Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

quote:

---

No - they depict human events. The authors declare their testimonies as true. It's that simple to figure out contracycle.

---

They don't depict human events becuase humans do not come back from the dead. That was just a metaphor about the uplifiting spirit of god. You must stop resisting and read the bible clearly so that you can welcome god into your heart, which is to say, discover inner enlightenment.

quote:

---

For example - you'd say Jesus is metaphor - but the rule I stated isn't applied when dealing with what God can do - as he isn't bound by natural law. I'll repeat the rule for you from message #69 of this thread;

---

No but you see, god is just a metaphor for your own enlightened spirit. There is no god and nobody should ever have confused the metaphor for a claim to actuality; that is merely a result of a corrupt reading of the text.

quote:

---

To prove my point - look at Revelation, it's just as poetic and no one cares about it that much.

---

Nonsense - what about Rapture Ready? See, you are choosing which bnits are metaphor and which literal. Why should revelation be poetic rather than true, and the gospels true rather than poetic?

quote:

---

But what wisdom do we claim - that you want to know about? I have some wisdom I couldn't have previously had - but I've seldom come across anyone who wants to know about it - but when I go to christian forums, to my surprise - they already "have" or "know" what I have derived from the bible, despite me reaching those conclusions without knowing there own conclusions.

---

Well lots of things, like which orifices I'm allowed to insert parts of my body or have other peoples body parts inserted into. What is good, what is bad. Why homosexuality is wrong - all that wisdom which christians claim comes from god.Clearly they misunderstand, becuase as I pointed out already, god is actually just a metaphor for your own inner enlightenment. Mormons, Baprtists, Adventists, Catholics, Calvinists - all of them have a corrupt and distorted faith becuase they mistake the metaphor of god for a reality.

quote:

---

It is the revealed word of God

---

No its not, becuase god is just a metaphor, and metaphors do not act and cannot reveal anything.

quote:

---

But claiming that it is inspired, doesn't mean I am claiming it has no errors, it also doesn't mean I am claiming it is perfect, and it doesn't mean I am claiming it is all factually true.

---

Well thats a pretty wuss revelation from the almighty, then. In that case you acknowledge that even if the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, the bible is wrong in this regard. As you yourself admit, the bible is NOT necessarily perfect, and factually true. Thats becuase god is just a metaphor.

quote:

---

Since the predicate of metaphorical is irrelevant to it being the inspired word of God - metaphor will not contradict it being inspired by God.

---

Technically your are correct - but, if you can't interpret the metaphor you're in deep trouble. Look at all the people who have mistakenly thought that the story of christ rising from the dead was fact rather than metaphor - they're all going to hell, you know. They should have listed to what god had to say. Serves the sinners right.

Already answered in previous post. Read it twice, or even three times. In previous posts I've answered that not all of the bible is metaphoric, yet you still claim God is a metaphor, despite asserting that you don't say it is all metaphorical. It's a logical error - I will only explain one more time:If you say the whole leaf(bible) is red(metaphor) - then it cannot be green(literal) in places. You have stated that the leaf(bible) is not completely red(metaphor) - so it CAN be other colours, because - quote; ". nope, not at all" - in response to me saying that you think it is all metaphoric. You then argue as if it is all metaphoric. Which is it?I personally have stated that it can be poetic in places, but that we are left with no choice in regards to Jesus. He is literal. Wrong, I said; I didn't admitt the bible is not necessarily perfect - I am simply not claiming it is perfect. IOW - I have not claimed it is perfect. That doesn't mean it isn't perfect, it means I haven't claimed it is. In this regard - I have said nothing about it's perfection, and have said that if it is in parts metaphor - that won't mean it isn't inspired by God.Punk says; "- Do you claim it is A? sir" - Baba says; "I am not claiming it is A, so I am not claiming that."
Punk says; "So you think it isn't A? sir" - Baba says; "MAN - I'm not claiming the positive, that doesn't mean I am claiming the negative". It means I am NOT claiming THE POSITIVE - That's [all of] the information you can conclude!As for the rest of your post - most people think Jesus is literal, because he is.

Mike claims,

quote:

---

most people think Jesus is literal, because he is.

---

He may have been, but there are Jesus-related matters that you probably accept as literal even though they can't be accepted rationally. Did Jesus literally heal the sick? Did he literally turn water into wine? Did he literally walk on water? Did he literally come back from the dead? If he literally rose to the sky in front of his disciples, what quadrant of space is he literally floating through right now?The topic is knowledge, and there's no basis for knowing any of those things happened literally.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Dear MrHambre, yes he did all of those things. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you have not observed my implemented rule of reasonability, concerning the literal aspect of texts. Here it is again, from post #69;Mike said; If something is mentioned which defies the natural laws God put in place by being in place (as in Leviathan by nature - fire breathes), IF that occurence is not dealing with God's supernatural power/activity - then there's a reasonable doubt that it can be taken literally.The issue here, is whether the author really meant those things. Since the application of the said rule, is inapropriate - due to the nature of the divine Christ, we can only conclude that it is reasonable to deduce that the authors meant those things, and their testimonies certainly suggest so.As to whether you or I believe these things, that's a matter of belief. I am aware that the divine Christ might not seem rationally explained when looked upon from the naturalistic assumption that everything can be understood by the human brain.Regards, mike.

Mike states,

quote:

---

As to whether you or I believe these things, that's a matter of belief.

---

Uh, yeah.This isn't the magic happy Faith & Belief forum, Mike. We need to examine real methodologies for being able to know things. If you keep going around in this big old circle, you'll never make your case. The only reason you have for thinking those Jesus feats are literally true is their appearance in the Bible, which you believe is the inspired word of God, because you believe in the divinity of Jesus, who did all these amazing feats recorded in the Bible, and where do I stop?The Jesus feats are impossible to accept rationally, and an objective observer would have no problem relegating them (and the rest of the Bible) to the status of historical myth along with the heroics of Mithras and Hercules. However, your "rule of reasonability" concludes that the writer meant the words literally, and you have to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. Therefore, the reality it describes is so above conscious human reason that it appears patently absurd.Then you top it off by saying that it may not seem rational, but not everything can be understood rationally. Well, I don't see any precedent for thinking that anything that appears unbelievable isn't just plain old unbelievable.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Well, Contracycle started this little attack, really - all I've done is shown that one can believe in the bible even if it is not all literal. He's saying that God is a metaphor if I don't take Genesis literally. And I would say to that person, "depart in peace" - I have no issue with you. As this is a matter of belief, And many such people do - live and let live, but some people think faith is dangerous. It might seem absurd to one who cannot fathom anything existing on a another level from themselves. With divine truths - come divine unfathomables, and with natural truths - come natural laws and science. Since I am not impinging upon your natural reality, I fail to see why I should think of these miracles as absurd. I believe these miracles of walking on water etc..are easily acheived by one who made a universe. I understand why you say this, and I understand why atheists cannot believe what they find "unbelievable".., I truly do empathize. But some things come down to that illusive unreachable called faith - which you strive to understand, yet don't.

Well, there is non sense, non sequiturs, illogical emotional arguments and just plain disagreements, but true gibberish, scientific word salad is very hard to do especially on the sustained basis Brad has achieved. I mostly have no clue as to whether I agree or disagree with what he has just written and I've never understood him enough to take any offense. I suppose his obscurity is the source of the perception that his viewpoints are so unique that no one is offended by them. It's hard to take a position against what you can't understand.Genius or not he is a savant of some sort and I'm a little in awe of him. I once thought he might be a computer program for producing a parody of scientific papers, I still sometimes wonder that he might make use of such a program to write his posts. He goes way beyond Lewis Carrol in the nonsense as literature genre, but then again I often find it's just too hard to read through his posts.Has anyone here ever had a brief suspicion it's God that is posting under Brad's name?????? (hint: comments such as this are often offered as an inducement for Brad to appear, an invoking of Brad so to speak, let's see if we will be graced by a post from him.)lfen

As we observe ourselves, the animals, the plants, etc that exist, we see little evidence of incomplete living things in the process of evolving nor the need for what we are observing to become more complete. Nor do we observe anything that doesn't appear to have been precisely designed and complex. Most of what we observe is just as complete and precisely complex as the fossil record shows them to have been for a very long time.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

I think you missed one of the more biting, which is to say accurate, criticisms of your position.Given your stated position, you would then logically have to maintain that all other religious texts are accurate literal descriptions of events. Or at the very least you'd have to agree that any such adherents are just as correct as you are in maintaining they were very real.How do you look at texts from the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Scandinavians? Given that many "feats" Christ is said to have done come directly from other (earlier) pagan deity mythologies, why should one believe they all have to be real, and are not ascriptions to boost his "deityhood". Do you really feel it is logical to believe that Jesus just happened to do what those other deities had done and people found popular at the time?And we can look at other religions that are still more active. How about Hinduism? Buddhism? Shintoism? Are their texts factual or metaphorical? And if factual then how do they coincide with Xian literal truth?The key difference between a position like mrH's and yours is that his can remain consistent. In his belief system, he does not have to pick and choose which mythic events are true or not. He has a constant measuring stick and applies it consistently to all events.While you call your position a belief, it does not seem logically possible that it remain a consistent one for long. That seems to be less a rational belief and more a hope or a "faith", which is a form of belief beyond logic and reason.That does not put your belief system on par with mrH's. They may share a name, belief, but are not equivalent in quality.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here's a basic fact about evolutionary theory Buz. Everything animal or plant should be a "complete" animal or plant. How could it be otherwise ?

quote:

---

As we observe ourselves, the animals, the plants, etc that exist, we see little evidence of incomplete living things in the process of evolving

---

Hmm, what do you mean by "in the process of evolving"?Do you mean "changing"?

quote:

---

nor the need for what we are observing to become more complete.

---

I am sorry, but I am still unclear on what you mean when you use the word "complete" in this context, so I also don't understand what "more complete" means either.Do you mean that every organism on the planet is perfect and unchanging? That we have never seen new species?

quote:

---

Nor do we observe anything that doesn't appear to have been precisely designed and complex.

---

Again, I am not sure what you mean.First, what definition of "complex" are you using, and also what criteria are you using to tell if something is "precisely designed".What would be an imaginary example of something that isn't "precisely designed"?I am thinking, maybe, the blind spot in the human retina? Or maybe the crossover food and air pipes?

quote:

---

Most of what we observe is just as complete and precisely complex as the fossil record shows them to have been for a very long time.

---

I am still confused, sorry.Let me ask you this, though.What are vestigial structures?

Schraf, would you please stop asking questions and address the specifics of the answers I've given to your questions already asked. What I have answered is my answer. Period. Now, please either refute them as stated or move on to another thought. This's the kind of stuff that bogs me down in these threads with time consuming periferals and off topic side trips.

It seems possible that she really doesn't get a lot of what you are saying. It is also possible that she is using the questions as a way of focussing on some things you haven't thought through.In any case, when you are asked questions what is your problem with answering them? Frequently we don't understand each other and it takes a lot of back and forth to clearify it. I think that's better than assuming we do understand or putting words in another's mouth.As an example, we have had whole threads attempting to clarify what "complexity" is and no one has defined it yet. Therefore when you use the word we are left with a hole in the communication.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-14-2004 01:08 AM

quote:

---

If you say the whole leaf(bible) is red(metaphor) - then it cannot be green(literal) in places. You have stated that the leaf(bible) is not completely red(metaphor) - so it CAN be other colours, because - quote; ". nope, not at all" - in response to me saying that you think it is all metaphoric. You then argue as if it is all metaphoric. Which is it?

---

Neither, its an object lesson. It's easy to talk like a preacher - all I have to do is insist that my audience cannot understand my position because of their moral failings and insincere faith. It's got to be the easiest, laziest job in the world and I reckon I could easily make a living doing it, were I morally comfortable with lying professionally.All I have to do is to decide which bits of the bible I think (that is, want to be) are "true" and which "metaphor" and *shazam* I have doctrine indistinguishable from any other. And I can preach it just like any other by telling people that they don't understand due to their lower level of spiritual developement/failure to welcome god into their heart/the corruption of the text/whatever. None of is testable; none of it is verifiable; all of it depends on my social credibility alone. It's snake oil, retailed by the barrel.This message has been edited by contracycle, 11-16-2004 11:28 AM

quote:

---

Schraf, would you please stop asking questions and address the specifics of the answers I've given to your questions already asked.

---

I'm terribly sorry, buz, but I am afraid that I just don't understand your answers enough to make any kind of real, substantive response.You gave a couple of vague responses, to which I replied with more requests for details, and also several suggestions of what I thought you might be talking about.Why didn't you respond to those requests for more detailed answers, and why didn't you discuss my suggestions of what the implications of your position were?What's wrong with me doing that? Isn't that what someone who isn't sure about anothers' point does?

quote:

---

What I have answered is my answer. Period. Now, please either refute them as stated or move on to another thought. This's the kind of stuff that bogs me down in these threads with time consuming periferals and off topic side trips.

---

What you call "time consuming peripherals", I call "examining the logical implications of an argument", and "checking an opinion against the facts".Yes, buz, I understand fully that you do consider the detailed examination of the logical implications and factual basis of your "opinions" to be an activity that "bogs you down".I agree that you consider said examinations to be "peripheral" and "off topic side trips".The thing is, though, that unless you are willing to explore the logical implications and factual basis of your opinions, you are going to continue to make the same logical and factual errors over and over again.Again, let me ask you what is wrong with me asking you to flesh out the details of what you are claiming?If you don't have any more details, cannot answer any of my questions of clarification, or don't have anything at all further to say, then is the problem that I am asking the questions or is the problem that you don't have any answers to them?