Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
55 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (6 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,441 Year: 9,189/23,288 Month: 204/1,544 Week: 479/518 Day: 59/88 Hour: 9/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the bible the word of God or men?
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 256 of 309 (459480)
03-07-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by TheTruth
03-07-2008 4:30 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
quote:
It says so "All scripture is God breathed"

Firstly -
no it doesn't, there is no word "is" present in the Greek. The sentence is ambiguous. Have you ever checked the original Greek?

Secondly -
this is from a pastoral epistle - a letter FORGED in the name of Paul. Do you think a FORGERY is good proof?

Thirdly -
this letter was not scripture itself when it was written. Do you think it refers to ITSELF as scripture?

Fourthly -
using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is circular nonsense. Do you think The Lord of The Rings proves The Hobbit true?

Iasion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by TheTruth, posted 03-07-2008 4:30 PM TheTruth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by TheTruth, posted 03-07-2008 10:25 PM Kapyong has responded

TheTruth
Member (Idle past 4410 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 257 of 309 (459484)
03-07-2008 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Taz
03-07-2008 6:57 PM


Re: responsibility for ego

Even IFF the theory of evolution is entirely a circular argument, how does this make your argument not a circular argument?

I never said that my theory wasn't circular, I was just pointing out that your theory is worse!
PWNED!
:laugh:


"People call me strange does that make me a stranger
My best friend was born in a manger"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Taz, posted 03-07-2008 6:57 PM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rahvin, posted 03-08-2008 1:38 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

TheTruth
Member (Idle past 4410 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 02-11-2008


Message 258 of 309 (459485)
03-07-2008 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Kapyong
03-07-2008 9:58 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
First, please use correct grammer and capitalization.

Secondly -
this is from a pastoral epistle - a letter FORGED in the name of Paul. Do you think a FORGERY is good proof?

I'm pretty sure that a load of made up bull crap, unless you feel like proving it. Paul wrote that?

Thirdly -
this letter was not scripture itself when it was written. Do you think it refers to ITSELF as scripture?

WHAT! How does that work? Neither was any of the works of religion.

Fourthly -
using the Bible to "prove" the Bible is circular nonsense. Do you think The Lord of The Rings proves The Hobbit true?

Okay, but do we really want to look at evolution it has more holes than what I said


"People call me strange does that make me a stranger
My best friend was born in a manger"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Kapyong, posted 03-07-2008 9:58 PM Kapyong has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Kapyong, posted 03-08-2008 2:50 AM TheTruth has not yet responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 259 of 309 (459491)
03-08-2008 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by TheTruth
03-07-2008 10:25 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
quote:
First, please use correct grammer and capitalization.

First, learn how to SPELL correctly.
Second, learn how not to be a hypocrite.

quote:
I'm pretty sure that a load of made up bull crap, unless you feel like proving it. Paul wrote that?

It is a consensus of modern NT scholarship that the Pastorals are forgeries. It appears you have never studied the facts. Try here for reasons why it is considered a forgery :
http://earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html

quote:
Okay, but do we really want to look at evolution it has more holes than what I said

Why are you changing the subject?

Anyway - evolution is an observed fact. This appears to be another subject you have never studied.

Iasion


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by TheTruth, posted 03-07-2008 10:25 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 201 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 260 of 309 (459546)
03-08-2008 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by TheTruth
03-07-2008 10:09 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
I never said that my theory wasn't circular, I was just pointing out that your theory is worse!
PWNED!

So, you just admitted that your reasoning is circular and thus your conclusions are falsified. Evolution is irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited by Rahvin, : Removed comment regarding childishness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by TheTruth, posted 03-07-2008 10:09 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12702
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 261 of 309 (459553)
03-08-2008 2:23 PM


Evolution is not the Topic
It's been called to the attention of board administration that there's been some persistent forays into off-topic subjects here, such as evolution. Anyone who wants to discuss evolution, there's a whole forum available for that purpose. This thread is about the origin of the words in the Bible.

While giving this thread a brief look I was struck much more by the use of illogic than by anything else. There seemed to be a lot of, "Oh yeah? Well your pet theory is worse!" You hear illogical arguments like this all the time in domestic disputes ("You forgot to pay the gas bill again!" "Oh yeah? Well you burned dinner last night!") Seems like we should be able to do better.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 262 of 309 (459555)
03-08-2008 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by TheTruth
03-07-2008 4:30 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
It says so "All scripture is God breathed"

Which also begs the question: What is Scripture?

As in, which writings are part of Scripture? Which begs the other question: who decides what's part of Scripture?

The Jewish tradition, as I recall what was taught to me, is that Scripture includes the Torah and the prophets and, I think, the historical books, what we call the OT. Certainly references in the NT to Scripture would have been to the OT, not to the NT, which did not even exist yet and would not exist until the 4th century CE. Nor could the writings that would eventually constitute the NT be considered part of Scripture until they were collected together and canonized by a committee of men.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by TheTruth, posted 03-07-2008 4:30 PM TheTruth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by studioghibli, posted 03-08-2008 4:07 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 03-24-2008 8:28 PM dwise1 has responded

studioghibli
Junior Member (Idle past 4409 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 01-01-2008


Message 263 of 309 (459565)
03-08-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by dwise1
03-08-2008 3:09 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
Howdy,

So, that being the case..

.. if the Bible was supposedly written by God (through men), but Man chose which books would and would not be represented in the Bible, then.. ?

If God leads the men to choose the books he wanted, does this turn into a discussion over free will?

Edited by studioghibli, : Just clarifying a point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2008 3:09 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 1:47 PM studioghibli has not yet responded

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 309 (461356)
03-24-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by dwise1
03-08-2008 3:09 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
quote:
Which also begs the question: What is Scripture?

Check this out, relating to a popular atheist scientist and food for dscussion.

quote:
Excerpts:

'Why would a dot containing all matter and energy -- a dot that sat quietly for an eternity -- suddenly explode? The Law of Inertia insists that objects at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Since all matter and energy would be contained within this dot, there could be nothing outside the dot to get things going-nothing natural, at least. What force could have ignited the initial explosion?'

'Of course Dawkins would then have to explain how to do it without having the original chemicals. Dawkins may be able to make a salad, but let's see him create the vegetables. Dawkins's insistence that religion and science contradict each other dismisses with an imperious sweep of the hand an entire body of work written by respected scientists who show that science in fact corroborates the Genesis narrative.'

A Jewish rebuttal to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion

Columnist and psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, writing in the prestigious "City Journal," discloses the origins of his atheism. He was nine years old and attending prayer assembly in his British school. The headmaster Mr. Clinton commanded the children to keep their eyes shut lest God depart the assembly hall. Young Theodore wanted to test the hypothesis, so he opened his eyes suddenly so as to catch a glimpse of the fleeing God. Instead he saw Mr. Clinton praying with one eye open in order to survey the children. "I quickly concluded," recounts Dalrymple, "that Mr. Clinton did not believe what he said about the need to keep our eyes shut. And if he did not believe that, why should I believe in his God? In such illogical leaps do our beliefs often originate, to be disciplined later in life by elaborate rationalization."

Over the last year and a half, such "elaborate rationalizations" of atheism have spawned a spate of books condemning God, religion, and religious believers. Christopher Hitchens's book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything reached #1 on the New York Times bestseller list in just three weeks. Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion has sold over 1.5 million copies and has been translated into 31 languages. It was on the New York Times bestseller list for 51 weeks. The BBC produced a two-hour documentary based on the book, entitled, "Religion: The Root of All Evil?"

Many critics have pointed out that the appeal of these books is less in the soundness of their arguments than in the eloquence of their prose. As Bruce DeSilva of the Associated Press wrote: "Hitchens has nothing new to say, although it must be acknowledged that he says it exceptionally well."

The venom of their invective actually turns these proud rationalists into irrational hate-mongers.

Five of the six books constituting the neo-atheist crusade can be dismissed as screeds, full of what Theodore Dalrymple describes as "sloppiness and lack of intellectual scruple, with the assumption of certainty where there is none." The venom of their invective against God and religious believers actually turns these proud rationalists into irrational hate-mongers. Witness Sam Harris's declaration in his book The End of Faith: "The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."

Obviously, such a diatribe does not merit a rational rebuttal.

1. THE DANGER OF RELIGION?

Only The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, a professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford, merits serious discussion. Dawkins advances four basic arguments.

One is that religion is dangerous. His BBC documentary begins with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. He then shows footage of wounded Israelis after a suicide bombing. From this he pans to pictures of Hasidic Jews praying at the Western Wall, and announces, "Religious terrorism is the logical outcome of deeply held faith."

Dawkins's distorted syllogism -- that because Muslim terrorists are religious and Muslim terrorists murder, therefore all religious people are potential murderers -- is enough to make a freshman student of logic go apoplectic.

The obvious rebuttal of Dawkins's allegation that religion causes terrorism, wars, crusades, inquisitions, jihad, etc. is a cursory look at the genocides of the 20th century. An estimated 80,000,000 human beings were murdered in the course of the 20th century (not including war casualties), and they were all murdered by atheists: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao.

Dawkins writes that this point comes up "after just about every public lecture that I ever give on the subject of religion, and in most of my radio interviews as well." He then devotes seven pages to attempting to prove that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic. He sums up this section: "Stalin was probably an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't; but even if they were both atheists, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism."

If Dawkins had asked Stalin or Mao, whose genocidal record makes Hitler's pale in comparison, if they were motivated by their ideology, they would certainly have contended that all their policies derived directly from their Communist principles. Even today the Communist regime of China is cutting open live Falon Gong practitioners and removing their vital organs for sale on the lucrative organ transplant market. This atrocity is consistent with their atheistic ideology that regards human beings in exclusively economic terms and denies that human life is sacred because human beings were created "in the image of God." Since Communism is an inherently atheistic system that denies both God and the Divine soul, Dawkins's contention that atheists "don't do evil things in the name of atheism" is blatantly false.

It's like saying medicine is evil because Dr. Josef Mengele committed heinous acts in the name of medical research.

Furthermore, to say that religion is evil because religious people have committed heinous acts in the name of religion is like saying medicine is evil because Dr. Josef Mengele committed heinous acts against the subjects of his Auschwitz experiments in the name of medical research. One can take any constructive enterprise and use it for destructive purposes. This offers no grounds for condemning the enterprise itself.

One of the many distortions in which all the neo-atheist books abound is that they rant about the evil byproducts of religion without ever mentioning religion's benefits to every society throughout history. As Theodore Dalrymple observes: "The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy."

Dalrymple gives as examples the Cathedral of Chartres and the Saint Matthew Passion. Judaism can point to its legacy of Western values. As Ken Spiro demonstrates in his book WorldPerfect, Judaism has given the world its core values: respect for human life, peace, justice, equality before the law, education, and social responsibility.

Even Oxford University, where Prof. Dawkins enjoys tenure, was founded nine centuries ago by religious Christians, among them the Bishop of Rochester.

2. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION

Dawkins contends that religion and science are irrevocably opposed. He maintains that, unlike science, faith in God is irrational:. "Faith demands a positive suspension of critical faculties." The Dawkins dogma states: "Science uses reason and evidence to reach logical conclusions. Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

Dawkins, who was raised in the Church of England, naturally associates religion with irrational beliefs such as the virgin birth and God impregnating a human being to give birth to a God-man. This, however, has nothing to do with Judaism. Just open a page of the Talmud, read Maimonides, or spend one hour learning in a yeshiva, and you will experience Judaism's rigorous argumentation to discern the truth. The primary focus in Judaism is the study of Torah and the development, not the "suspension," of critical faculties.

Judaism's perfectly rational belief in God, as enunciated by Maimonides, is that there must be a non-physical, infinite source of the physical, finite universe. As will be shown below, there is no other plausible explanation for how the universe got here.

Einstein understood that the beginning of the universe implies a transcendent force that brought it into being. That's why for so long he clung to his belief in a static universe (one that had always existed, and therefore had no beginning) and resisted the mounting evidence for an expanding universe.

As Lawrence Kelemen in his book Permission to Believe, explains the challenge posed by an expanding universe:

Why would a dot containing all matter and energy -- a dot that sat quietly for an eternity -- suddenly explode? The Law of Inertia insists that objects at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. Since all matter and energy would be contained within this dot, there could be nothing outside the dot to get things going-nothing natural, at least. What force could have ignited the initial explosion?

Faced with evidence of an expanding universe discovered by astronomer Vesto Slipher and deduced by mathematicians Willem de Sitter and Alexander Friedman, Einstein refused to accept the inevitable conclusion. "I have not yet fallen into the hands of the priests," was Einstein's famous response to the possibility of an expanding universe. Clearly he understood that an expanding universe must have a non-physical First Cause.

Since then, of course, science has proven that the universe is expanding from the original event known as the Big Bang. This reality gives scientific backing to Maimonides' philosophical contention that a supernatural force must have initiated the natural universe.

The respected journal Astrophysics and Space Science [issue 269-270 (1999)] states clearly that the Big Bang points to a "transcendent cause of the universe":

The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the Big Bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed. One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone. Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning. The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time. Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction. [pp. 723-740]

In a flippant two and a half pages, Dawkins dismisses Thomas Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God (Maimonides, who preceded Aquinas by two centuries, writes similar arguments). "The five 'proofs' asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century don't prove anything, and are easily -- though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence -- exposed as vacuous." [p. 100]

Dawkins simply fails to understand the depth of argument of philosophy, and is too arrogant to admit when he's out of his element.

Dawkins's rebuttal of Aquinas would earn him a "D" in any first year philosophy course. A biologist, not a philosopher, Dawkins simply fails to understand the depth of argument of philosophy, and is too arrogant to admit when he's out of his element.

The problem of "First Cause" is the knock-out argument against which Dawkins has no defense. Even if Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, could prove that human beings evolved out of some primordial soup, evolution still begs the bigger questions: Where did the elements of the primordial soup come from? What caused the first particles to come into being? What caused the Big Bang? How can you believe in a beginning without also believing in a beginner? To these classical challenges to atheism, Dawkins offers no response.

Dawkins's sanguine belief that although scientists have not yet created life, someday in the future they will succeed, suspiciously resembles messianic hopes:

I shall not be surprised if, within the next few years, chemists report that they have successfully midwifed a new origin of life in the laboratory. Nevertheless it hasn't happened yet, and it is still possible to maintain that the probability of its happening is, and always was, exceedingly low -- although it did happen once! [p. 165]
Of course Dawkins would then have to explain how to do it without having the original chemicals. Dawkins may be able to make a salad, but let's see him create the vegetables.

Dawkins's insistence that religion and science contradict each other dismisses with an imperious sweep of the hand an entire body of work written by respected scientists who show that science in fact corroborates the Genesis narrative. Although the bibliography of such books is too lengthy to list here, three excellent examples are: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom by M.I.T. physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project, who, by the way, grew up as an agnostic, and There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Anthony Flew and Roy Varghese.

3. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AS CHILD ABUSE

Dawkins's third point is that indoctrinating children with religious teachings is akin to child abuse, because they prevent children from learning to think independently.. He writes that terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people flinch.

Dawkins is, in fact, surprisingly tolerant of the sexual abuse of children. He writes: "We live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia ... It is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers." [p. 354-5] He has, however, zero tolerance for what he considers the far worse crime of raising a child in a particular religion:

Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place. [p. 356]

While it takes a whole book to refute a book, suffice it to say that all parents, whether religious or secular, inculcate their children with their own beliefs. Does Dawkins not raise his children with a prejudice to be pro-democracy? Anti-cocaine? In the name of intellectual honesty, would he expose his children to every perverse element of society? In the name of intellectual balance, would he permit his children to study Muslim theology in a Saudi mosque for a few months?

4. DARWINIAN MORALITY

Dawkins' final point is that human beings don't need religion for morality. In his BBC documentary, as a troop of chimpanzees frolics in the background, he asserts that morality is also the product of evolution.

His explanation is simple: "Morality stems from altruistic genes naturally selected in our evolutionary past." Pointing to the social structures abounding in the animal kingdom, he asserts that "survival of the fittest" favored the evolutionary development of moral traits:

Natural selection favours genes that predispose individuals, in relationships of asymmetric need and opportunity, to give when they can, and to solicit giving when they can't. It also favors tendencies to remember obligations, bear grudges, police exchange relationships and punish cheats who take, but don't give when their turn comes. [pp. 248-9]

Here the title of Dawkins's documentary,"Religion: The Root of All Evil" turns out to be true, although not in the way he intended. Religion is indeed the root of all evil, because without religion there would be no concept of "evil." And religion is also the root of all good. Simply put, without religion determining an absolute system of values, what makes anything evil or good?

If human beings were nothing but advanced monkeys, as evolutionists would have us believe, the concept of morality would be irrelevant. A lion that devours a kicking and struggling "innocent" zebra is not "evil." She is merely following her instinct, and instincts in the animal kingdom carry no moral value.

Dawkins offers an example: "Vampire bats learn which other individuals of their social group can be relied upon to pay their debts (in regurgitated blood) and which individuals cheat." [p. 248] But is the bat who pays his debts "good" and the bat who cheats "evil"? Of course not.

According to Dawkins, the terrorists flying into the Twin Towers are no different than the lion devouring the zebra.

By taking God out of the picture there is nothing evil about evil. According to Dawkins, the terrorists flying into the Twin Towers are no different than the lion devouring the zebra.

Even in the development of human civilization, social contracts were expedient rather than moral. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, prohibits stealing for the mutual protection of property rights, not because stealing is "evil."

Morality could have been introduced into the world only by God, for no one else has the arbitrary right to declare universal standards of right and wrong. And much of the morality that God ordained is counter-intuitive and goes against instinct.

For example, historian Paul Johnson [A History of the Jews, p. 34] has pointed out that, among all the legal codes of the ancient Near East, only the Bible declared that crimes against property are never capital, because the sacredness of human life supersedes property values. The Torah also commands people to release the debts owed to them at the end of every seven years, to return purchased land to its original owner every fifty years, to proactively intercede when another person's life is in danger, and to not carry a grudge or take revenge. (Remember Dawkins's statement, quoted above, that natural selection favors those who "bear grudges.") (1)

In his duel against religion Richard Dawkins chose his weapon: rationality. While he certainly gets points for his eloquent use of the Queen's English and for his cynical wit, in terms of rational argument Dawkins wields a dull sword indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Most laughable is Dawkins' attempt to show the strides made in a constantly evolving morality. His "proof" that morality evolves is that a half century ago in England almost everyone was racist, and now almost no one is racist. A half century ago almost everyone was homophobic and now the majority is not. This is the apex of moral evolution in Dawkins' estimation.

But what about the Holocaust? The present genocide in Darfur? The stealing of organs of live Falon Gong practitioners? The sadism that accompanied or accompanies each of these atrocities dramatically refutes any notion of moral evolution. Dawkins's fancied "moral evolution" must mean that human beings are demonstrably less barbaric with the passing of centuries, but in terms of moral level, Rudolph Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz, had nothing over Genghis Khan.

A few dates are still available for Sara Yoheved Rigler's May American speaking tour. If you are interested in bringing her to your community, please contact Belinda Levy at amblevy@yahoo.com.

Published: Saturday, March 22, 2008

COMMENTS: 11

(1) Carmen 3/24/2008 2:31:00 AM
Religion is bad.....
Religion is not bad, it keeps us in line
to remember God's Commandments. We are given choices, when indiviuals make a bad choice then comes trouble. Religion is good for us, we are not animals to be compared with lions eating zebras. Humans have a conscience,(judgement of right and wrong;the moral sense; morality.)this is Webster's definition.

(2) Julie 3/23/2008 11:48:00 PM
Has Dawkins Seen this Article?
Perhaps he would re-think his foolishness. More likely, his arrogance would prevent him from doing so. Nonetheless, it would behoove him to read this. Once again, SYR, you make excellent points AND to paraphrase Bruce DeSilva, "it must be acknowledged that (you make them) exceptionally well."

(3) matt 3/23/2008 3:37:00 PM
Wonderful
Greetings,
I'm a protestant pastor and I greatly loved this article. We as Christian and Jew alike need to realize that atheist attacks are aimed at our two groups. Despite our differences we are under the great scrunity, may God bless you for writing this. Also, great comments everyone, very insightful.

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/The_Atheist_Crusade.asp


Off topic giant cut & paste hidden - AdminMod

Edited by AdminModulous, : Off topic giant cut & paste hidden


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by dwise1, posted 03-08-2008 3:09 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by AdminModulous, posted 03-24-2008 8:55 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 267 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2008 2:42 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 265 of 309 (461358)
03-24-2008 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by IamJoseph
03-24-2008 8:28 PM


off topic
I fail to see how a 3,000 word cut and paste critique of recent atheist author's works is food for discussion in a topic about whether the Holy Bible is the word of God or man. See Forum guidelines 2 and 6. I have hidden the offending text, you can still use the peek function to read it should you so desire. Please do not respond to this message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 03-24-2008 8:28 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 266 of 309 (463992)
04-22-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by studioghibli
03-08-2008 4:07 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
studioghibli writes:

If God leads the men to choose the books he wanted, does this turn into a discussion over free will?


Unfortunatly that is a different topic all together. I, however, do not believe in free will.

The Bible has been mistranslated and copied and butchered and re butchered over and over again in several different languages over the last couple thousand years. I love herminutics and etymology.
Here is what I believe; The original, in the original language, is the true word of God handed down to man. The barberic english translations are not the inspired word of God.


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by studioghibli, posted 03-08-2008 4:07 PM studioghibli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2008 3:28 PM 1071 has responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 267 of 309 (463996)
04-22-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by IamJoseph
03-24-2008 8:28 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
I quite agree that your "response" was widely off-topic and I recognize that it had nothing whatsoever to do with my post. In other words, it did not constitute a reply.

If you could not offer an actual reply, then why try to throw up such a smokescreen?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 03-24-2008 8:28 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

dwise1
Member
Posts: 4194
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 268 of 309 (464007)
04-22-2008 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by 1071
04-22-2008 1:47 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
The Bible has been mistranslated and copied and butchered and re butchered over and over again in several different languages over the last couple thousand years. I love herminutics and etymology.
...
The barberic english translations are not the inspired word of God.

That is generally how I view it. But instead of saying "butchered", I point out -- based on my own experience as a foreign-language student -- that translation requires that the translator perform an act of interpretion, fallible human interpretation. That, in addition to the inherent problem the target language cannot always express exactly the same ideas as the original or that the translation may introduce new ideas through the target language drawing distinctions that do not exist in the original or through associations that exist in the target but not in the original. And on top of that, we have each individual's own act of interpreting the translator's acts of interpretation. True, an individual reading the original would also be performing a fallible act of interpretation, but at least that would eliminate the compounded errors introduced by layers of intermediate translation.

Interestingly and mind-bogglingly, I have encountered those who believe that the King James Version is the only correct Bible and that it is superior even to the original. I'm serious. That is exactly what people have told me to my face and they remained adamant about it.

Here is what I believe; The original, in the original language, is the true word of God handed down to man.

Which raise the question: What "original language" are you referring to? Are you talking about a human language there? Or more specifically, assuming the existence of "The original [which] is the true word of God handed down to man", in what language was it, in what form was it, and in what manner was it handed down?

Thomas Paine had pointed out in "The Age of Reason" that when a man receives Revelation, it is Revelation to that man alone; as soon as he tells it to another, it becomes hear-say and as that second man tells a third it becomes hear-say upon hear-say. I would maintain that it is not even Revelation to that first man, because as soon as he tried to understand it and think of how to express it he has performed an act of fallible human interpretation and thus the translation process has begun.

Or did you mean that "original language" to have been Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic? I would most certainly agree that in order to best determine what the original authors were saying would be to read what they originally wrote. However, now we have the problem of determining just exactly what that original text was. There is no one version. We have found many manuscripts of New Testament verses, but they differ from each other. Which one is "The original"?

BTW, what is "IIX"? That goes against the conventions of Roman numerals. Are you trying to write "VIII"? If you are trying to make a statement by using an unconventional notation, then what is it?


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 1:47 PM 1071 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by 1071, posted 04-22-2008 4:14 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

1071
Member (Idle past 4358 days)
Posts: 61
From: AUSTIN, TX, USA
Joined: 04-17-2008


Message 269 of 309 (464014)
04-22-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by dwise1
04-22-2008 3:28 PM


Re: responsibility for ego
dwise1 writes:

that translation requires that the translator perform an act of interpretion, fallible human interpretation. That, in addition to the inherent problem the target language cannot always express exactly the same ideas as the original or that the translation may introduce new ideas through the target language drawing distinctions that do not exist in the original or through associations that exist in the target but not in the original. And on top of that, we have each individual's own act of interpreting the translator's acts of interpretation. True, an individual reading the original would also be performing a fallible act of interpretation, but at least that would eliminate the compounded errors introduced by layers of intermediate translation


I don't think i could have said it better

dwise1 writes:

Interestingly and mind-bogglingly, I have encountered those who believe that the King James Version is the only correct Bible and that it is superior even to the original. I'm serious. That is exactly what people have told me to my face and they remained adamant about it.


wow.. I know people like that..
dwise1 writes:

Which raise the question: What "original language" are you referring to? Are you talking about a human language there? Or more specifically, assuming the existence of "The original [which] is the true word of God handed down to man", in what language was it, in what form was it, and in what manner was it handed down?


Once again .. well put

dwise1 writes:

Or did you mean that "original language" to have been Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic?


yes.
dwise1 writes:

However, now we have the problem of determining just exactly what that original text was. There is no one version. We have found many manuscripts of New Testament verses, but they differ from each other. Which one is "The original"?

Yes! This is what I am talking about!!! That is one of the most controversial important question, in my opinion, in the field of Hermeneutics.
dwise1 writes:

BTW, what is "IIX"? That goes against the conventions of Roman numerals. Are you trying to write "VIII"? If you are trying to make a statement by using an unconventional notation, then what is it?

wow.. i was realy coffee deprived when i did that.. lol.. indeed I ment VIII...LOL!!!


Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [Ρωμαιους IIX:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2008 3:28 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Lwilliams
Junior Member (Idle past 4313 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-27-2008


Message 270 of 309 (468134)
05-27-2008 1:09 PM


mysteries
One of the biggest mysteries for man has been God/Bible/Religion/Universe, the whole thing. Literally or Metaphorically ... it doesn't matter. It's all about belief & what it takes to achieve it. You stop believing, you've made a big mistake, no matter what it is you believe in.
Peace ...


oolong tea

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020