Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conflict of interests
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 71 (146824)
10-02-2004 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rubystars
10-02-2004 5:51 PM


[...]
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-02-2004 05:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rubystars, posted 10-02-2004 5:51 PM Rubystars has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6012 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 47 of 71 (146826)
10-02-2004 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rubystars
10-02-2004 5:51 PM


What type of courses have you taken? I took a courseload heavy on science, where the subject doesn't really come up, other than a couple of brief asides (literally a couple - two - that I can remember) on faulty Creationist arguments in biology courses.
I took a religion course on early Christianity that I know some students thought was meant to shake their faith in the bible as historical truth. The funny thing is, they were right - but the prof was also an ordained Christian minister. Great class, that.
So keep that in mind - challenging one's beliefs isn't the same as dragging through the mud.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rubystars, posted 10-02-2004 5:51 PM Rubystars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 10-02-2004 9:26 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 4:32 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 71 (146827)
10-02-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rubystars
10-02-2004 5:53 PM


Welcome back Monkey Boy. I hope you'll find as I have that faith ends up being stronger once it's been challenged
Thanks, but I do not feel that I am 'back', because I do not believe the way that I used to believe. I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, therefore by definition, I am not a Christian anymore.
Really, the only thing I 'get out of it", is a hope; I do not know with any degree of certainy that there is a heaven (I do not believe in a hell), but I hope that there is. In addition, I can say that I only 'feel' that there is a God, and although I do believe, I am unsure of His/Her/It's participation in our lives. I can offer no proof or evidence, (nor would I want to, since I think that faith is personal) but (and this is only my opinion) the alternative is worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rubystars, posted 10-02-2004 5:53 PM Rubystars has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by coffee_addict, posted 10-03-2004 4:18 AM MonkeyBoy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 49 of 71 (146864)
10-02-2004 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rubystars
10-02-2004 5:51 PM


Well I've been to college for two years and maybe the pressure was put on me differently than it was on some other people, but I noticed that almost every professor I had tried to drag Christianity through the mud.
...so?
Pointing out that the history of Christianity has not always been a positive one, especially for non-Christians, is not recruiting for atheism.
In fact, it's not really "dragging through the mud", unless you think that because you're a Christian, everyone has to sanitize Christian history in your presence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rubystars, posted 10-02-2004 5:51 PM Rubystars has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 71 (146867)
10-02-2004 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Zhimbo
10-02-2004 6:39 PM


I took a religion course on early Christianity that I know some students thought was meant to shake their faith in the bible as historical truth. The funny thing is, they were right - but the prof was also an ordained Christian minister. Great class, that.
I took a Bible class at my college, too.
If the scholarly research concludes that Moses is not the author of the first books of the Bible, does he have some kind of responsibility not to tell me that, simply because my Church believes differently? Or rather, since we're in an academic setting with the purpose of finding out what is true and what is false, shouldn't he present the information the way it is, dogma be dammed?
Why on Earth would I expect anyone to refrain from speaking truth just because it conflicts with my beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Zhimbo, posted 10-02-2004 6:39 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 51 of 71 (146926)
10-03-2004 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by coffee_addict
10-02-2004 5:46 AM


I actually feel sorry for people like you, forever trapped in a delusional state of mind.
Isn't this kinda what Rubystars has been talking about? Now you sound like the fundies you so hate. The "I feel sorry for you cuz yer going to hell" kinda thing.
Try to understand it from our point of view as well.
I have.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by coffee_addict, posted 10-02-2004 5:46 AM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by coffee_addict, posted 10-03-2004 4:21 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 52 of 71 (146927)
10-03-2004 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by arachnophilia
10-02-2004 6:48 AM


Thanks for your reply.
however, i think evil is the wrong word. god creates and defines good and evil. calling god good or calling god evil are both pretty silly. we're putting our own moral framework onto a god beyond our understanding.
This, I think I agree with. This is the message of Job.
as a former athiest, this statement is still wrong. disbelief in god may or may not be a belief depending on the person, but in no way is it ever a system.
Right. I should strike "system" from my statement. However, our beliefs relating to God do have a large impact on our worldview.
this one got a lot of attention. but i have a different reply. as an athiest, and even as a christian, i found the idea that purpose and meaning in life can only be found through serving the invisible man in the sky far too depressing.
...but it's not like that.
but there can be meaning to life without god.
I had a big debate with Holmes about this. I had to admit that temporary meaning can be found within life, but Holmes had to admit that there is no overall lasting external meaning to life without God. ...And if you've ever lived through the average person's share of misery, sorrow, and oppression you might not think the internal meanings of life make life worth living. ...And I feel like I'm spinning this a little off topic here. We probably shouldn't start this debate up again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 10-02-2004 6:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 4:24 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 53 of 71 (146933)
10-03-2004 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by MonkeyBoy
10-02-2004 6:47 PM


I'm glad you taken such a step in your life. Keep up the good work!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by MonkeyBoy, posted 10-02-2004 6:47 PM MonkeyBoy has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 54 of 71 (146934)
10-03-2004 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hangdawg13
10-03-2004 3:03 AM


Hd writes:
Isn't this kinda what Rubystars has been talking about? Now you sound like the fundies you so hate. The "I feel sorry for you cuz yer going to hell" kinda thing.
I do sound like the opposite side of the coin from a fundie, don't I. Well, all I can say to you is I actually have something tangible to present to other people, and all fundies have are their "personal evidence" of which they themselves are the only ones that can see... just like invisible pink unicorns.
Added by edit:
If you don't believe me, refer to this thread.
This message has been edited by Lam, 10-03-2004 03:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hangdawg13, posted 10-03-2004 3:03 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 71 (146935)
10-03-2004 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Hangdawg13
10-03-2004 3:17 AM


...but it's not like that.
but to an athiest, it IS. like i said, you may find true meaning in whatever religion want -- the athiest just isn't looking for that because they can find it in other ways.
but Holmes had to admit that there is no overall lasting external meaning to life without God.
do we need an overall lasting external meaning to life? and i would still argue that it can indeed be found without religion. lots of people find it in child-raising, but some find it in the question for human understanding and advancement: arts, sciences, etc.
it may eventually lead us back to god. it may not.
...And if you've ever lived through the average person's share of misery, sorrow, and oppression you might not think the internal meanings of life make life worth living.
i find oppression, misery, and sorrow all the more meaningless believing in god. it's the classic "why does god let this happen?" question. there are answers, of course, and i have my faith. but to athiest, it's easier to believe that there is no driving force behind it all.
i'm just saying that different people see things differently, and not everyone finds reason, sense, or faith in religion. lots of people lead quite happy lives as athiests and agnostics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Hangdawg13, posted 10-03-2004 3:17 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rubystars, posted 10-04-2004 1:56 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 71 (146937)
10-03-2004 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Zhimbo
10-02-2004 6:39 PM


I took a religion course on early Christianity that I know some students thought was meant to shake their faith in the bible as historical truth. The funny thing is, they were right - but the prof was also an ordained Christian minister. Great class, that.
i'm currently in a class labeled "introduction to the bible: old testament." i knew what i was in for when i took, but from the looks of it, most of the class didn't.
you can tell the christians in the class: they're the ones who protest even after professor soundly disproves their weird opinions of the bible. it's a scary thought for some to be shown evidence that the bible is flawed book, with imperfect editting and translation, incomplete, and written by many different people over a thousand years. ...we're not even covering whether or not the book is historically accurate at all.
So keep that in mind - challenging one's beliefs isn't the same as dragging through the mud.
some beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny though. like the perfection of the bible. it has contradictions. if you read it in the fundamentalist way, it doesn't make any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Zhimbo, posted 10-02-2004 6:39 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 71 (146950)
10-03-2004 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by almeyda
10-02-2004 9:28 AM


Before i start, i want to say that creationists do not believe blindly, desperately trying to prove a God. They stand proud because their hearts believe logically, & rationally in the evidence of God, the evidence of the Bible, & the evidence of science.
you have a fundamentally wrong way of reading the bible at every level. ignoring reality and scientific fact, your reading does not evem stand up to literary analysis.
you claim to read the text literally, but you do not.
& i hear so often how evolutionary humanistic philosophy, is the rational way of thinking
as a religious person, i would not describe faith as rational.
The reason we even decided to chase a literal genesis, is because we are reading the Bible, and interpreting it, in what it meant to the original readers. What genesis meant, how God intended for the text to be interpreted, what it meant to the Jews, & early church fathers.
here's a hint of to the mindset of the redactors of genesis. genesis 1 and two describe two instances of creation, which often literally contractict each other. the first story's order goes: light, sky, earth/plants, sun/moon, fish/birds/serpents, animals/man/woman, rest. the second's order goes: earth, man, plants/eden, animals, woman.
the both can't be right, but the edittors put them in. why is that?
is it maybe possible that they didn't care about precision, factuality, and detail? so if your statement is true then why do creationists care so much about details that don't even line up right within the same book?
In the beginning (Heb. Bereshit) marks the absolute beginning of the temporal and material world. The traditional jewish and christian belief is that Genesis 1:1 declares that God created the original heaven and earth from nothing (Lat. ex nihilo), and that verse 2 clarifies that when it came from the Creators hand, the mass was "without form , and void", unformed and without any life.
here are the opening verse of the JPS masoretic version:
quote:
When God began to create heaven and earth (the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water), God said, "Let there be light"; and there as light.
this tells us a few things. it tells us that the earth was not created from nothing. it says it existed before god said anything, it was just empty. it also tells us that it was not neccessarily in the beginning. (ask amlodhi, i'm sure he'll back up the learned hebrew scholars.)
There is no evidence in the Hebrew text for long ages of evolutionary development or a gap time between verse 1 & verse 2.
actually, either reading is acceptable, depending on how literal you take it. there's also apparently a midrash that says the days are the days it takes god to tell moses how he made everything, which explains why god is portrayed as speaking, where in chapter he's actually performing actions.
"God" (Heb. Elohim), this form of the divine name occurs 2,570 times in the OT. The plural ending "im" indicates a plural of majesty and takes a singular verb.
wrong, and wrong.
eloyhim is not a name, it's a title. god's name is yhvh. start reading in genesis 2, it says yhvh eloyhim. it's specifying WHICH god.
eloyhim is indeed plural, but it's not neccarily of majesty although its verbs are all singular. the best explanation i heard was from my hebrew bible teacher. he said that it's like "pants" or "scissors" and is just never used in singular, even though it's only describing one god.
"Created" (Heb Bara), this verb is used exclusively with God as its subject. It refers to the instananeous and miraculous act of God by which He brought the universe into existence.
genesis two describes god as forming man out of the earth, physically. your "instantaneous and miraculous" is an interpretation, and does not match the text. the word indicates a process. but i've posted about this before.
Thus, the Genesis account of Creation refutes atheism, pantheism, polytheism & evolution.
read genesis 6. what is this ben'eloyhim? god has a family? other gods? genesis in no way refutes polytheism. when rachel steals here father's gods in genesis 31, the word used is the same: eloyhim. only by implication and interpretation are they fictitious.
as for evolution, see the process i mentioned above.
and yeah, it refutes athiesm. like independence day with will smith refuted that we're alone in the universe. i'd hardly call it a conclusive, factual document.
"The spirit of God" is a clear reference to the creative activity of the Holy Spirit. John 1:3 indicates that Christ created all things with the father thus all 3 persons of the Trinity are active in the Creation. This undoubtedly accounts for the plural pronouns "us" and "our" in verse 26 (genesis) which take singular verbs in expressing the tri-unity of God.
all interpretation.
john is a text i largely ignore. it does not match the other three gospels, and attributes things to jesus that would have gotten him crucified for blasphemy justly. a good reading of the text is on a gnostic, symbolic level, not a literal one.
genesis mentions neither christ nor a spirit -- see the translation above.
a better explanation for the pluralities may be the qabalistic one. it also explains why god would create man male AND female in his image. the text does say that god is male and female.
Thus, creation is accomplished by his word.
but not in genesis 2.
Thats as far as i can go today, in studying Genesis. But you can now see the framework creation builds itself on.
good, now break it off at chapter 2, halfway through verse four. then read that story up til the second last verse, and tell how they coincide.
What Gods word says and can we trust in it or not.
which account? and you're still reading it blindly. open your eyes, read it for what it is, in the best context you can. there's meaning to the stories, important enough that authors and edittors were willing to forgive errors evidenced by the text itself in order to include it in genesis. you're trusting in the wrong parts.
The world which of course wants independence from God and doesnt want to live under 'his rules' have put God out of society.
christians don't want to either. read galations.
or just observed the look on your face when i tell you that i'm allowed, in the eyes of god, to stone you to death for cooking last saturday. do you follow god's rules? i know i don't.
In a nutshell, creationists havent made up any sort of 'recent theory'.
actually, old-earth views have been around a long time. the creation myth in question is younger than you might think (about 600 bc) and creationism in the sense we think of today is even younger.
That would be evolution.
this like a bush-kerry debate. "my opinion is consistant!" "mine changes as new information comes up!"
which one is right? should we ignore new advances, and simply take older views? genesis does say that there's water outside of our atmosphere. now that we've been there, shouldn't that information matter?
Creation has been fact since the beginning premeval history, & Israel.
no, fact is something observable. every observation insists that a literal reading of genesis, focusing on the details, is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by almeyda, posted 10-02-2004 9:28 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by almeyda, posted 10-06-2004 12:51 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Rubystars
Inactive Junior Member


Message 58 of 71 (147199)
10-04-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
10-02-2004 6:11 PM


quote:
Well, religion is also about effective conveyance of cultural mores to large numbers of people, as well as being about very effective control of the behavior of large numbers of people.
All cultures have mores and put controls on behavior.
quote:
It's a very effective self-perpetuating social control institution, and that's the biggest reason it has lasted as long as it has.
Or maybe, it actually has validity.
quote:
However, anything that anybody has ever done, at any time in history, pretty much has to pass the "WIIFM" test.
"What's In It For Me"?
People don't do anything unless they get something out of it, real or imagined, or hoped for.
What you would call "imagined" I'd probably call real in this case.
quote:
If religion isn't about living a better life, what is it for?
Having a relationship with God, seeking "enlightenment" through that.
Making your life better doesn't really explain why some people have made enormous sacrifices, even died, for their faith. That's certainly not "making your life better."
quote:
Well, OK, but why?
It's sad because God wants to have relationship with people he created and they sometimes reject Him.
quote:
Why is it important to believe in God?
Not believing in God doesn't make Him go away. He's still there, and still wants to have relationships with people. Unfortunately some people just decide they don't need God and reject him.
quote:
Hmm, well, Christianity might be "easy to follow" or it might not be, but the point I was making was about belief in God/the supernatural vs. non-belief or Agnosticism.
Nonbelief isn't necessarily easy either, as I'm sure you well know. It does take much less effort philosophically though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 10-02-2004 6:11 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 10-04-2004 5:17 PM Rubystars has not replied
 Message 61 by nator, posted 10-05-2004 11:22 AM Rubystars has not replied

  
Rubystars
Inactive Junior Member


Message 59 of 71 (147200)
10-04-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
10-03-2004 4:24 AM


quote:
I actually feel sorry for people like you, forever trapped in a delusional state of mind.
quote:
Isn't this kinda what Rubystars has been talking about? Now you sound like the fundies you so hate. The "I feel sorry for you cuz yer going to hell" kinda thing.
Yep.
This message has been edited by Rubystars, 10-04-2004 12:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 10-03-2004 4:24 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 71 (147236)
10-04-2004 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Rubystars
10-04-2004 1:52 PM


Making your life better doesn't really explain why some people have made enormous sacrifices, even died, for their faith. That's certainly not "making your life better."
For belief, obviously.
But that doesn't substantiate what they believed in, only that they believed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Rubystars, posted 10-04-2004 1:52 PM Rubystars has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024