Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Well, let's be clear and consistent. The author of Matthew and the author of Luke (whoever they were) claimed that Jesus told some people this. Why are you looking at the OT through Jesus lenses and not at the NT with OT lenses?How do you know that Jesus wasn't wrong? How do you know the authors of Matt and Luke weren't claiming divine authority to justify what they thought others should do? Or maybe the authors were wrong. Or maybe Jesus was merely claiming divine authority.What does loving one's enemies entail anyway? Is it ever loving to kill millions of people? And if it is (say, during World War II) - was it loving to commit genocide against the Amorites, Hittites, Girgashites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? Was it loving to commit violence at the Temple? Was it loving to let Judas kill himself? Is it loving to create hell?Why didn't anyone record Jesus as saying anything about the slaughters in the OT? He seemed to hold the texts in high regard.Given that Yahweh commands genocide when the Israelites were strong, and meekness and humility when they are occupied...might it not be the case that both of these are pronouncements of convenience?

OK. So stoning a sinner to death is not to be considered loving, neither is genocide. Presumably you think that the flood would have been unloving? Do you generally trust either anonymous reports from decades after the event and vague references by a non-anonymous report a few decades later to be strong evidence? Because I'm pretty sure most religions can meet this burden. There are numerous supernatural non-Christian events that are better attested to, with more supposed witnesses, so it makes me wonder, that's all. I think it has been as proven as possible that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek.In any event, much of Pauline theology relies on there having been a historical Adam. And Matthew has Jesus saying 'as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;' (Matt 24)So even Matthew agrees that God committed ultimate genocide - killing even newborns in his wrath.Your criteria for ignoring this unpleasantness is based on what you think Jesus would think. So Matthew was lying when he was quoting Jesus talk of the flood - or Jesus was being dishonest about the historicity of the flood.I understand it doesn't have to be inerrant - but when the authors are saying such big things that aren't true such as the fall of Adam and the flooding of earth in the New Testament, how on earth can you rely on anything else being said? In the end - are you not just picking and choosing based on personal taste?Jesus gave an example of loving enemies: Always concede any lawsuit and give more than what was requested. Do you agree with this?And how does Jesus' 'come with a sword' speech or his violent expulsion of the lenders from the Temple square up with the Sermon on the Mount or his pacifistic sentiments elsewhere? I don't think Jesus necessarily 'corrected' an eye for an eye. Indeed he explicitly said in the same Chapter that the law was not changing one iota and the law is clear regarding lex talionis.One can pluck out someone's eye as long as one does not resist evil and forgives the evildoer. I can't parse this sentence for meaning I'm afraid. Not to me. For all we know, he might regard the destruction of those belligerent races to be 'peacemaking'.

It's only a few centuries older than the New Testament. Are you saying that the Gospels are ancient mythology? Why is that the message we can take from the fact that the references to genocide are 'ancient mythology'? Such as? So? Presumably Muhammed walking through cobwebs without breaking them, flying around on a horse and ascending bodily into heaven is the most plausible explanation for the early rise of Islam?Why is an impossible event (resurrection) more plausible than a more common event (people claiming a miracle)? So Paul and other 1st Century Jews understood that Adam was just a parable and the flood was just a story? Can you cite a single 1st Century Jew that expressed such a view? If Adam is not real, Paul's explanation for why Jesus had to be crucified makes less sense than it already does.

quote:

---

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
...
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
...
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ

---

Paul requires Adam to be a single individual who invited sin and death into the world so that such a transgression could be healed by the grace of one - Jesus Christ.Are you saying we can ignore the letter to the Romans as well as the Torah? So you're position is that the Sermon on the Mount is only applicable to 1st Century Jews?What does Jesus say that qualifies:

quote:

---

if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

---

It seems pretty clear to me.

quote:

---

Turning over tables in the Temple is not much of an act of violence.

---

Nice selective reading. He didn't just turn over tables and seats - he cast them out of the Temple, and scattered their livelihood all over the place. They didn't want to leave and there would have been a considerable amount of security present courtesy of the Roman legions -- to prevent exactly this kind of nonsense. No - Jesus would have to committed violence to cleanse the Temple the way it says he did.

quote:

---

began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple

---

quote:

---

And he poured out the coins of the money-changers

---

1st Century money changers don't sit idly by while a religious fanatic harms their business interests and the Romans don't let trade get disrupted so easily. What is it a metaphor for? Yes, that's why I said that in the exact same Chapter he says the Law stands and he isn't changing it (if anything, he was calling for a more severe interpretation).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

He was dishonest?

quote:

---

his beliefs are not rational

---

quote:

---

his beliefs are not...logical

---

quote:

---

his beliefs are not rational...consistent

---

quote:

---

his beliefs are not subjct {sic} to evidential scrutiny

---

Blah blah blah -- a slightly pejorative version of 'etc.'.So what was he not being honest about?

No you didn't. You just asserted it and then went on to explain how your position in your own words almost entirely matches Straggler's summary of your position in his words. As I showed. Straggler didn't say there was no way to evidence your beliefs. He said they can't be subject to evidential scrutiny. You are just explaining here why you hold this position - ie., they cannot be held to evidential scrutiny because there is no way you know of so doing. Have you, or could you, subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny? Can you describe how one would do so? You seem to say you know of no way - so therefore to the best of your knowledge there is no way to subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny, therefore at this time it would not make sense to subject them to evidential scrutiny, therefore at this time they are not subject to evidential scrutiny. Maybe one day you'll make a risky prediction, and your position will be subject to evidential scrutiny. While it remains inconsistent, unreasonable or vague - it cannot be subject to such scrutiny.Straggler isn't being dishonest when he summarizes your position, he is just employing brevity for the purposes of raising an example to compare this general idea with another poster's position. For an 11 word summary, it was pretty accurate by your own admission. He may have not been 100% accurate in your view. He may have missed some key disclaimer or fine point. That is not dishonest. It's a complete disregard to the principle of charity to suggest he was being dishonest. I think you are letting your personal feelings cloud your thinking here. If you believe in something 'supernatural' the onus is on you to describe what that means, how we would know it when we came across it, how it interacts with the 'natural' (what's the force carrier, for example). Until you do - it is impossible to scrutinise it empircally.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I see you have still retained the inability to discuss something with someone who disagrees with you in a civil manner. I think it is grotesquely disrespectful of you to dismiss my words as 'bullshit' and a lie intended to mislead for gain (a con). It's one thing to disagree with the points I have made, that I have no problem with - but what you did here jar? That's the real bullshit. You have no business criticising an 11 word summary as being 'dishonest' when you don't even exercise common decency to others. Apologize, or our discussion is over.Generic arguments are a pointless waste of all our time. Talking of moving the goal posts, Straggler didn't say 'evidenced' he said 'subject to evidential scrutiny'. Let's stick to that, neh?As it stands, by your own admission, it is impossible to subject your views to empirical scrutiny. You don't know what the supernatural is, how we would identify it as supernatural, how it interacts with the natural, what is the force carrier associated with this and so on and so forth. Therefore we cannot use evidence to confirm or refute your beliefs in the supernatural.I submit this isn't a matter of the state of your knowledge, but an intrinsic consequence of a position that is not reasonable, inconsistent and ill-defined. You cannot subject something to scrutiny that does not conform to reason and is not consistent. You cannot identify something you have not defined.For instance: Scrites are shavalabal.This is not subject to evidential scrutiny. Maybe one day someone will find something that you think is close enough to your vague ideas of a scrite, and whatever it is maybe you'll say its shavalabal. So yes, in principle it could be that 'scrites are shavalabal' could be evidenced. But without saying ahead of time what a scrite is, and what it means to be shavalabal we can't examine evidence to see if it is true. Especially if we throw in the additional statement that 'shavalabal is illogical, not subject to reasoning and is inconsistent'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In the sense that one cannot know something that is ill-formed, yes.
Also, one has no reason to believe it is true thus 'ascritism' too.
And since the notion is incoherent, insufficiently defined and unfalsifiable: ignosticism would be an appropriate conclusion too.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Theists like to talk about ultimate purpose without ever explaining what it is, what that actually means, and how they know it.

That's what will happen ultimately. What is the purpose, ultimately?

I thought god was going to do all that? In any event - what does it mean for there to 'meaning that lasts ultimately'? I can't interpret that in any way.

Atheists (of the skeptical naturalist variety) also believe we have an ultimate destiny.

You raised 'ultimate destiny' in response to a query about ultimate purpose. Assuming you agree we all agree with the existence of an ultimate destiny could you go on to explain what the ultimate purpose is?If you are proposing the existence of god, what is the purpose of god? (That would be the ultimate purpose in a universe with god as the prime fact).

Isn't that our ultimate destiny? Fine, but I'm not asking for his motivation, I'm asking for his ultimate purpose. Why is there a god?

Then I don't see why atheists can't have an ultimate purpose if it is just to fulfil their ultimate destiny, which we agree they believe they have. The reason for the existence of god is similar to the human desire to have children?

I'm sorry, you left off the bit where you explain why. How can there be no final purpose? Given the time scales involved, we're likely to have gone extinct long before the death of the sun. Well no, that wasn't quite what I was saying. I understand why people have an urge to have children, but why does god? What is the purpose of god itself? Or is there no ultimate purpose?