back to pre-existing religions. Video 5.1 is on Flood & Ark stories, 5.2 is on virgin births, and 5.3 is on the idea of salvation through the blood sacrifice of Jesus.
I call the phrase "barking mad" in the title, because that's Richard Dawkins's description for the premises that:
(1) God created humans in such a way that He knew, because of His Omniscience, that we couldn't help but be sinful, but was then angry at humans for our inevitable sin,
(2) that God is all-Just, but His Anger at the guilty party was appeased by the bloody torture & sacrifice of an innocent party,
(3) and third, that the innocent and tortured party was Himself, because Jesus is God—making God the judge, jury, and execution victim.
The point of my video was to present my reasons for why I don't think it's all barking mad—at least not when you look at the story from the perspective of a comparative mythologist, and trace each of these premises back to a time when each of these ideas were at not quite as irrational as they may seem today:
Divine anger – that makes sense from the perspective that ancient people used to attribute nature's utter indifference for us as the mood-swings of the Supernatural.
The demand for sacrifice – that makes sense from the perspective that ancient people were desperate to somehow get on the good side of the gods.
The hope that a scapegoat will serve as that sacrifice – that makes sense, as it's certainly more convenient than having to sacrifice your own crops or kids.
The idea of God sacrificing Himself to appease Himself – that's not really "barking mad" either, because nowhere is it specifically stated in the Bible. It IS an unavoidable aspect of Christianity, of course, once you put all the different pieces together, but that's something that's something more of an unintended consequence that happened when the Church was trying to reconcile the New Testament's contradictory storylines of (a) Jesus is God's Son, and (b) because there is only One God, Jesus is God.
As for why I mentioned that Christian apologists have a completely different interpretation, I just wanted to acknowledge that Christianity can also counter Dawkins's "barking mad" accusation, but of course not through the route of comparative mythology, but through a discussion on original sin, free will, God's Justice and punishment, plus God's sorrow and mercy and love and forgiveness and self-sacrifice, and also some complex details on the Trinity. And in Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer, my Christian character does discuss all these things … but for the purpose of focus and momentum (the three videos already add up to 17 minutes), I decided to omit the Christian explanation, and make it a largely secular presentation.
> CAPOSKIA: I must ask then, what was the purpose of the videos? Was it just candy for the Athiests?
Strictly speaking, I never focus on atheism, in the sense that I never present arguments against "A Creator": I only present reasons for being skeptical of claims of Divine Knowledge. (I explain why I take this approach in Video 7 of 7.) But I think this is a technical point, in that you're really asking if I'm only interested in reaching fellow skeptics.
The audience I'd actually most like to reach are those on the fence---those brought up with religion as a "given," but already have their lurking doubts: those who describe themselves as "seekers."
My book & videos are also targeted at a teenage version of myself: someone who was skeptical of all claims of Divine Knowledge---whether such claims came from Christians, Joseph Smith, or Jim Jones---but whose thoughts on the subject were ill-formed and scattered. Back in my college days, there were some very aggressive Jews For Jesus proselytizers on campus, and my debates against them were spectacularly unsuccessful: my arguments were a disorganized mess.
I don't expect to convert any true-believing Christians. Back when I first preparing to write the book, I DID have my skeptic-character "win" the debate . . . but the more I studied Christian apologetics, the more I realized that the apologist can counter every charge that a skeptic makes (in fact, just about every Christian I've reviewed my book with thinks my Christian character wins every point). Whether the apologist's arguments or the skeptic's are the more convincing is up to the reader.
Also---I still want to get back to you on your earlier post comparing the mysteries of Christianity with the mysteries of science:
> CAPOSKIA: Just to put a counter twist on this as well. Another argument was made that we don't have enough brain power if you will, to understand God. Ok, is that not the same excuse scientists are using for understanding the Universe and our world? There is so much scientific theory out there. It's theory because we as humans cannot comprehend how it's possible and yet either cannot disprove it's possibility, or are afraid to discredit it. You have to admit, Christians and the rest of the world are guilty of weak minds when it comes to understanding something greater than ourselves. It's a poor excuse to discredit Christianity with that one, unless of course you want to discredit science as well.
---but I'm too overwhelmed with other obligations at the moment. Hope to get back to you by the end of the month. Once again I apologize for not being able to respond quicker and more completely: it's only because of a lack of time---not a lack of interest.
Your continued interest is appreciated!
- Todd
caposkia wrote:
So, if there is no historical record for how a lanauage was created, then God did it?
While one can find silver linings in almost any cloud, of the 7,000 languages in use today, the Bible has yet to be into over 2,000. This roughly translates into nearly 200 million people in the most underprivileged areas of the world who cannot read the Bible.
http://www.wycliffe.org/About/Statistics.aspx
I find it hard to believe that an omniscient being would choose a solution knowing it would cause millions of people in poor countries to die each year without a version of the Bible in their language. You can't do your "homework" if you can't read it or it has translation errors.
Of course, God wouldn't want humans to achieve their plans. I don't conceder this to be an issue with the story. My point is that God isn't just worried about building a city, he's worried they could build a city to reach the heavens, or absolutely anything else they decided to do because they spoke the same language. Clearly, this doesn't fit with the material view of the world we know exists today. This would be like a parent confusing his child because he's afraid he'll plant beans in the night, climb the stalk into the sky and possibly be eaten by a giant ogre.
I'm not surprised that a man made God would be jealous. There are many other God's he must compete with. According to the Old Testament, God makes it clear that the entity speaking to him isn't some other God, but the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Exodus 3:16 : "Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:"
It's as if God is concerned that the God of someone else's fathers will get credit for his actions.
I have no issue with God deciding he want's humans to propagate over the earth. My issue is the method he uses and the obvious side effects it causes.
Either God knew the consequences of giving us free will or he is not omniscient. And it doesn't take an omniscient being to realize that, when given any choice, some people will choose differently.
To use your analogy, If a parent gave a 13 year old the keys to the family car and he got into an accident because he wasn't mature enough to drive responsibly, wouldn't the parent be ultimate responsible? Had the child stolen the car, they could possibly put some of the blame on him, but humans didn't give themselves free will. Nor did we ask for the ability choose. According to the Bible, God gave it to us on his own.
To motivate someone is to give them a reason to do something. Confusion has nothing to do with reason. It the opposite of reason, as it reduce the ability of humans to communicate accurately with each other.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Veils of Maya wrote: So,
Theoretically. That would be a big assumption to assume that there aren't some languages out there man made that we are not aware of from our own documented history. Though taking that question from the point of view that there is a God, the Bible proves that indeed God did do many languages.
Your statistics as I understand it are correct. Though of course everyone's taking death as the end again. So assuming again He's real, first of all, the Bible states:
1. Death is not the end
2. The final judgement will not happen until everyone has heard the Word of God
4. The Bible also states that no one is held responsible for what they don't know.
5. The Bible says as well, that there is common sense proof of what is right in wrong (basically speaking) in nature. Don't blow this one out of proportion, use common sense to figure that one out. Get complicated and of course you're not going to learn from nature everything, but the basic needs for relating and living are given in nature. It's scientific proof.
Also, the "homework" we were talking about was directly given to the Babelonians. This analogy has nothing to do with todays tribes that have no knowlege of God's Word.
Side note: There is also historical proof that every socially sheltered tribe has had some understanding of a higher power. They acknowlege that they are not alone. See the Native Americans before they were taken over.
just for the record. I'm not trying to bring "a silver lining" to any of this. I'm just going with the knowlege I have accumulated or researched over the years that has led me to the understanding that this God has to be real. The more research people make me do by asking difficult questions, the more science and history convinces me that this God is for real. I've told people if you have proof, please, by all means show it to me.
Heavens is the sky. Not a place. The literal meaning is up above.
There are other Spirits trying to take God's place in people's lives, see Genesis!
are you saying you have a better plan to make people spread out? Think about this, an omniscient God of course would have looked at all the ramifications of any decision he made. My conclusion is this was the most effective way without causing too many issues.
did God say "here are my keys"? or did he say, "this is where I keep my keys, don't touch them"? See Genesis Ch 1. Following your analogy above, we stole the car. God never gave us permission to use anything that was wrong, that was our choice and our choice alone, he just gave us the choice.
I must ask. If we didn't have free will, do you really think we'd have the ability to ask for it? How willing would you give up your "free will" now? Would you be willing to have someone else decide your every move, every word, every thought, every action? Or do you want to make those decisions on your own? Basically we'd be robots, doing whatever our "operator" told us, just like a computer. The words I type now don't go on here exept with my permission. My computer has no free will. It cannot type what it wants when it wants. In fact, it doesn't want. Want is a free will action.
The Babelonians could have still chosen to stay together and continue to build the city. Sounds to me like God gave them a reason.
There are many other ways to communicate accurately besides talking.
caposkia wrote: Veils of
This is an argument from ignorance. If you don't know how something came about, you simply claim that God did it.
According to the Bible, death signifies the end of our ability to choose God. During our time on earth, some people are exposed to horrible atrocities as they are tested and choose between good and evil. If a loving God is willing to put humans though this, it would seem to me that choosing must be extremely important in our development as eternal beings.
However, people who die without knowing God's word do not have a chance to choose to follow him. If you claim that God does not hold someone responsible for what they do not know, then what is the purpose of making some choose but not others if they can both go to heaven? The same could be said about children who die before or shortly after being born.
Is there a special place in heaven for those who did not have to choose? Are they kept from the general population because they are missing something important that others experienced? Does God simulate their ability to choose in heaven so they can rejoin the others? If I hear the word of God from his own mouth, wouldn't this violate my free will?
If not, then what is the significance of choosing? If there is no significance, then either God is simply making arbitrary decisions about the qualifications for salvation or he's an attempt to make sense of our fragile, yet beautiful existence.
Heav•en NOUN
1. a place regarded in various religions as the abode of God (or the gods) and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the sky.
2. (often heavens) poetic/literary the sky, esp. perceived as a vault in which the sun, moon, stars, and planets are situated. : Galileo used a telescope to observe the heavens.
Either definition shows a lack of understanding of the material world.
Again, God isn't just concerned with the city. He's concerned by the unlimited potential of mankind since they speak the same language. This does not sound like the concern of an all knowing, all seeing God. You've continually avoided this issue and seem to lack an explanation of why God would worry about something that conflicts with our knowledge of the material world.
Do you think that, before God confused us, we some how were capable of anything and everything we planned since we spoke the same language? Do you think this is really what motivated God's actions?
Again, I'd expect that sort of disclaimer from a man made religion. As Todd mentioned in his video, Christians claim that extremely similar religions that appeared before the Bible was written were fabricated and planted by Satan. If this sort of thing is possible, then how do we know it's not the other way around? (Christianity is the false religion, devised to lure people away from an earlier, true religion.)
And your proof that supports your claim that God is really omniscient is? Simply saying that God must have made the right choice, regardless of what ramifications it caused, because he is omniscient isn't an answer. It's a statement without any support.
Another example is the flood story. According to the Bible, God created man from dust and was happy with his creation. Yet, when he changed his mind and was no longer happy with his creation, instead of simply returning us to back dust, he decided to subject everyone except Noah and his close family to a traumatic death by drowning. How does this sound like the actions of a perfect being? If, after death, these people cannot change their mind about God, what purpose could this form of destruction serve other that a myth to explain migration patterns of early humanity and the origins of rainbows?
The Bible says that God made us in his image. He gave everyone, including Lucifer, free will. We didn't take free will from God. He gave it to us of his own accord.
If the Bible is correct, my ability to detect and choose good over evil is solely based on the faculties that God gave me. How else would I make this choice? I have no other methods at my disposal. Either these faculties work or they do not. If they only work half of the time, then is this must be how God intended them to work or his creation was flawed. There is no inbetween.
If you give me a calculator knowing that it returns correct answers only half of the time, why would you be surprised if I don't get all of the answers right? On what grounds could you judge me for incorrect answers?
You seem to imply that the fact that I have free will somehow proves that God exists or excuses him from his decision to give me free will in the first place. The contradictions you describe only exist if God was the only source of free will, yet he decided not to give it to us. However, if we evolved into conscious beings, we couldn't be robots under the control of a supernatural being, so this scenario isn't an issue.
You also seem to imply that God was doing us a favor in giving us free will. However, If I didn't have free will, I wouldn't know what I was missing. This is like claiming that God fine tuned the universe so we could exist. However, if the universe didn't happen to form with the properties needed to support human life, we simply wouldn't be having this conversation since we wouldn't exist. Of course, the concept of not existing probably doesn't fit into your world view, so you've chosen to believe that we are the deliberate creation of a supernatural being.
Genesis 11:9 "That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
It sounds as if God scattered humans over the face of the earth AFTER he confused them. These appear to be two separate actions. Again, this reinforces the idea that confusing us was to limit our supposed unlimited ability as perceived by God.
And there are other ways to motivate people other than confusing them.
That's like trying to get people to leave a crowed building by yelling "Fire!" This is something I'd expect from an immature adolescent, not an omnipotent, omniscient being.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Veils of Maya wrote: This
That was a understanding based response. First of all, you asked the question, " So, if there is no historical record for how a lanauage was created, then God did it?" What did you expect me to say? The only way to answer that question for me to support my side would be to say that it's possible that God did it.
I did mention that there could be many other languages we are not aware of made by people. I also used the phrase; IF God exists then... and you're claiming my response is ignorance. I could respond to you with; If you don't know how something came about, you can't claim that God didn't do it either. The problem with that response is it's from my own opinion and brings no direction to this conversation, so it's really not needed here. Let's try to avoid this in the future.
not in my understanding. There are 2 resurrections in Revelation. One is for the people who already follow God, and the other is for everyone else who either hasn't followed God or doesn't know him from what I understand. What would the point be to resurrect anyone who has no more choice and is already condemed, why not just burn them all?
yea, very much so.
This kind of goes along with the resurrection thing in Revelation. I also believe from my studies, that people don't actually go to heaven right away. The resurrections don't make sense if people do, and there's really nowhere in the Bible that says people go right to heaven. In fact, there are many places that seem to show otherwise. BTW, there is controversy in the Christian realm of what Jesus' words "Today, you will be with me in paradise" was actually referencing to. Many don't see it as today like we understand it.
Bible also states that a child that is too young to understand right and wrong does in fact "go to heaven" if they die.
Just because you hear it doesn't mean you have to listen to it.
But what I simply explained was that the word used in Hebew was not "heaven". But I guess simplicity isn't working for this conversation.
Ref. Hevrew and Chaldee Dictionary:
8064: Shaw-meh' from an unused root mean. to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perh. alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve):--air.
The word used is not "HEAVEN" This definition clearly states the intent was the physical visual world only.
I don't know why you think I'm avoiding anything. I've already explained that the understanding is God was worried about the rebellion against him. That's as complex as this gets. Why is that so hard to understand? The unlimited possibility is the extent that man could rebell against God. Nothing more. Basically, he was worried about man doing everything for himself and forgetting about God. Why is this a problem. How would your parents feel if you forgot about them?
that's a very good question, and the choice we all have to make. I can't speak for everyone, but me personally. I've seen enough proof though history and science as well as personal experience to say that this must be the right way. There's a lot more to that, but I"m not going to bore everyone with the details.
You never asked me about my claims for his omniscience. You just said you had an issue with his choice. If he is omnicient, then the common sense answer would have to be that he made the best choice.
A simple response to a simple statement, nothing more. Don't put more there then was there. If you want to ask a question beyond it, ask, otherwise, stick to the topic.
Free will was the issue, not whether that proves God's existance or not.
ok, non-existence does not fit into anyone's world view because the absence of existance is nothing. So there'd be no concept of the idea, nor a worry of such. No opposing ideas either because they wouldn't exist.
You'll find I have a very open mind. And I've done research to come to the conclusions that I have come to... please don't assume I know everything though, because I'll be the first to admit that I don't.
I'm sorry I was not able to expand more toward the end. I'm short on time, though if you want to ask further on anything I've said, please feel free. I will answer to the best of my ability.
caposkia wrote: Veils of
Why? Because, as you mentioned, everyone is to be judged at once when Christ returns.
Until this time, the dead remain.... dead. Since someone can't stand trial if they are asleep (dead), this is a fairly good reason to resurrect everyone at once so they can all be judged and condemned to hell at the same time.
Nowhere does Revelation state that the dead have a second chance to reconciler their decision. Since Revelation provides elaborate details about the end times, including detailed descriptions of the four living creatures who surround the throne of God, wouldn't it seem unusual to leave out the fact that those who had died without believing in God would receive a second chance to choose him?
Since it would have an eternal impact on the deposition of one's soul, I'd conceder this a fairly important piece of information. One worth spelling out clearly and explicitly.
My question isn't if everyone goes to heaven at once or not. I'm questioning why some humans can get into heaven without choosing God, while others must be tested to the extremes before they are allowed in. These humans do not have to choose, nor does God know what they would have chosen if they would have. This is in comparison to others who must suffer greatly and choose God as the result.
The end result is that you have people who have not chosen God in heaven with those who have suffered greatly and have explicitly chosen God.
Again, there appears to be no significance to choosing since they both end up in the same place.
So then why doesn't God plainly and obviously reveal himself to me now? If I heard the word of God from his own mouth, I'd believe. Those that would reject him, wouldn't. Why wait until after we're dead? Again, If those who suffer and choose God here on earth get the same reward as those who wait until they meet God eye to eye, then what is the significance of testing us on earth at all?
Which sounds like definition #2. The Bible says that God sat on the sky and that is was firm [Isaiah 40:22.] The Hebrew word 'raqiya', which means visible vault in the sky, comes from 'riqqua', meaning 'beaten out.' It was common for metal bowls or other hollow objects to be beaten into shape using an anvil. This is described in Job 37:18 "can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?"
So you're saying this part of the Bible shouldn't be taken literally? Because it literally says that God thought there was nothing that humans could plan which they could not achieve because we all spoke the same language. And the last time I checked, the opposite of nothing is absolutely everything. Without limit.
If this is metaphorical, then how do we know when to take the parts of the Bible where God is speaking, literally?
Yet there are plenty of other people who make the same exactly claim you do about their religion.
If God is omniscient, omnipotent and has an intelligence so vast that we can't possibly understand it, then absolutely any outcome or phenomena we could ever be observe could be explained and justified by God. Anything.
So when you, as a theist, say, "the common sense answer would have to be that he made the best choice", I don't see how common sense is even necessary at all. Regardless of how common or uncommon the situation or choice, one could always claim that God made the "best choice" because his actions simply doesn't have to make any sense. Nor is there any limit to the things God could or could not do. If God wanted to, he could make the universe look completely random and without purpose because, well, he's God and can do whatever he want's. And we, as mere human beings, couldn't comprehend the perfect reasoning behind his choice to do.
As such, God's actions could be indistinguishable from nature.
So how exactly do you discern between that which is from God and that which is from nature? Or that which is from Satan or man made religions?
For example, in response to your question, "What would the point be to resurrect anyone who has no more choice and is already condemed, why not just burn them all?", I could reply "God must have a point because he's omniscient, omnipotent and has an intelligence so vast that we can't possibly understand it."
And the issue remains. I'll quote it here again for your convenience.
If God created me from nothing, and designed me down to the last quark, then he must have intended me not to believe in him, because I make that choice based on the free will he freely gave me and the environment he ultimately controls (or allows to be controlled by others. )
My world view is open to the idea that, had the earth not reached equilibrium within the sun within the "Goldilocks Zone" around the sun, I would not exist. Your world view says that we must exist because God purposely created human beings and designed the universe and everything inside it to support us.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Veils of Maya wrote: Why?
First, we cannot look at the book of Revelation as a chronological book. The events that take place are not said to be "in order".
Also, it is clear that the resurrections don't happen at the same time, so I guess technically speaking, the judgements won't happen all at once.
It is also mentioned that by the time the Revelation stuff happens, everyone will have heard the word of God. Those who already have died get their "first chance" if you will, when they get resurrected to know that God is indeed the Almighty. Then like I had mentioned before, they cannot be held accountable for what they don't know.
yea, I know, but i'll get further with this below.
Honestly, I'm not sure where you got the idea that certain people don't need to "choose God" to get into heaven. The Bible clearly states that no one gets in except through Jesus. John 14:6. Also, people are not tested to get into heaven, it's how long they endure. All we have to do is proclaim Christ through it all. There is a part in the Bible that talks about rewards too. It says how those people who have gone through a lot will get great rewards in heaven. So it's really not a testing or how much you go through, it's really all about Jesus Christ.
Bible also shows repeatedly that God has always given everyone a second chance, so for the consistancy of the book, whether you believe the book to be real or not, it would not make sense for God to "change his mind" for those who died without knowing him.
...and to tie in the revelation stuff, as I said, you cannot take the book chronologically. A conclusion that a few Christians have come up with are that the plagues and events that will unfold will happen before Christ's return. To bring in the fact that it is clearly stated that everyone will have heard the word by the Revelation events, it would make sense that anyone who is watching will obviously know that the events listed in Revelation are happening and will see that the God of the Bible must be real.
not eveyone gets the same reward Mt 6:20 basically the whole chapter, but that verse talks about storing up treasure.
It's easy to say this now, but you have to look at the story of Jesus. It shows that even though Jesus was performing mericles in the light of day, people still didn't believe him to be the son of God. To accept God's words now, would be to accept everything the Bible has to say. The Bible says that his word is in his people. God appointed his followers to spread the word that Christ's return is soon. It's a simple, strait forward message that only requires someone to accept a sacrifice made for them.
I wonder why it's so hard for people to even accept a teaching that has been repeatedly proven to be affective in improving life? Maybe because of the name Jesus Christ?
For all of you who are going to pull the bad stuff out of the Bible and say they're teachings need to look at some of my other blogs before they do.
Yet there are plenty of other people who make the same exactly claim you do about their religion.
I dispise paraphrased translations of the Bible. They take out not only the original flow of the stories, but sometimes ruin and change understandings and meanings of certain scripture.
With that said, I don't appreciate people paraphrasing me either. e.g.
"There's a lot more to that, but I"m not going to bore everyone with the details [of why Christianity is the one true religion]."
It's not of why Christianity is the one true religion. I would not say that. Firist, I hate religion. Religion is about seperation and everyone trying to prove everyone else wrong. Christianity is about unity. Yes, that is a teaching of Christianity, but in all the fluff e.g. conversations like this, those little important teachings are overlooked.
If you want me to conclude that sentence better, "there are many reason why I feel that God is real." I'm not talking about religion. It's really whether He is or isn't at this point. right?
phew, couldn't have said it better myself!
Well, if you look logically at many... not all! but many of the acts of God in the Bible, many were done through nature. Why? well, God created nature, so God is nature. (metaphorically) Bible does say that God reveils himself through nature.
Also man made religions all somewhere have prophesies that did not come true when they claimed they would, or did not come true in the way they claimed they would. All of the Bible's prophesies have come true thus far. History proves many of them, e.g. Jesus Christ. Old Tesiment books that talk about Jesus coming and the stuff he would do were written too long before Jesus' time to be successful. The prophesies Jesus had to fulfill were more than one person could do. I personally think it's pretty groundbreaking that the prophesies of the Old Testiment and Historical records as far as when Jesus was suppose to come coenside.
True, but if you know God and his ways, it would not make sence that he would go about it that way. God says that he is the same as he always was and he always will be the same. For God to do that would mean that God changed. Though he could still do it if he wanted becasue he's God, he won't because that's the way he is.
So basically you're telling me that when my computer crashes, the company must have intended for my computer to crash because they made the computer down to the last quark. I think I need to call my lawyer.
Could it be possible that God's trying to reach out to you and you're not hearing him?
So then you're saying that my view is that regardless, we'd exist.... uh.. no. What if God wanted to just make a pretty collage out of the universe and have no rhyme or reason to it. Would we then exist? no. If he didn't want us to exist, we wouldn't. Non-existance is very real. It's part of why Christians are so greatful toward God. He still allows us to exist.