@PuddingcupWoW I've seen the site that you're talking about and William Lane Craig is the most dishonest Christian apologist I've ever seen. I've never seen him in a debate where he didn't blatantly misrepresent (i.e. straw man) his opponent's position, misquote scientists and/or make false/unconformable claims about reality in an attempt to make/counter a point. If you want a better apologist or at least a more honest one, look up the YouTube user RationalRoundtable
i had a friend tell me that human reason and logic cant explain god because we will never understand why he does things. I just sat there and thought how could we be made in his image if he has nothing in common with him on a thought level.
@bris1tol Again, false. Reason is not a percentage of faith. Reason precedes faith in the same way that lightning precedes thunder. Faith cannot be gained without a reason.
"I have to admit that faith does have to have some degree of reason." & "God is where logic comes from."
You're going back on what you admitted earlier in our conversation in order to suit your current needs, you're not being consistent with where logic comes from/in, you seem to be incapable avoiding self-contradiction and you don't seem to understand what we're actually discussing.
Were this an actual debate, you just lost: With flying colors.
@bris1tol Aaaannd we're right back to the intellectually lazy responses. Quoting the Bible is the laziest move any believer has ever made when discussing the deep issues of faith, reason and logic.
You must first establish the primacy of the Bible (i.e. that it does not rely on claims that violate science and/or logical reasoning) BEFORE using the Bible to establish a logical foundation of faith. You have not done this. No one has ever done this.
I think that quotes from fortune cookies contain the same level of wisdom as the Bible.
Hmm, actually I do not recall any fortune cookie ever telling me that I need to fear hell, beat my slave, stone my child, kill my brother, hate my neighbor due to his/her choice of sleeping companion, rape and murder a village or to give money to freeloading-skirt-wearing-child-raping-brainwashing-holier-than-thou-ass-wipes.
@bris1tol If the truth is insulting then it's probably your position or conversation/debate style that's to blame and in this case it's both.
Even you should recognize an answer of, "Faith is a gift from God. I don't do anything." in the context of what we're talking about as childish and intellectually lazy. I'm not sure what else you could call it other than indolent.
Even if reason "enters when words are used" (which is another false statement but I'll let it go because you're confused enough) you're still relying on (ta-da!) reason (i.e. the Devil's harlot) to be able to have faith (i.e. trust) God.
THEREFORE: In order for you to have faith in God, you must - in a manner of speaking - fuck the Devil's harlot. Is this not true?
@bris1tol At this point should I not assume that you're either so inept/indoctrinated that you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend what we're discussing OR that you're simply not going to answer the question or engage in any more conversation/debate, enacting a circular argument (which you've just done) as if that child-like response were clever?
I only ask because these seem to be the only two options left to me.
@bris1tol Those aren't insults and I'm not trying to convince you to be an atheist. An atheist is something that you're not rather than something that you are.
I'm trying to have an adult conversation about the nature of faith, reason, logic and religion and I'm getting a conversation that started out with (presumably) an adult that has swiftly turned into a conversation with an indolent child.
I have to admit that faith does have to have some degree of reason. But at the same time, reason is the Devil's playground. It's certainly led YOU astray.
@bris1tol If reason precedes faith as you've come to recognize and you embrace Martin Luther's adage that, "We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that god says and does." should that not lead you to an unsettling conclusion?
If you MUST have reason to have faith (which you must) is that not saying you must have (faith in) the Devil to have (faith in) God and not the other way around? i.e. The devil must precede God in all things.
@themanofearth Reason enters when words are used, such as in prayer or reading the Bible. Jesus asks us to come to the Father as a little child (in faith). So I read the Bible as a little child, and when Jonah gets swallowed by the whale, I say "Gee whiz !"
@bris1tol Faith is used in prayer and in reading God's Word. Reason must be used in group discussions (Man's (our) words). So we can get in trouble if we stray too far away from
God's Word. On the other hand, Luther said to use the Bible to interpret the Bible.
@bris1tol It's questions in the entry that starts with "If reason precedes faith as you've come to recognize..." You haven't answered or even addressed those questions.
Do at the very least try to pay attention to the words I'm smithing even if it's hard for you to understand.
@bris1tol Again, false. Reason precedes faith of any kind. One must (without exception) have a reason to have faith in anything even if that reason is flawed, based on a lie/untruth or insufficient evidence/logic/knowledge. The "quale" or feeling you refer to is a form of a posteriori knowledge and is the REASON behind your faith and NOT the faith itself.
@bris1tol Well... I'd take that as a compliment if I were twisting any arguments but I'm not. Your assertions about logic, reason, faith and knowledge are wrong on such a basic level that the conclusions you draw from them are literally senseless. I've not done any twisting. You're simply ignorant. :-/
@bris1tol Ok... At least you've answered my question. You're incapable of grasping the concepts being discussed.
"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience"
False statement. Knowledge is not justification. You're not even smart enough to commit an equivocation fallacy.
"Faith is trust, That's a subjective experience," No. Faith IS trust but it is based on a posteriori knowledge which is necessary for a logical argument when concerning faith of any kind.
Logic resides in the a priori, meaning it doesn't come from this world. It was there to begin with. Atheism is not part of the a priori, since it is nothing, comes from nothing, and means nothing. It is just an illogical, unproven opinion.
@bris1tol "Logic resides in the a priori, meaning it doesn't come from this world." Another assertion without evidence of any kind behind it. Additionally "a priori" does not mean "it doesn't come from this world." It refers to knowledge that is independent of experience. e.g. 'all atheists do not believe in (a) god'
Atheism is simply the nonbelief in a god or gods. You should really educate yourself more thoroughly before commenting.
@bris1tol You have said nothing about faith until this moment so, NO you've not been saying that. You are even wrong about your own statements. Do at least try to not get ahead of yourself.
@bris1tol To top that off, "Logic resides in the a priori" is an absolutely false statement. One must also have a posteriori knowledge (that's knowledge that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence) for logic to work. Especially when dealing with the existence of a god.
14) If Christ is Christ and who he claims to be then his endorsement is the ultimate appeal to authority on the matter. Thus early man's stories about himself have disclosed accurate truths about his nature, and his relation to God. They do not have to be historically factual to present true theology.
15) Mental gymnastics? Not really, just actually understanding the language of the texts and applying some pretty simple interpretation. Unless you think Aesop actually met talking foxes that is.
12) So these verses are explicit, true,mythic theology. Explicit in the terminology. True in speaking to real human experiences and cultural awareness. Mythic in being legendary and unverifiable. Theology in the questions they are seeking to answer.
13) But WB, don't they have to be more 'true' than that, I mean Christ refers to them! The answer is yes! Christ's reference to them is our best guide to them being theologically true.
11) Well take Adam, it's ha-adam, it's not a name, it's a reference, more accurately translates as earthling or human-being. Havah (Eve) is not a name either, it means 'living thing.' Bereshit does not mean 'in the beginning' it simply means 'When God began to create' so we don't even have a fixed place in time!
12) We have TWO creation stories in the first 2 books and they aren't factually identical, but do convey the same theology. Coincidence? Of course not!
8) Because these 12 verses make no claim to being historical fact. In contrast to material from this point on in the Hebrew Bible there is no claim to external sources for verification or to place events in context of time/other events.
9) They are explicit myths (remember myths can be true!) talking about metaphysical truths: the nature of evil, free will, God's relationship to man, mankind's role in the world etc.
10) But how can be so sure it's not meant to be history?!!
6) Does this mean the first 12 verses of Genesis are historically accurate after all? Of course not! Simply that they refer to real challenges facing early humanity and their attempts to understand them.
7) Could there have been a Noah, Adam, Eve etc? Sure. However archaeology can't speak to their existence given their place in antiquity. Does it matter? Not really, no. Why?
4) Does that mean there were no notable events such as floods etc in the history of early man? Of course not! Could an awareness of such events have been passed down through primitive art/communication? Of course!
5) Is there evidence of catastrophic floods in related areas such as the Euphrates flood plain? Sure is. So a basic truth may be found to a tale such as that of Noah's Ark. How were primitive men to know the flood wasn't covering the whole world?
1) It's a question of layers. The 'theist' God cannot be established without first establishing the 'deist' concept ie designing/dominant intellect.
2) Evolution clearly did produce a first man and woman. We exist, so by regression of causes, so must they have.
3) Would they have had a language, or at least a complex language for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years? Nope. So the potential for recording early events is hugely limited.
@MrWildbill20056 1) There are no good arguments that actually establish the existence of even the deist god concept.
2) Evolution never produced the first man or woman. The "regression" is not simplistic 1+1=2 with evolution and there could never have been any less than 150 individuals.
3) - 15) Are laughable (tada!) mental gymnastics. If you want to talk about why, send me a PM. 500 characters is tedious and you're not very good at this logical progression thing.
@themanofearth 1) What utter nonsense. I am glad you have a superior mind to Spinoza and Einstein to be so discerning.
2) That's utter rubbish. Temporally speaking there were born at some stage a first man and a first woman. In genetic terms there emerged individuals of each sex that have the required genome identity.
3) Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Seeing as I utterly knocked down your view of Genesis creation stories, you should be more gracious.
@MrWildbill20056 1) Give me a good argument for the existence of the deist god and I'll hand it back to you in pieces.
2) The fact that Spinoza and Einstein may have believed in a deist god points to only one thing with me. Even very great people can believe some very silly things. Take Dr. Kary Mullis, brilliant inventor of PCR for which he won a Nobel Prize. He believes in ghosts & alien abductions does that make those more believable?
3) Follow instructions if you want to continue this.
@themanofearth 1) Simply demonstrates your existing bias, and thus cause to ridicule something others regarded as legitimately possible. Hell let's throw Flew into this too. The fact is a summary of your objection to the Deist is position is: that's silly.
2) That's just snide. Thus you can discard everything you disagree with as 'clever people accepting silly thing.' However are you really going to compare Spinoza's argument with any made for Alien abductions?
@MrWildbill20056 Final. I didn't concede defeat, you did by not following instructions for a continuation of the conversation. It is over, you're done.
@themanofearth My argument was put forth, your reply was not an argument. Everything you've said is one assertion after another!
I have no interest in PM'ing with you, what would be the point. Your position, closed mind and bias are clear for all to see. Spinoza's argument for the deist God is taught and respected, if questioned and doubted, to this day at the highest levels of Philosophical enquiry.
Yet you, apparently are singularly equipped to destroy it. I await your peer reviewed paper :P
@MrWildbill20056 Spinoza's "god" is NOT god in the same sense as any religious person uses it. It is not the description of a god or God of any kind. It represents the sense of aw and wonderment at the universe itself, not an entity of any kind. It's regularly referred to as the god of the physicist. Using it as an argument for the deist god as a foundation for an argument for the god of Abraham is a fallacy of such a base level it wouldn't be funny if you weren't serious. Try again?
@themanofearth More assertional nonsense. You clearly don't understand Spinoza's concept or arguments for 'God' at all. Thinking Spinoza's God is 'the universe' is to misunderstand his attribution of God as Natura naturans, not the whole of nature. Further A theist can happily incorporate almost all of the Spinozian argument, barring his abritrary notions on God's lack of choice. Establishing the basic deist God principal is a reasonable base for a theist to work on. Not the only, but one.
@MrWildbill20056 You put forward the idea of Spinoza's "god" as being in line with the "god" that Einstein "believed" in. That "god" is not an entity. The deist god foundation for belief in the theist god is an argument for the existence of an entity with a will that (for whatever reason) came created and left. You must have an argument for an entity for the foundation and Spinoza doesn't supply that nor did Einstein embrace it.
@themanofearth 'I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in...' No Einstein, presumably capable of understanding Spinoza's position understood precisely what he was endorsing. That said Spinoza believed in God as a necessarily existing infinite being, not an abstract redefining of 'nature' as with a pantheist. Furthere there is no requirement for the entity to have 'left' under a theist perspective. Sophisticated theology has God as permanently creating/sustaining the universe.
@MrWildbill20056 Again, even great men can believe very silly things. There is no evidence for this god save the "assertional nonsense" that the order we perceive in the universe is the result of a god either creating and/or sustaining it.
"there is no requirement for the entity to have 'left' under a theist perspective." Uh... I wasn't saying there was. That's the entity form of the deist god that came created and left.
@themanofearth 1) More assertional nonsense, you are very keen on this. You are possibly confusing absolute proof with evidence, I give you the benefit of that doubt. However even in light of this the rationality of the universe, contingency, the strong anthropic principal, and the life of Christ are evidence. Absolute empirically testable proof, of course not.
2) Not the deist 'God' argued for by Spinoza, I didn't realise we'd left the crux of that issue behind.
@themanofearth For all your attempts to appear rational, this last comment reveals you in your full glory as a 'new atheist.' Arrogant and self delusional that you are actually open minded.
It's just sad, I'm sorry. Especially when you try to lecture an evolutionary biologist on genetics. Although probably not living contemporaneously there must definitely have been individuals whose genomes had the characteristic h.sapiens sapiens identity uniquely before reproducing.
@themanofearth You are confusing genetic compatibility with being the first humans which would have a genomic identity identical to ours barring minor substitutions etc. Yes, multiple progeny which were reproductively compatible co existed from a varying number of different lineages. However at some stage, temporaly speaking there will have been a male and individual (removed in time perhaps) that were the first with a genomic identity functionally identical to ours.
@themanofearth Ah I think perhaps you are confusing what I am saying with the statement, 'There was a single pair who form a common ancestor to all humanity.'
This is not at all what I have presented. I have simply presented that there must have been, in time a first man and first woman ie a first genetically recognisable h.sapiens sapiens male and female.
Consequently it is a true statement that there must have been a first man and a first woman.
Not to derail from the topic, but I've been wondering for a long time now... what's with the fascism logo at the beginning of your videos? I mean, yeah, obviously Lady Liberty could use a gigantic crucifix instead of some stupid "flame of liberty" or whatever, and to be draped in the flag... but if she really wanted to be a fascist, shouldn't she be wearing big black boots, too?
@beriukay LMAO! I got the inspiration for the art work from a quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis (though no one can site the source) "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
No, the fact of evolution does not preclude A god. Yes, it does preclude the Christian god. As you said, despite the equivocation, Christians really are not arguing with atheists that there is A god. They are arguing that the the god is the "God" of the Old Testament.
Biblical literalist claims 'A' because it's in the bible. Scientist takes 'A' and finds it false, again and again and again. So, game over. It's that simple, you cannot trust ANYTHING written in said bible. The very existence of Apologetics tells us something about their sources, falsehoods.
The problem with your evaluation is that one cannot come to argue WHICH God exists if one of the parties does not agree that a God CAN exist. It's the first step in exploring deeper into the matter. Once both parties can come to agree that a God CAN exist, then they can start to consider which, if any, God concepts being held most closely resembles who or what that God is. You're jumping the gun here.
@gambleor About the problem you have with original sin, you need to watch some videos from allsaintsmonastery. Not a single Church Father believed in original sin. You need to study up on that.
@gambleor No I'm not. Apologists use this argument all the time to assert their version of god/God is not contradicted by science/evolution. I don't think you payed attention to the entire video. I acknowledge that the argument CAN be used to point out that science doesn't contradict the deist or pantheist "gods" but it CANNOT be used in the same way for most other gods, especially the god of Abraham. I'm perfectly willing to consider the existence of a god just don't try to feed me BS.
@themanofearth Actually, you are. Go back to the debate between WLC and Sam Harris. WLC does qualify in his opening that he is NOT arguing for the Abrahamic God, but rather the vague god of the philosophers. It does no good to talk about whether or not the god in question is specifically Abraham's God at this point in the debate. I can tell you all the attributes of my pet unicorn but it won't make a difference in debate unless we have established that unicorns in general exist. It's not BS.
@gambleor "WLC does qualify in his opening that he is NOT arguing for the Abrahamic God, but rather the vague god of the philosophers." 1st I'm not addressing WLC in any specific and/or direct way. 2nd I'm sorry but that smacks of special pleading at best (i.e. More BS). WLC is not a deist or pantheist: He is a Christian apologist. CAN he argue for the "vague god of the philosophers" sure however that's not the god/God he believes in nor the one he needs to do any apologetics for.
@themanofearth Do you really not understand that there's no way that we can argue the details of something that one of us doesn't believe even exists? If you wanted to argue with me that you mounted your camera so you could make this video and I didn't believe that you mounted it, would it make sense for you to argue that you used a tripod instead of a desk or shelf? Of course not. You'd have to convince me that it was mounted before convincing me that it was mounted on a tripod.
@gambleor No I do understand what you're saying but you're not getting the point. The apologist is doing something inherently dishonest WHEN they make this argument and don't stipulate which god they're arguing for. Especially when it's a group of Christian apologists addressing creationists about evolution and saying there's no conflict between science and religion.
@themanofearth This depends on the branch of Christianity you're dealing with though. In an Orthodox and Catholic theology, there is no conflict between science and God as of yet. Even the theory of evolution doesn't hurt those theologies. There are certain Protestant sects that are also not in conflict with science. I know for sure that thunderbolt is Catholic and lapkine is Orthodox.
@gambleor "In an Orthodox and Catholic theology, there is no conflict between science and God as of yet."
Yeah... Only because they ignore or (rather skillfully at times) avoid the problem that the legitimacy of theology relies on claims about reality that their holy text makes that directly contradict science or even logic. Catholics rely on original sin being an ACTUAL event which directly contradicts everything we know about human biology and the theory of evolution.
@themanofearth But not all Catholics prescribe to the idea of original sin in the sense that Augustine meant it. The texts are irrelevant in scientific discourse anyway as they are didactic texts which are the product of the Church as a way to reinforce her traditions. So it's not replacing one lie for another, it's placing each view in it's appropriate category. That said, it's not the spread of religion that is the antithesis of...
@gambleor "But not all Catholics prescribe to the idea of original sin in the sense that Augustine meant it." Then they have a serious problem that I've not heard any Catholic (or any other Christian) deal with in any way that wasn't simply laughable. No original sin = no reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, Serpent and tree then how did sin enter the world for Jesus' sacrifice to be necessary?
@themanofearth "No original sin = no reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, Serpent and tree then how did sin enter the world for Jesus' sacrifice to be necessary?" What on earth are you talking about? You're dealing with the theory of vicarious atonement only which didn't take hold in Christianity until feudalism took hold of Europe. You're leaving out Christus Victory theory, the theory of redemptive reconciliation, etc...
@gambleor Again failing slick apologetics 101. Each of these "Jesus (is) redeem(s)(ed)(ing) us..." "theories" are either based on an event(s) that directly contradict the known principals of the universe discovered through science (i.e. vicarious atonement, the most accepted at present) or based on an indirect contradiction of them in which Jesus must prove he is the son of God by preforming miracles. It cannot be escaped.
@themanofearth Jesus doesn't prove He's the Son of God by performing miracles. He may have performed miracles, but not for the sake of proving that He's the Son of God. Nevertheless, it's a fair assessment that these theories are based on an event that directly contradicts repeatable phenomena that we accept as principles of the universe, but there is no such thing as "known." Furthermore, we don't dismiss anomalies just because they don't jive with what we believe to be true.
@gambleor "...there is no such thing as 'known.'" Are you attempting to bring in the problem of induction here or some other argument in support of that statement?
"...we don't dismiss anomalies just because they don't jive with what we believe to be true." 1st religious people do it all the time with science vs miracle claims. 2nd science does it all the time WHEN the "anomaly" (e.g. every miracle in the Bible) cannot be recreated, tested or accounted for.
@themanofearth "religious people do it all the time with science vs miracle claims. 2nd science does it all the time WHEN the "anomaly" (e.g. every miracle in the Bible) cannot be recreated, tested or accounted for." Preferential dismissals of anomalous events are not the same as scientific dismissals. Science has no way of holding a position on events that anomalous in this sense. Therefore science and religion do not conflict and cannot conflict. They are in separate arenas.
@gambleor "...it's a fair assessment that these theories [in reference to the "theories" of redemption through/by Jesus in the Bible] are based on an event that directly contradicts repeatable phenomena that we accept as principles of the universe..."
Is that an admittance that there IS a conflict between science and religion?
@themanofearth "Is that an admittance that there IS a conflict between science and religion?" No it isn't. It's a distinction being made between repeatable phenomena and anomalous phenomena.
@gambleor "The texts are irrelevant in scientific discourse anyway... So it's not replacing one lie for another, it's placing each view in it's appropriate category."
WOW you've either completely missed the point or you're just failing slick apologetic 101. I agree that the texts are irrelevant to science but the reverse is NOT true. Violations of what we know about the universe are necessary for the texts to make any theological sense. Hence there IS a conflict between science and religion.
Yes, atheists like themanofearth fellow make a common category error by assuming that heaven and earth are in the same category, that science covers all categories. They aren't and it doesn't.
@bris1tol Uh... No. You're really late coming into this conversation and you even have a firm of grasp the conversation we've been having. You should really try to stick to one failure at a time.
@themanofearth ...people talking rationally about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity, it's the spread of the intentional misapplication of scripture that is the antithesis of people talking rationally about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity.
@gambleor "the intentional misapplication of scripture"
I'm sorry but, what a load of horse manure. Theologically speaking, "loving thy neighbor", turning the other cheek, stoning all homosexuals to death and identifying/burning witches (even if they're your neighbors) are all equally valid. The ONLY thing that makes the first two more valid (thereby making the others a "misapplication") is the fact that, as a MODERN believer, you've deemed it ok to cherry pick what you like and leave the rest.
@themanofearth "I'm sorry but, what a load of horse manure." I'm afraid that if you can't grasp the subject matter, you probably shouldn't be making videos about it. This has nothing to do with cherry picking. This method has been employed since the beginnings of Christianity. You're simply operating under the assumption that all interpretations are equal and they're not.
@gambleor "This method has been employed since the beginnings of Christianity." That's the point numb nuts. You're simply the latest - and self-proclaimed greatest - interpretors of the wondrous doctrine that has inspired everything from reconciliation between enemies to christening/supporting brutal monarchies/dictators and philanthropy to the most blatantly religiously inspired acts of genocide (YES) with equal validity.
See my video: The Atheist Community and The Question for more.
@themanofearth I'm not arguing against the ability for the texts to be misused. In fact, I believe that's precisely what I said, that the texts have been and are still being misused intentionally. This has nothing to do with cherry-picking or modern moral sensibilities either. We read the scriptures in light of Christ's teachings which are the interpretive lens that they ought to be read in by a Christian.
@gambleor "I'm not arguing against the ability for the texts to be misused." That's not what I even remotely suggested you said. What I'm saying is that even "in light of Christ's teachings" one can still justify/legitimize everything/anything one wants through scripture as has been, is being and will be done in the future with equal validity. Your interpretation of scripture through "Christ's teachings" is just as legitimate as the Westboro Baptist Chruch's interpretation theologically.
@gambleor In order to say that all interpretations are NOT equal (which is the BS part because it's simply a way of saying that only the interpretations that permit/condone/advocate/promote things that I - as the individual believer - think are wrong, are the invalid interpretations) you have to argue with the people who are doing the "wrong" things according to your interpretation of the text. Continued1
@themanofearth "it's simply a way of saying that only the interpretations that permit/condone/advocate/promote things that I - as the individual believer - think are wrong, are the invalid interpretations"
No, it's saying that the interpretive authority is the institution that chose the texts for inclusion with the interpretation they used to decipher the texts. I, "the individual believer," can and have wrongly interpreted scripture before and I'm sure it'll happen again many times over.
@gambleor I guess this is why so many people switch churches and denominations. All the individual believer has to do is choose their favorite interpretation and... Oh wait... that sounds an awful lot like the individual believer chooses the interpretation based on their own ideas and goes with it. Being that there is an "authoritative" interpretation to fit virtually any and all mindsets and positions; it's still on the individual believer's choice of interpretation.
@themanofearth "Oh wait... that sounds an awful lot like the individual believer chooses the interpretation based on their own ideas and goes with it." The Church's interpretation can be traced back in the writings of believers. There is an empirical trail of letters, ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical histories that we have that can distinguish between right belief and the preference of the individual. Don't pin individual preference on the Church's authority. There's no comparison.
@gambleor 1Continued... All you end up doing is trading absolute assertions about the will of a god that when pressured every believer I've ever encountered (besides the ones who claim to talk literally and directly TO the god of Abraham) will admit they cannot know. Which, in the end gets you nowhere except into a holy war.
@themanofearth BTW, when I said "the intentional misapplication of scripture" I meant that people are applying scripture as though it belongs in the scientific discussion when it doesn't.
@themanofearth Truthfully, was Creationists are doing is misusing my books. It offends me and I want them to stop. Those people in the video you're responding to feel the same way.
@gambleor I understand what they're TRYING to do but they're simply telling one lie or spreading one delusional idea to try to get other people to stop telling a different one. I'm for the honest discussion of these topics from the get go.
Getting people to accept evolution is not the end goal. The end goal is to get people to rationally talk about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity. The spread of religion is the antithesis of this effort.
@themanofearth It's really a problematic point that you're making. On the one hand, if we argue specifics about God without establishing that one exists, atheists respond with "how can you be sure that a God even exists, let alone YOUR God." On the other hand, if we argue a vaguer God concept, atheists respond with "well, even if that's true, it doesn't prove YOUR God." It's a catch 22 and it's completely dishonest.
@gambleor . All of the arguments for/against the existence of A god are simply pointing out that you can't prove there can/can't be one. Saying something like "Even if we were to grant the Kalam cosmological argument (just an example), it still wouldn't prove the existence of the god of Abraham" is not attempting to "catch 22" someone nor is it dishonest. It's a simple statement of fact that stops the person arguing for the existence of a god - let alone a specific one - dead in their tracks.
@themanofearth But the point of using Kalam is to get to the next stage of argumentation. Yes, the theist will concur that Kalam doesn't prove Abraham's God, but they will qualify that it's not meant to. It takes further investigation and discussion to get to the attributes that lead to Abraham's God. But, in order to undertake that investigation, both parties must agree that a God does in fact exist.
@gambleor Yeah but you missed the part where I said, "Even if..." Kalam isn't sound to begin with. None of them are. They ONLY establish that you can't prove that A god can/can't exist. Kalam doesn't even argue for the existence of ANY god, it's an argument for first cause. It's just assumed from thin air that a god is that first cause. At best the cosmological (or any other argument for the "vague god") can achieve is NOT that a god DOES exist or even that one is likely to exist: They ALL fail.
Interesting strategic problem, do we stand back when science supporting Christians tackle the blatant anti-science lies told by YECs, or do address their fallacious arguments as well? YECs may well be more likely to listen to science based arguments coming from other Christians than from atheists, but ultimately we still have to tackle the faulty argumentation of apologists, particularly of the WLC ilk who regularly use equivocation.
@KrokrX My position is pretty clear. We tackle both at the same time. The point and foundation of this conflict between reason and faith is faith/dogma's trump of reason and evidence. The anti-science thing is only a side effect. Granted it's the biggest and worst side effect but it's still only a side effect.
You know I came to the same conclusion about a literal Genesis. Strangely it is one of the few areas where I agree with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Without a literal Genesis the entire doctrine of original sin falls flat on it's face.
"but there is a problem, on what basis you decide how to inteprete the texts." That's where Tradition (with a capital T) plays a role in the catholic religion. Again, watch the video itself and understand context, genre, and differences of interpretation of LITERATURE (which is what the Bible is). Considering that Fr. Barron is an established theologian and priest, he would be able to explain it perfectly for further information.
So the battle can go on between the millions of qualified theologians or priests, you will never get the same answer and you know that, and there can very well be no compatibility between them.
"you will never get the same answer and you know that"
Again, reread what I wrote: "That's where Tradition (with a capital T) plays a role in the catholic religion."
This is something that Catholic has the advantage over the Protestant. If there contradictory opinions regarding biblical interpretation, then there is the final authority (the church) used to have the final say.
Not even in the catholic church everything is so clear, I'm thinking of the conflict we have in Italy between some priests (Livio Fanzaga) that declare on Radio Maria that god is responsable for the tsunami, and others that think differently.
The evolution theory was accepted by the previous pope, but not widely accepted by catholic leaders.
While it's true that many priests have can have contradictory views with one another regarding certain views, it doesn't disprove the final authority of the church regarding biblical interpretation. Of course, I will also grant that the church does not always intervene in theological disputes when they should, which is something that I will say needs to be worked on.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I had no idea that you were a young earth creationist!
Seriously though, I think you completely missed the point of the video. This video was in NO WAY meant to be an argument to atheists for the existence of God, this video is addressed specifically to Young Earth Creationists to attempt to demonstrate that evolution is not a threat to their faith as they tend to assert.
You seem to be arguing just to argue. (no offense intended)
@RationalRoundtable Uh... No I didn't miss the point of the video. The problem is it's a bold faced lie that your telling in an attempt to get people to stop telling/believing a different bold faced lie. There IS a conflict between religion and science and it's a HUGE one. Telling a YEC that there isn't one is like telling a child that the boogeyman will get them if they don't eat their broccoli when they ask "Why should I eat this?" They're not children so why should they be treated as such?
"There IS a conflict between religion and science and it's a HUGE one."
The only kind of conflict between religion and science is the one YOU (or fundamentalists) have created. The fact remains that there is no conflict between science and religion when they are understood properly. The conflict theory is dead, dude. Please, I thought you were smarter than this (no offense intended).
@thunderbolt94 Look, just because you can engage in this level of self-deception doesn't mean that I can or anyone else should. Your section of the video was just laughable (no offense intended) as you basically attempted to argue for non-overlapping magisteria (a mistake your fellow collaborators did not make) which is just about the saddest idea that anyone's come up with about the conflict. watch?v=ljszu1cOdho
@aaronk1994 That sure isn't part of any Christian Theology I am aware of. Every Sunday, just about, I sit in my wifes Missionary Alliance evangelical church and I hear ad nasueum that Jesus died to forgive out sins, because we are born in sin (that is, original sin).
That being said, it still refutes aaron1994's statement as to the alleged reason "why" Jesus died. He flat out discounted it, when in fact the doctrine is held by a large swath of Christianity, if not the majority.
At any rate, its like debating whose shadow weighs more - Jesus was an apocolyticist who was crucified for sedition and tossed in a common grave or burned in Gehenna like other criminals and "messiahs" arrested by the authorities. Nothing more.
@johnycannuk That is the Orthodox view of the cross. With all due respect, you clearly aren't aware of much of Christian theology if you don't know what Orthodoxy is, especially since it is more popular than Reformed Christianity.
@johnycannuk "But seeing as how you are admitting that there is many schools of thought, your positive authoritative statement is refuted." This assumes that there is no authentic authority on the subject.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I can’t speak for the other four participants in the collab video, but in regards to interpretation of the Bible, you are taking it and reading it like a fundamentalist would.
watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
watch?v=_eyF0PiIY_o
I would recommend watching Father Barron’s videos on the topic if you haven’t already. And before you start accusing me of using “mental gymnastics”, please keep in mind that accusation of does not work on me and I consider it as cleverly disguised form of poisoning the well.
@thunderbolt94 Remember that blizzard I mentioned? Yeah...
First, this "theological reflection on the origin of all things" IS making scientific claims about the origin of the universe. Second, if the Bible isn't literal, how can you say the Jesus is a literal person who literally sacrificed himself to God to save all humanity? Third, the "genre" argument is just insipid because apparently you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are which "genre" to suit your taste with equal validity.
1."theological reflection on the origin of all things" IS making scientific claims about the origin of the universe". No it's not. The moment you posit God into a scientific claim, it's no longer "just science" because science assumes metaphysical naturalism. I'm sorry, but metaphysical empiricism is loaded with holes.
2. 74 books in the Bible, different genres, differences of literary interpretation.
3. Accusing the "genre argument" actually does not help your argument (cont)
@thunderbolt94 Genesis states that god created the universe in 6 days. Whether this is the "God's time" argument or 6 literal days, it is a scientific claim as is Noah's flood, women turning into pillars of salt and the existence of Adam, Eve and a talking snake who are necessary for there being original sin which was Jesus' reason for being on Earth to begin with. ALL of these things are theologically significant and RELY on claims about reality for legitimacy that violate known science.
@thunderbolt94 "74 books in the Bible, different genres, differences of literary interpretation." Again, which ones are which? Oh that's right, any of them can be any that you want them to be and any section of any can be any that you want them to be so you can get around conflicts and say "This part is metaphor but this part is literal that way they don't conflict with themselves or science. Yay!" Again, insipid.
You are aware that the 7 books that it was the Protestants took out of the bible during the Protestant reformation were, right? Before that, the church had decided the books of the Bible (hence the notion of Tradition within the Catholic faith), and has even been confirmed even by the Council of Trent. Again, tradition determines what books are put in the Bible.
You do realize that scholars can analyze different books to determine what they were written as, right? We don't "pick and choose" which parts to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically or allegorically (at least I don't). Evidence exists that Genesis was written as allegorical literature, not as history. In fact, St. Augustine, over a millennium before Darwin was even born, interpreted Genesis allegorically. This isn't a new interpretation; it's been around for centuries.
@aaronk1994 "Evidence exists that Genesis was written as allegorical literature, not as history."
So then Abraham didn't actually exist just like Adam and original sin didn't actually exist making all the base of all the bloodlines in the Bible (which include all the ones about David and Jesus) fictitious?
I think a few Rabis and theologians might have a problem with that.
@aaronk1994 See that's brilliant. You can even take different parts of different books as either literal or metaphor as you like. What makes the Genesis creation story allegory and the rest not. it's all just as ridiculous as the rest?
"It makes no difference either way, since original sin isn't even a biblical doctrine." Funny since it's necessary for the Jesus narrative and sacrifice to be meaningful.
@aaronk1994 And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence that the stories in Genesis are true or textual evidence that lends legitimacy to interpreting Genesis as allegory and not (literal) history?
The Catholic catechism explicitly states about "How to read the account of the Fall": 390 "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." That seems like a scientific claim to me.
But you do concede that it's a scientific claim then? If read as a mix of theo-biology, it seems to suggest that at some point in the development of a sentient species, the free will and moral sense of an individual "B" are sufficiently developed to hold it accountable, but the previous individual "A" (or contemporaneous tribe members of individual "B at the developmental level of "A") is not or only quasi. o_0
there is a site called "reasonablefaith" .org for some reason I can't post a link
a site that I use regularly to look at Q & A's, listen to podcasts, debates and more!
Dr. William Lane Craig is worth looking up for anything scientific and biblical. I have learned... quite a lot from this site :)
PuddingcupWoW 2 weeks ago
@PuddingcupWoW I've seen the site that you're talking about and William Lane Craig is the most dishonest Christian apologist I've ever seen. I've never seen him in a debate where he didn't blatantly misrepresent (i.e. straw man) his opponent's position, misquote scientists and/or make false/unconformable claims about reality in an attempt to make/counter a point. If you want a better apologist or at least a more honest one, look up the YouTube user RationalRoundtable
themanofearth 2 weeks ago
i had a friend tell me that human reason and logic cant explain god because we will never understand why he does things. I just sat there and thought how could we be made in his image if he has nothing in common with him on a thought level.
damienKaos 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
We're all gnostic theists, because if a god is the Universe, we can see it.
poorkinghaggard 2 months ago
I could say the same about you.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Actually, no you can't: Not without showing me where I've been inconsistent.
themanofearth 2 months ago
I don't know the percentage (maybe 10 % ?) but faith obviously is the larger domain.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Again, false. Reason is not a percentage of faith. Reason precedes faith in the same way that lightning precedes thunder. Faith cannot be gained without a reason.
themanofearth 2 months ago
There is no logical, rational or scientific basis for faith. Which annuls all of your arguments.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook, and does not teach logic. It is a spiritual manual of
faith and morals, for which neither science nor you have a clue.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol I'm quoting YOU here:
"I have to admit that faith does have to have some degree of reason." & "God is where logic comes from."
You're going back on what you admitted earlier in our conversation in order to suit your current needs, you're not being consistent with where logic comes from/in, you seem to be incapable avoiding self-contradiction and you don't seem to understand what we're actually discussing.
Were this an actual debate, you just lost: With flying colors.
themanofearth 2 months ago
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
Roger
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Aaaannd we're right back to the intellectually lazy responses. Quoting the Bible is the laziest move any believer has ever made when discussing the deep issues of faith, reason and logic.
You must first establish the primacy of the Bible (i.e. that it does not rely on claims that violate science and/or logical reasoning) BEFORE using the Bible to establish a logical foundation of faith. You have not done this. No one has ever done this.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth
I think that quotes from fortune cookies contain the same level of wisdom as the Bible.
Hmm, actually I do not recall any fortune cookie ever telling me that I need to fear hell, beat my slave, stone my child, kill my brother, hate my neighbor due to his/her choice of sleeping companion, rape and murder a village or to give money to freeloading-skirt-wearing-child-raping-brainwashing-holier-than-thou-ass-wipes.
Love thy neighbor-Really?
No, fortune cookies are decidedly better.
immortalis1001 2 months ago 2
I would say that "indolent child" is an insult.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol If the truth is insulting then it's probably your position or conversation/debate style that's to blame and in this case it's both.
Even you should recognize an answer of, "Faith is a gift from God. I don't do anything." in the context of what we're talking about as childish and intellectually lazy. I'm not sure what else you could call it other than indolent.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
Roger
bris1tol 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themanofearth "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
(Ephesians 2:8-9)
Roger
bris1tol 2 months ago
Reason enters when words are used, such as in prayer or reading the Bible.
Faith is trust. What else do you need to know ?
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Christ you're thick...
Even if reason "enters when words are used" (which is another false statement but I'll let it go because you're confused enough) you're still relying on (ta-da!) reason (i.e. the Devil's harlot) to be able to have faith (i.e. trust) God.
THEREFORE: In order for you to have faith in God, you must - in a manner of speaking - fuck the Devil's harlot. Is this not true?
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Faith is a gift from God. I don't do anything.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol At this point should I not assume that you're either so inept/indoctrinated that you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend what we're discussing OR that you're simply not going to answer the question or engage in any more conversation/debate, enacting a circular argument (which you've just done) as if that child-like response were clever?
I only ask because these seem to be the only two options left to me.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Insults won't win your losing case.
Try to convince me to be an atheist.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Those aren't insults and I'm not trying to convince you to be an atheist. An atheist is something that you're not rather than something that you are.
I'm trying to have an adult conversation about the nature of faith, reason, logic and religion and I'm getting a conversation that started out with (presumably) an adult that has swiftly turned into a conversation with an indolent child.
themanofearth 2 months ago
Reason is the Devil's whore.
bris1tol 2 months ago
I have to admit that faith does have to have some degree of reason. But at the same time, reason is the Devil's playground. It's certainly led YOU astray.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol If reason precedes faith as you've come to recognize and you embrace Martin Luther's adage that, "We know that reason is the devil's harlot, and can do nothing but slander and harm all that god says and does." should that not lead you to an unsettling conclusion?
If you MUST have reason to have faith (which you must) is that not saying you must have (faith in) the Devil to have (faith in) God and not the other way around? i.e. The devil must precede God in all things.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Reason enters when words are used, such as in prayer or reading the Bible. Jesus asks us to come to the Father as a little child (in faith). So I read the Bible as a little child, and when Jonah gets swallowed by the whale, I say "Gee whiz !"
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Faith is used in prayer and in reading God's Word. Reason must be used in group discussions (Man's (our) words). So we can get in trouble if we stray too far away from
God's Word. On the other hand, Luther said to use the Bible to interpret the Bible.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol That's nice but you haven't answered or even addressed the question that YOU have raised.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth Which is ?
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol It's questions in the entry that starts with "If reason precedes faith as you've come to recognize..." You haven't answered or even addressed those questions.
Do at the very least try to pay attention to the words I'm smithing even if it's hard for you to understand.
themanofearth 2 months ago
<3
SassiBoB 2 months ago
@SassiBoB *blush*
themanofearth 2 months ago
Trust of faith is different from reason, which can be dealt with with logic.
Trust or faith is a quale, a subjective entity that only I can verify,
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Again, false. Reason precedes faith of any kind. One must (without exception) have a reason to have faith in anything even if that reason is flawed, based on a lie/untruth or insufficient evidence/logic/knowledge. The "quale" or feeling you refer to is a form of a posteriori knowledge and is the REASON behind your faith and NOT the faith itself.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth
Boy can you twist arguments.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Well... I'd take that as a compliment if I were twisting any arguments but I'm not. Your assertions about logic, reason, faith and knowledge are wrong on such a basic level that the conclusions you draw from them are literally senseless. I've not done any twisting. You're simply ignorant. :-/
themanofearth 2 months ago
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience
Logic is independent of experience
Therefore logic is a priori
But that wasn't my main point.
Faith is trust, That's a subjective experience, which,
being subjective, is not subject to logical proof.
You are making a category error.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Ok... At least you've answered my question. You're incapable of grasping the concepts being discussed.
"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience"
False statement. Knowledge is not justification. You're not even smart enough to commit an equivocation fallacy.
"Faith is trust, That's a subjective experience," No. Faith IS trust but it is based on a posteriori knowledge which is necessary for a logical argument when concerning faith of any kind.
themanofearth 2 months ago
God is where logic comes from.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol That is an assertion with no evidence behind it: Logical or empirical.
And if you're going to ask, "Where does logic come from then?"
The answer is, "I don't know; but neither do you."
themanofearth 2 months ago
Logic resides in the a priori, meaning it doesn't come from this world. It was there to begin with. Atheism is not part of the a priori, since it is nothing, comes from nothing, and means nothing. It is just an illogical, unproven opinion.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol "Logic resides in the a priori, meaning it doesn't come from this world." Another assertion without evidence of any kind behind it. Additionally "a priori" does not mean "it doesn't come from this world." It refers to knowledge that is independent of experience. e.g. 'all atheists do not believe in (a) god'
Atheism is simply the nonbelief in a god or gods. You should really educate yourself more thoroughly before commenting.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth
As I have been saying, faith, being trust, is subjective, and is not belief, which is
objective.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol You have said nothing about faith until this moment so, NO you've not been saying that. You are even wrong about your own statements. Do at least try to not get ahead of yourself.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@bris1tol To top that off, "Logic resides in the a priori" is an absolutely false statement. One must also have a posteriori knowledge (that's knowledge that is dependent on experience or empirical evidence) for logic to work. Especially when dealing with the existence of a god.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth
Logic is independent of experience and so resides in the a priori.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol No... Are you not paying attention or are you just not able to grasp the concepts that are being discussed?
Logic is dependent on knowledge both a priori (experience independent) AND a posteriori (experience dependent). No knowledge, no logic.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth
The subject of religion is outside of the world of logic. It deals with qualia.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol In fact... Forget my earlier statement of "Another assertion without evidence of any kind behind it."
You're just wrong.
themanofearth 2 months ago 2
@themanofearth
As I have said above, religious experience, which is based on faith,
is subjective, a quale, not subject to scientific logic. So you have been making
category errors.
.
bris1tol 2 months ago
The Real Freeman's Mind.
ThatGiantRussian 5 months ago
14) If Christ is Christ and who he claims to be then his endorsement is the ultimate appeal to authority on the matter. Thus early man's stories about himself have disclosed accurate truths about his nature, and his relation to God. They do not have to be historically factual to present true theology.
15) Mental gymnastics? Not really, just actually understanding the language of the texts and applying some pretty simple interpretation. Unless you think Aesop actually met talking foxes that is.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
12) So these verses are explicit, true,mythic theology. Explicit in the terminology. True in speaking to real human experiences and cultural awareness. Mythic in being legendary and unverifiable. Theology in the questions they are seeking to answer.
13) But WB, don't they have to be more 'true' than that, I mean Christ refers to them! The answer is yes! Christ's reference to them is our best guide to them being theologically true.
(Final cont.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
11) Well take Adam, it's ha-adam, it's not a name, it's a reference, more accurately translates as earthling or human-being. Havah (Eve) is not a name either, it means 'living thing.' Bereshit does not mean 'in the beginning' it simply means 'When God began to create' so we don't even have a fixed place in time!
12) We have TWO creation stories in the first 2 books and they aren't factually identical, but do convey the same theology. Coincidence? Of course not!
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
8) Because these 12 verses make no claim to being historical fact. In contrast to material from this point on in the Hebrew Bible there is no claim to external sources for verification or to place events in context of time/other events.
9) They are explicit myths (remember myths can be true!) talking about metaphysical truths: the nature of evil, free will, God's relationship to man, mankind's role in the world etc.
10) But how can be so sure it's not meant to be history?!!
(Cont.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
6) Does this mean the first 12 verses of Genesis are historically accurate after all? Of course not! Simply that they refer to real challenges facing early humanity and their attempts to understand them.
7) Could there have been a Noah, Adam, Eve etc? Sure. However archaeology can't speak to their existence given their place in antiquity. Does it matter? Not really, no. Why?
(Cont.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
4) Does that mean there were no notable events such as floods etc in the history of early man? Of course not! Could an awareness of such events have been passed down through primitive art/communication? Of course!
5) Is there evidence of catastrophic floods in related areas such as the Euphrates flood plain? Sure is. So a basic truth may be found to a tale such as that of Noah's Ark. How were primitive men to know the flood wasn't covering the whole world?
(Cont.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
1) It's a question of layers. The 'theist' God cannot be established without first establishing the 'deist' concept ie designing/dominant intellect.
2) Evolution clearly did produce a first man and woman. We exist, so by regression of causes, so must they have.
3) Would they have had a language, or at least a complex language for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years? Nope. So the potential for recording early events is hugely limited.
(Cont.)
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 1) There are no good arguments that actually establish the existence of even the deist god concept.
2) Evolution never produced the first man or woman. The "regression" is not simplistic 1+1=2 with evolution and there could never have been any less than 150 individuals.
3) - 15) Are laughable (tada!) mental gymnastics. If you want to talk about why, send me a PM. 500 characters is tedious and you're not very good at this logical progression thing.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth 1) What utter nonsense. I am glad you have a superior mind to Spinoza and Einstein to be so discerning.
2) That's utter rubbish. Temporally speaking there were born at some stage a first man and a first woman. In genetic terms there emerged individuals of each sex that have the required genome identity.
3) Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Seeing as I utterly knocked down your view of Genesis creation stories, you should be more gracious.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 1) Give me a good argument for the existence of the deist god and I'll hand it back to you in pieces.
2) The fact that Spinoza and Einstein may have believed in a deist god points to only one thing with me. Even very great people can believe some very silly things. Take Dr. Kary Mullis, brilliant inventor of PCR for which he won a Nobel Prize. He believes in ghosts & alien abductions does that make those more believable?
3) Follow instructions if you want to continue this.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth 1) Simply demonstrates your existing bias, and thus cause to ridicule something others regarded as legitimately possible. Hell let's throw Flew into this too. The fact is a summary of your objection to the Deist is position is: that's silly.
2) That's just snide. Thus you can discard everything you disagree with as 'clever people accepting silly thing.' However are you really going to compare Spinoza's argument with any made for Alien abductions?
3) You already conceded defeat.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Final. I didn't concede defeat, you did by not following instructions for a continuation of the conversation. It is over, you're done.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth My argument was put forth, your reply was not an argument. Everything you've said is one assertion after another!
I have no interest in PM'ing with you, what would be the point. Your position, closed mind and bias are clear for all to see. Spinoza's argument for the deist God is taught and respected, if questioned and doubted, to this day at the highest levels of Philosophical enquiry.
Yet you, apparently are singularly equipped to destroy it. I await your peer reviewed paper :P
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Spinoza's "god" is NOT god in the same sense as any religious person uses it. It is not the description of a god or God of any kind. It represents the sense of aw and wonderment at the universe itself, not an entity of any kind. It's regularly referred to as the god of the physicist. Using it as an argument for the deist god as a foundation for an argument for the god of Abraham is a fallacy of such a base level it wouldn't be funny if you weren't serious. Try again?
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth More assertional nonsense. You clearly don't understand Spinoza's concept or arguments for 'God' at all. Thinking Spinoza's God is 'the universe' is to misunderstand his attribution of God as Natura naturans, not the whole of nature. Further A theist can happily incorporate almost all of the Spinozian argument, barring his abritrary notions on God's lack of choice. Establishing the basic deist God principal is a reasonable base for a theist to work on. Not the only, but one.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 You put forward the idea of Spinoza's "god" as being in line with the "god" that Einstein "believed" in. That "god" is not an entity. The deist god foundation for belief in the theist god is an argument for the existence of an entity with a will that (for whatever reason) came created and left. You must have an argument for an entity for the foundation and Spinoza doesn't supply that nor did Einstein embrace it.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth 'I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in...' No Einstein, presumably capable of understanding Spinoza's position understood precisely what he was endorsing. That said Spinoza believed in God as a necessarily existing infinite being, not an abstract redefining of 'nature' as with a pantheist. Furthere there is no requirement for the entity to have 'left' under a theist perspective. Sophisticated theology has God as permanently creating/sustaining the universe.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Again, even great men can believe very silly things. There is no evidence for this god save the "assertional nonsense" that the order we perceive in the universe is the result of a god either creating and/or sustaining it.
"there is no requirement for the entity to have 'left' under a theist perspective." Uh... I wasn't saying there was. That's the entity form of the deist god that came created and left.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth 1) More assertional nonsense, you are very keen on this. You are possibly confusing absolute proof with evidence, I give you the benefit of that doubt. However even in light of this the rationality of the universe, contingency, the strong anthropic principal, and the life of Christ are evidence. Absolute empirically testable proof, of course not.
2) Not the deist 'God' argued for by Spinoza, I didn't realise we'd left the crux of that issue behind.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@themanofearth For all your attempts to appear rational, this last comment reveals you in your full glory as a 'new atheist.' Arrogant and self delusional that you are actually open minded.
It's just sad, I'm sorry. Especially when you try to lecture an evolutionary biologist on genetics. Although probably not living contemporaneously there must definitely have been individuals whose genomes had the characteristic h.sapiens sapiens identity uniquely before reproducing.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 2) I was wrong. There could never have been any less than 10,000 individuals. Bad information. :-P
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth You are confusing genetic compatibility with being the first humans which would have a genomic identity identical to ours barring minor substitutions etc. Yes, multiple progeny which were reproductively compatible co existed from a varying number of different lineages. However at some stage, temporaly speaking there will have been a male and individual (removed in time perhaps) that were the first with a genomic identity functionally identical to ours.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
@themanofearth Ah I think perhaps you are confusing what I am saying with the statement, 'There was a single pair who form a common ancestor to all humanity.'
This is not at all what I have presented. I have simply presented that there must have been, in time a first man and first woman ie a first genetically recognisable h.sapiens sapiens male and female.
Consequently it is a true statement that there must have been a first man and a first woman.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
Not to derail from the topic, but I've been wondering for a long time now... what's with the fascism logo at the beginning of your videos? I mean, yeah, obviously Lady Liberty could use a gigantic crucifix instead of some stupid "flame of liberty" or whatever, and to be draped in the flag... but if she really wanted to be a fascist, shouldn't she be wearing big black boots, too?
beriukay 7 months ago
@beriukay LMAO! I got the inspiration for the art work from a quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis (though no one can site the source) "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Come to think of it, I remember that quote. Wonder why I never made the connection. Thanks.
beriukay 7 months ago
@beriukay My pleasure.
themanofearth 7 months ago
Good video.
No, the fact of evolution does not preclude A god. Yes, it does preclude the Christian god. As you said, despite the equivocation, Christians really are not arguing with atheists that there is A god. They are arguing that the the god is the "God" of the Old Testament.
AncientAtheist 7 months ago
I asked my Christian sister-in-law why, if she accepts evolution, did she baptise her children, she said, "Some shit went down." I kid you not.
Al1981X 7 months ago
Biblical literalist claims 'A' because it's in the bible. Scientist takes 'A' and finds it false, again and again and again. So, game over. It's that simple, you cannot trust ANYTHING written in said bible. The very existence of Apologetics tells us something about their sources, falsehoods.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
The problem with your evaluation is that one cannot come to argue WHICH God exists if one of the parties does not agree that a God CAN exist. It's the first step in exploring deeper into the matter. Once both parties can come to agree that a God CAN exist, then they can start to consider which, if any, God concepts being held most closely resembles who or what that God is. You're jumping the gun here.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor About the problem you have with original sin, you need to watch some videos from allsaintsmonastery. Not a single Church Father believed in original sin. You need to study up on that.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor No I'm not. Apologists use this argument all the time to assert their version of god/God is not contradicted by science/evolution. I don't think you payed attention to the entire video. I acknowledge that the argument CAN be used to point out that science doesn't contradict the deist or pantheist "gods" but it CANNOT be used in the same way for most other gods, especially the god of Abraham. I'm perfectly willing to consider the existence of a god just don't try to feed me BS.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Actually, you are. Go back to the debate between WLC and Sam Harris. WLC does qualify in his opening that he is NOT arguing for the Abrahamic God, but rather the vague god of the philosophers. It does no good to talk about whether or not the god in question is specifically Abraham's God at this point in the debate. I can tell you all the attributes of my pet unicorn but it won't make a difference in debate unless we have established that unicorns in general exist. It's not BS.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor "WLC does qualify in his opening that he is NOT arguing for the Abrahamic God, but rather the vague god of the philosophers." 1st I'm not addressing WLC in any specific and/or direct way. 2nd I'm sorry but that smacks of special pleading at best (i.e. More BS). WLC is not a deist or pantheist: He is a Christian apologist. CAN he argue for the "vague god of the philosophers" sure however that's not the god/God he believes in nor the one he needs to do any apologetics for.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth Do you really not understand that there's no way that we can argue the details of something that one of us doesn't believe even exists? If you wanted to argue with me that you mounted your camera so you could make this video and I didn't believe that you mounted it, would it make sense for you to argue that you used a tripod instead of a desk or shelf? Of course not. You'd have to convince me that it was mounted before convincing me that it was mounted on a tripod.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor No I do understand what you're saying but you're not getting the point. The apologist is doing something inherently dishonest WHEN they make this argument and don't stipulate which god they're arguing for. Especially when it's a group of Christian apologists addressing creationists about evolution and saying there's no conflict between science and religion.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth This depends on the branch of Christianity you're dealing with though. In an Orthodox and Catholic theology, there is no conflict between science and God as of yet. Even the theory of evolution doesn't hurt those theologies. There are certain Protestant sects that are also not in conflict with science. I know for sure that thunderbolt is Catholic and lapkine is Orthodox.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor "In an Orthodox and Catholic theology, there is no conflict between science and God as of yet."
Yeah... Only because they ignore or (rather skillfully at times) avoid the problem that the legitimacy of theology relies on claims about reality that their holy text makes that directly contradict science or even logic. Catholics rely on original sin being an ACTUAL event which directly contradicts everything we know about human biology and the theory of evolution.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth But not all Catholics prescribe to the idea of original sin in the sense that Augustine meant it. The texts are irrelevant in scientific discourse anyway as they are didactic texts which are the product of the Church as a way to reinforce her traditions. So it's not replacing one lie for another, it's placing each view in it's appropriate category. That said, it's not the spread of religion that is the antithesis of...
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "But not all Catholics prescribe to the idea of original sin in the sense that Augustine meant it." Then they have a serious problem that I've not heard any Catholic (or any other Christian) deal with in any way that wasn't simply laughable. No original sin = no reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, Serpent and tree then how did sin enter the world for Jesus' sacrifice to be necessary?
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "No original sin = no reason for Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. If there was no Adam, Eve, Eden, Serpent and tree then how did sin enter the world for Jesus' sacrifice to be necessary?" What on earth are you talking about? You're dealing with the theory of vicarious atonement only which didn't take hold in Christianity until feudalism took hold of Europe. You're leaving out Christus Victory theory, the theory of redemptive reconciliation, etc...
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor Again failing slick apologetics 101. Each of these "Jesus (is) redeem(s)(ed)(ing) us..." "theories" are either based on an event(s) that directly contradict the known principals of the universe discovered through science (i.e. vicarious atonement, the most accepted at present) or based on an indirect contradiction of them in which Jesus must prove he is the son of God by preforming miracles. It cannot be escaped.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth Jesus doesn't prove He's the Son of God by performing miracles. He may have performed miracles, but not for the sake of proving that He's the Son of God. Nevertheless, it's a fair assessment that these theories are based on an event that directly contradicts repeatable phenomena that we accept as principles of the universe, but there is no such thing as "known." Furthermore, we don't dismiss anomalies just because they don't jive with what we believe to be true.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "...there is no such thing as 'known.'" Are you attempting to bring in the problem of induction here or some other argument in support of that statement?
"...we don't dismiss anomalies just because they don't jive with what we believe to be true." 1st religious people do it all the time with science vs miracle claims. 2nd science does it all the time WHEN the "anomaly" (e.g. every miracle in the Bible) cannot be recreated, tested or accounted for.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "religious people do it all the time with science vs miracle claims. 2nd science does it all the time WHEN the "anomaly" (e.g. every miracle in the Bible) cannot be recreated, tested or accounted for." Preferential dismissals of anomalous events are not the same as scientific dismissals. Science has no way of holding a position on events that anomalous in this sense. Therefore science and religion do not conflict and cannot conflict. They are in separate arenas.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "...it's a fair assessment that these theories [in reference to the "theories" of redemption through/by Jesus in the Bible] are based on an event that directly contradicts repeatable phenomena that we accept as principles of the universe..."
Is that an admittance that there IS a conflict between science and religion?
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "Is that an admittance that there IS a conflict between science and religion?" No it isn't. It's a distinction being made between repeatable phenomena and anomalous phenomena.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "The texts are irrelevant in scientific discourse anyway... So it's not replacing one lie for another, it's placing each view in it's appropriate category."
WOW you've either completely missed the point or you're just failing slick apologetic 101. I agree that the texts are irrelevant to science but the reverse is NOT true. Violations of what we know about the universe are necessary for the texts to make any theological sense. Hence there IS a conflict between science and religion.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth
Yes, atheists like themanofearth fellow make a common category error by assuming that heaven and earth are in the same category, that science covers all categories. They aren't and it doesn't.
bris1tol 2 months ago
@bris1tol Uh... No. You're really late coming into this conversation and you even have a firm of grasp the conversation we've been having. You should really try to stick to one failure at a time.
themanofearth 2 months ago
@themanofearth ...people talking rationally about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity, it's the spread of the intentional misapplication of scripture that is the antithesis of people talking rationally about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "the intentional misapplication of scripture"
I'm sorry but, what a load of horse manure. Theologically speaking, "loving thy neighbor", turning the other cheek, stoning all homosexuals to death and identifying/burning witches (even if they're your neighbors) are all equally valid. The ONLY thing that makes the first two more valid (thereby making the others a "misapplication") is the fact that, as a MODERN believer, you've deemed it ok to cherry pick what you like and leave the rest.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "I'm sorry but, what a load of horse manure." I'm afraid that if you can't grasp the subject matter, you probably shouldn't be making videos about it. This has nothing to do with cherry picking. This method has been employed since the beginnings of Christianity. You're simply operating under the assumption that all interpretations are equal and they're not.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "This method has been employed since the beginnings of Christianity." That's the point numb nuts. You're simply the latest - and self-proclaimed greatest - interpretors of the wondrous doctrine that has inspired everything from reconciliation between enemies to christening/supporting brutal monarchies/dictators and philanthropy to the most blatantly religiously inspired acts of genocide (YES) with equal validity.
See my video: The Atheist Community and The Question for more.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth I'm not arguing against the ability for the texts to be misused. In fact, I believe that's precisely what I said, that the texts have been and are still being misused intentionally. This has nothing to do with cherry-picking or modern moral sensibilities either. We read the scriptures in light of Christ's teachings which are the interpretive lens that they ought to be read in by a Christian.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor "I'm not arguing against the ability for the texts to be misused." That's not what I even remotely suggested you said. What I'm saying is that even "in light of Christ's teachings" one can still justify/legitimize everything/anything one wants through scripture as has been, is being and will be done in the future with equal validity. Your interpretation of scripture through "Christ's teachings" is just as legitimate as the Westboro Baptist Chruch's interpretation theologically.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@gambleor In order to say that all interpretations are NOT equal (which is the BS part because it's simply a way of saying that only the interpretations that permit/condone/advocate/promote things that I - as the individual believer - think are wrong, are the invalid interpretations) you have to argue with the people who are doing the "wrong" things according to your interpretation of the text. Continued1
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "it's simply a way of saying that only the interpretations that permit/condone/advocate/promote things that I - as the individual believer - think are wrong, are the invalid interpretations"
No, it's saying that the interpretive authority is the institution that chose the texts for inclusion with the interpretation they used to decipher the texts. I, "the individual believer," can and have wrongly interpreted scripture before and I'm sure it'll happen again many times over.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor I guess this is why so many people switch churches and denominations. All the individual believer has to do is choose their favorite interpretation and... Oh wait... that sounds an awful lot like the individual believer chooses the interpretation based on their own ideas and goes with it. Being that there is an "authoritative" interpretation to fit virtually any and all mindsets and positions; it's still on the individual believer's choice of interpretation.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth "Oh wait... that sounds an awful lot like the individual believer chooses the interpretation based on their own ideas and goes with it." The Church's interpretation can be traced back in the writings of believers. There is an empirical trail of letters, ecumenical councils and ecclesiastical histories that we have that can distinguish between right belief and the preference of the individual. Don't pin individual preference on the Church's authority. There's no comparison.
gambleor 6 months ago
@gambleor 1Continued... All you end up doing is trading absolute assertions about the will of a god that when pressured every believer I've ever encountered (besides the ones who claim to talk literally and directly TO the god of Abraham) will admit they cannot know. Which, in the end gets you nowhere except into a holy war.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth BTW, when I said "the intentional misapplication of scripture" I meant that people are applying scripture as though it belongs in the scientific discussion when it doesn't.
gambleor 6 months ago
@themanofearth Truthfully, was Creationists are doing is misusing my books. It offends me and I want them to stop. Those people in the video you're responding to feel the same way.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor I understand what they're TRYING to do but they're simply telling one lie or spreading one delusional idea to try to get other people to stop telling a different one. I'm for the honest discussion of these topics from the get go.
Getting people to accept evolution is not the end goal. The end goal is to get people to rationally talk about things that matter to them and the rest of humanity. The spread of religion is the antithesis of this effort.
themanofearth 6 months ago
@themanofearth It's really a problematic point that you're making. On the one hand, if we argue specifics about God without establishing that one exists, atheists respond with "how can you be sure that a God even exists, let alone YOUR God." On the other hand, if we argue a vaguer God concept, atheists respond with "well, even if that's true, it doesn't prove YOUR God." It's a catch 22 and it's completely dishonest.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor . All of the arguments for/against the existence of A god are simply pointing out that you can't prove there can/can't be one. Saying something like "Even if we were to grant the Kalam cosmological argument (just an example), it still wouldn't prove the existence of the god of Abraham" is not attempting to "catch 22" someone nor is it dishonest. It's a simple statement of fact that stops the person arguing for the existence of a god - let alone a specific one - dead in their tracks.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth But the point of using Kalam is to get to the next stage of argumentation. Yes, the theist will concur that Kalam doesn't prove Abraham's God, but they will qualify that it's not meant to. It takes further investigation and discussion to get to the attributes that lead to Abraham's God. But, in order to undertake that investigation, both parties must agree that a God does in fact exist.
gambleor 7 months ago
@gambleor Yeah but you missed the part where I said, "Even if..." Kalam isn't sound to begin with. None of them are. They ONLY establish that you can't prove that A god can/can't exist. Kalam doesn't even argue for the existence of ANY god, it's an argument for first cause. It's just assumed from thin air that a god is that first cause. At best the cosmological (or any other argument for the "vague god") can achieve is NOT that a god DOES exist or even that one is likely to exist: They ALL fail.
themanofearth 7 months ago
Interesting strategic problem, do we stand back when science supporting Christians tackle the blatant anti-science lies told by YECs, or do address their fallacious arguments as well? YECs may well be more likely to listen to science based arguments coming from other Christians than from atheists, but ultimately we still have to tackle the faulty argumentation of apologists, particularly of the WLC ilk who regularly use equivocation.
KrokrX 7 months ago 3
@KrokrX My position is pretty clear. We tackle both at the same time. The point and foundation of this conflict between reason and faith is faith/dogma's trump of reason and evidence. The anti-science thing is only a side effect. Granted it's the biggest and worst side effect but it's still only a side effect.
themanofearth 7 months ago
You know I came to the same conclusion about a literal Genesis. Strangely it is one of the few areas where I agree with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Without a literal Genesis the entire doctrine of original sin falls flat on it's face.
Skepticktok 7 months ago 8
@Skepticktok
watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
quite convenient, but there is a problem, on what basis you decide how to inteprete the texts ?, It's all a problem that christians need to resolve.
Where do we stop ? why can we not end up with god as spiritual, existing only in our minds ?
saintpine 7 months ago
@saintpine
"but there is a problem, on what basis you decide how to inteprete the texts." That's where Tradition (with a capital T) plays a role in the catholic religion. Again, watch the video itself and understand context, genre, and differences of interpretation of LITERATURE (which is what the Bible is). Considering that Fr. Barron is an established theologian and priest, he would be able to explain it perfectly for further information.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
So the battle can go on between the millions of qualified theologians or priests, you will never get the same answer and you know that, and there can very well be no compatibility between them.
There is no way to resolve the issue.
saintpine 7 months ago 4
@saintpine
"you will never get the same answer and you know that"
Again, reread what I wrote: "That's where Tradition (with a capital T) plays a role in the catholic religion."
This is something that Catholic has the advantage over the Protestant. If there contradictory opinions regarding biblical interpretation, then there is the final authority (the church) used to have the final say.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Not even in the catholic church everything is so clear, I'm thinking of the conflict we have in Italy between some priests (Livio Fanzaga) that declare on Radio Maria that god is responsable for the tsunami, and others that think differently.
The evolution theory was accepted by the previous pope, but not widely accepted by catholic leaders.
saintpine 7 months ago 4
@saintpine
While it's true that many priests have can have contradictory views with one another regarding certain views, it doesn't disprove the final authority of the church regarding biblical interpretation. Of course, I will also grant that the church does not always intervene in theological disputes when they should, which is something that I will say needs to be worked on.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I had no idea that you were a young earth creationist!
Seriously though, I think you completely missed the point of the video. This video was in NO WAY meant to be an argument to atheists for the existence of God, this video is addressed specifically to Young Earth Creationists to attempt to demonstrate that evolution is not a threat to their faith as they tend to assert.
You seem to be arguing just to argue. (no offense intended)
RationalRoundtable 7 months ago
@RationalRoundtable Uh... No I didn't miss the point of the video. The problem is it's a bold faced lie that your telling in an attempt to get people to stop telling/believing a different bold faced lie. There IS a conflict between religion and science and it's a HUGE one. Telling a YEC that there isn't one is like telling a child that the boogeyman will get them if they don't eat their broccoli when they ask "Why should I eat this?" They're not children so why should they be treated as such?
themanofearth 7 months ago 4
@themanofearth
"There IS a conflict between religion and science and it's a HUGE one."
The only kind of conflict between religion and science is the one YOU (or fundamentalists) have created. The fact remains that there is no conflict between science and religion when they are understood properly. The conflict theory is dead, dude. Please, I thought you were smarter than this (no offense intended).
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94 Look, just because you can engage in this level of self-deception doesn't mean that I can or anyone else should. Your section of the video was just laughable (no offense intended) as you basically attempted to argue for non-overlapping magisteria (a mistake your fellow collaborators did not make) which is just about the saddest idea that anyone's come up with about the conflict. watch?v=ljszu1cOdho
themanofearth 7 months ago 5
@themanofearth
"Look, just because you can engage in this level of self-deception doesn't mean that I can or anyone else should."
Poisoning the well. Really? Self-Deception? Simply because I have a different perspective on this issue than YOU do? *facepalm*
"you basically attempted to argue for non-overlapping magisteria"
That's reading into my argument that's not there. All I was arguing that there is no conflict in studying science the existence of God.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
It seems like you completely missed the point of the video.
BoethianAcolyte 7 months ago
Jesus died to defeat the powers of evil, not to satisfy the debt of original sin.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 That sure isn't part of any Christian Theology I am aware of. Every Sunday, just about, I sit in my wifes Missionary Alliance evangelical church and I hear ad nasueum that Jesus died to forgive out sins, because we are born in sin (that is, original sin).
Just about every apologist says this too.
johnycannuk 7 months ago
@johnycannuk
The Eastern Orthodox tradition does not believe in the doctrine of Original sin.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94 Well now I am aware.
That being said, it still refutes aaron1994's statement as to the alleged reason "why" Jesus died. He flat out discounted it, when in fact the doctrine is held by a large swath of Christianity, if not the majority.
At any rate, its like debating whose shadow weighs more - Jesus was an apocolyticist who was crucified for sedition and tossed in a common grave or burned in Gehenna like other criminals and "messiahs" arrested by the authorities. Nothing more.
johnycannuk 7 months ago
@johnycannuk That is the Orthodox view of the cross. With all due respect, you clearly aren't aware of much of Christian theology if you don't know what Orthodoxy is, especially since it is more popular than Reformed Christianity.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 That may well be true, but then, I did append "that I am aware".
You do know in NA, Orthodox is a very small minority, right? Its not like I'm writting this from Russia or Greece or Serbia...
But seeing as how you are admitting that there is many schools of thought, your positive authoritative statement is refuted.
Beside, we all know Jesus died because he was a seditious preacher that got caught....
johnycannuk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnycannuk "But seeing as how you are admitting that there is many schools of thought, your positive authoritative statement is refuted." This assumes that there is no authentic authority on the subject.
gambleor 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can’t speak for the other four participants in the collab video, but in regards to interpretation of the Bible, you are taking it and reading it like a fundamentalist would.
watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc
watch?v=_eyF0PiIY_o
I would recommend watching Father Barron’s videos on the topic if you haven’t already. And before you start accusing me of using “mental gymnastics”, please keep in mind that accusation of does not work on me and I consider it as cleverly disguised form of poisoning the well.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94 Remember that blizzard I mentioned? Yeah...
First, this "theological reflection on the origin of all things" IS making scientific claims about the origin of the universe. Second, if the Bible isn't literal, how can you say the Jesus is a literal person who literally sacrificed himself to God to save all humanity? Third, the "genre" argument is just insipid because apparently you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are which "genre" to suit your taste with equal validity.
themanofearth 7 months ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@themanofearth
1."theological reflection on the origin of all things" IS making scientific claims about the origin of the universe". No it's not. The moment you posit God into a scientific claim, it's no longer "just science" because science assumes metaphysical naturalism. I'm sorry, but metaphysical empiricism is loaded with holes.
2. 74 books in the Bible, different genres, differences of literary interpretation.
3. Accusing the "genre argument" actually does not help your argument (cont)
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94 Genesis states that god created the universe in 6 days. Whether this is the "God's time" argument or 6 literal days, it is a scientific claim as is Noah's flood, women turning into pillars of salt and the existence of Adam, Eve and a talking snake who are necessary for there being original sin which was Jesus' reason for being on Earth to begin with. ALL of these things are theologically significant and RELY on claims about reality for legitimacy that violate known science.
themanofearth 7 months ago 5
@thunderbolt94 "74 books in the Bible, different genres, differences of literary interpretation." Again, which ones are which? Oh that's right, any of them can be any that you want them to be and any section of any can be any that you want them to be so you can get around conflicts and say "This part is metaphor but this part is literal that way they don't conflict with themselves or science. Yay!" Again, insipid.
themanofearth 7 months ago 5
@themanofearth
You are aware that the 7 books that it was the Protestants took out of the bible during the Protestant reformation were, right? Before that, the church had decided the books of the Bible (hence the notion of Tradition within the Catholic faith), and has even been confirmed even by the Council of Trent. Again, tradition determines what books are put in the Bible.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
You do realize that scholars can analyze different books to determine what they were written as, right? We don't "pick and choose" which parts to take literally and which parts to take metaphorically or allegorically (at least I don't). Evidence exists that Genesis was written as allegorical literature, not as history. In fact, St. Augustine, over a millennium before Darwin was even born, interpreted Genesis allegorically. This isn't a new interpretation; it's been around for centuries.
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 "Evidence exists that Genesis was written as allegorical literature, not as history."
So then Abraham didn't actually exist just like Adam and original sin didn't actually exist making all the base of all the bloodlines in the Bible (which include all the ones about David and Jesus) fictitious?
I think a few Rabis and theologians might have a problem with that.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@themanofearth My error. I do not hold that Genesis in its entirety is allegorical, only the creation account.
Whether the Adam and Eve story is history; I do not know. It makes no difference either way, since original sin isn't even a biblical doctrine.
argumentfromgod(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2011/05/gods-truth-of-creation.html
aaronk1994 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 See that's brilliant. You can even take different parts of different books as either literal or metaphor as you like. What makes the Genesis creation story allegory and the rest not. it's all just as ridiculous as the rest?
"It makes no difference either way, since original sin isn't even a biblical doctrine." Funny since it's necessary for the Jesus narrative and sacrifice to be meaningful.
P.S. The site does not exist.
themanofearth 7 months ago
@aaronk1994 And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence that the stories in Genesis are true or textual evidence that lends legitimacy to interpreting Genesis as allegory and not (literal) history?
themanofearth 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94 "74 books in the Bible, different genres, differences of literary interpretation."
74 In the Catholic bible, 66 in most protestant bibles.
the different interpretations has led to many large scisims in the past 2000 years.
saintpine 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
The Catholic catechism explicitly states about "How to read the account of the Fall": 390 "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man." That seems like a scientific claim to me.
wimsweden 7 months ago
@wimsweden
Except that statement leaves open to one accepting evolutionary theory as the answer to that.
thunderbolt94 7 months ago
@thunderbolt94
But you do concede that it's a scientific claim then? If read as a mix of theo-biology, it seems to suggest that at some point in the development of a sentient species, the free will and moral sense of an individual "B" are sufficiently developed to hold it accountable, but the previous individual "A" (or contemporaneous tribe members of individual "B at the developmental level of "A") is not or only quasi. o_0
wimsweden 7 months ago