Underlying Philosophy

(4*5 - 2*1) / 6 = 3.See?

Obviously numerology is like the bible, one can make it say anything he wants.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

jar,It appears that your Biblical hermeneutic is not centered around bringing glory to God, but to justify your wish to be as Adam and Eve wished to be: to determine good and evil.Here are some points I have come up with regarding your exegetic.1. - If God's opinions of morals can change, then did Jesus' death really pay for all of your sins? Suppose that certain things you have done during your life were not wrong at the time Jesus died, but are now "okay"? Did Jesus die for these sins? Did Jesus' death on the cross account for your hypothetical subjective moral standards?2. - The Bible itself denies changing standards: "My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change;" (Prov. 24:21). Although this verse is not specifically pointed towards morals, it certainly has nothing good to say about "change".3. - You also make morality out to be a standard that is outside of God, that God must measure up to. But God and "morality" are one and the same thing: "So Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18). God is good, and none of us are. Good is defined by God's very nature. Does God's nature change? "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Mal. 3:6). Thus we conclude that standards of morality are unchanging.4. - In the garden, God set down an absolute moral: that Adam and Eve should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die. (Gen. 2:17). It doesn't appear as though Adam and Eve had any say in the matter. It says, "you will surely die" [emphasis added]; it does not say "you will surely die, that is, unless you can give me some good reason why you shouldn't die...". So it doesn't sound like God's rule was merely an arbitrary contrivance that was a restraint on man's ability to (to quote jar) "make subjective decisions about morality". That's just the way it was. If they ate, they died...no two ways about it. Why exactly was it that way? As I have attempted to explain in detail in further messages, God created the universe based upon His own nature. As a result of this, morals are not some external standard which exists under the control of both man and God. Morals are the guidelines for how we should live in this universe...Think of it this way; if somebody makes a machine, they will perhaps make an instruction manual that says how the machine should be used. Now note that they did not have to make this instruction manual: they merely chose to. Now if the instructions are not followed correctly, nothing good will come of it. The instructions were written for a distinct purpose: that proper performance of the machine might take place, for the sake of the user. Another thing of note: the instructions can not be changed for the better, which means that if someone wanted to change the instructions, they would first have to change the machine; then they would be able to change the instructions.So, we conclude that morals are not an external standard which are subjective, but rather, they are guidelines for the only way to live in a universe which was created based upon God. And God is objective, meaning that morals - which are based upon His nature - are also objective. So, in fact, in order to change morals, you would have to first change God's nature, and the universe along with it. And, as I have shown, God's nature is unchanging.Another absolute moral is this: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23). The wages of sin is not perhaps death. It [i]is[/] death. And God did not arbitrarily decide that death would be the wages of sin, but rather, the fact that death is a wage of sin is merely a by-product of the fact that the very universe in which we live is based upon God's nature. And when we do that which is apart from God (sin), we die, both spiritually and physically!5. - In my last point, I noted that the consequence of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was death. The ability to know good and evil was - for men - not a good thing. Why? Because men would then fall away from God, by attempting to determine good and evil for themselves, apart from God. But, as I have shown earlier, attempting to determine good and evil apart from God is vain and hopeless. But now let me quote you: The "great" gift?... Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as though you are making the fall out to be a blessing to mankind...but, of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am misunderstanding you.6. - (Responding to your point about Abraham) You spoke of "correcting God when He is wrong", and then used Abraham's pleading with God as an example...Try going and telling the Sodomites that Abraham convinced God that He was wrong; I'm sure they'll believe you... The point being that God's actions, nor His opinion, were changed by Abraham's pleading. God's action was the destroying of Sodom and Gomorrah. His opinion was that they should be killed. God's action was carried out, and His opinion was correct (or would you say that it was wrong?). You must also realize that God knew that there was not a righteous man that lived in Sodom or Gomorrah (aside from Lot). So Abraham's "haggling" with God was really almost comical, because God knew that no matter how low Abraham went with his numbers, nothing would change. Abraham's two cents changed absolutely nothing.And yet another point is that Abraham was certainly not reasoning with God: he was begging and pleading, most likely for the sake of his nephew, Lot.7. - From your standpoint that there are many contradictions in the Bible, and that a quote can be taken to mean anything out of context, we must ask the question: why do you have any confidence that the anecdote of Abraham is true? Or that the anecdote of Adam and Eve is true? How can you be absolutely, positively sure than any particular verse in the Bible is true? What about the one at the beginning, that says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."? Is it true? What about the verses that give us our means of hope through Jesus Christ?...Do you ascribe to any of these views? If so, how do you know that they are true? I would be interested to find out who it was that called us to do this, because it wasn't God.

I'm not sure what most of what you posted has to do with anything I said.I pointed to a specific example where Abraham did point out that God's proposed behavior was immoral, and God modified Her behavior based on Abraham's criticism.As to the supposed Fall, I have never found any Biblical support for the notion. What God laid down in telling Adam not to eat the fruit was not a moral, it was a law. However, God in the story was not bright enough to realize the She had not given either Adam or Eve the tools they needed to know that they should follow what God said.It is not until they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that they had the tools needed to obey the law.As the story plays out, even as you quoted, God did not even tell Adam and Eve the truth. They did not die that day.In fact, in the story, it is actually the Serpent that tells the truth.I also know that the story of Adam and Eve is not true, it is a "Just So" story. The tales of Abraham are also not true, they are a mythology of creating a people, creating an identity.I believe that in the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth. But that is a belief, nothing more.Can I be sure that any verse in the Bible is true? Of course not. I can though be absolutely sure that many are false, simply myths, fables, stories. There was no Flood, the Exodus certainly never happened as described and teh Conquest of Canaan as told in Joshuah is pure epic fiction.AbE:You also claim that God knew that there was not a righteous man in Sodom or Gomorrah but again, that is NOT what the story says.

quote:

---

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

---

Edited by jar, : add part about what God knew.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Dr. Adequate, I need to rephrase my metaphysical statements...So if someone wants to go outside and examine a tree, they must first believe that there is at least a possibility of certain things being true about observation, and data, and movement, and causal-effect relationships, and other such things. The discussion of the nature of such subjects is metaphysical, and one must hold beliefs about the nature of such things before they can perform certain actions. For instance, one can not make an observation without first knowing what an observation is. The discussion of what an observation is - or what its "nature" is - is a metaphysical issue. They are perhaps done apart from God, but not outside of the will of God, nor outside of His sovereign rule. The terms , "apart", and, "not in accordance", do not coincide. Unfortunately, no, they don't. And look what it has led them to. Just something of note - which is not exactly meant to be a strong argument, but a footnote - is that in general, the societies which were heavily influenced by Christianity were also the ones that were more "morally acceptable". Compare Africa to Europe, and South America to North America... Exactly. Please explain how something that is merely a product of human thought is universally true, and universally applicable.I am not saying that the Laws of Logic exist...let me use a metaphor to try and demonstrate what I'm getting at...Suppose an artist wants to do a self-portrait. And we will also suppose that this is a very handsome artist, and that he looks very dignified, and that he is a very good painter. So the artist proceeds to paint a portrait of himself. Once the portrait is done (assuming it is a good portrait), one might look at the painting and say "the man in the painting is very handsome, and very dignified-looking". These are certain properties ascribed to the painting, properties which are also inherent in the artist himself. Now these properties do not exist, but one might ask "how could it come about that the man in the painting is handsome and dignified-looking? How would these properties come about: by accident, or on purpose?".In like manner, the Laws of Logic exist (not in the literal sense) as properties of the painting of the universe, properties which are inherent throughout the universe, and properties which must be used in order to understand the universe. But how can a painting have distinct properties unless someone purposefully set out to make it that way? How can the universe have very distinct properties as a by-product of evolution?The same analogy applies to numbers. ...1. - Would you consider it honorable for someone to cannibalize their dead relative?2. - At what point does one's religious worldview stop affecting the morality or immorality of rituals (such as cannibalism)...Or is ritual cannibalism wrong anyways, seeing as how it causes pain and suffering (to some of the family members).3. - Does the state of one's brain affect the morality or immorality of cannibalism? If so, why?4. - Do you believe that these people are correct in believing that it is honorable to cannibalize their dead relatives? If not, what reasons do you have for condemning their actions? That was just one reason. The most important however is that we are created in God's image, and so the honoring of one's dead body is simply the honoring of the body of God's creation. Once again: could you please detail why my specific argument was a fallacy. You assumed that actions do have effects, you assumed that your reasoning is uniform, you considered the possibility of nature being uniform - which relies on the uniformity of nature itself, because if nature was not uniform, then we would have no comprehension of what nature would be like if it were uniform - , you assumed the uniformity of relationships between your mind and body, etc. etc.

Not really. I know with Cartesian certainty that I experience qualia. I have empirically constructed a working theory to account for them. As for metaphysics, from this standpoint I couldn't give a hoot whether or not I am, for example, a "windowless monad". At this point you've watered down your original claim until it has no predictive or evidential power. Thank you. I don't believe I said that they were "merely a product of human thought". Quite. You might try to answer my question about lemons and limes, by the way.Let's ask an even simpler fruit-related question. Could an omnipotent God create a universe which contained apples and oranges but did not contain apples? Now, let us suppose that you came along and said: "I can see that the painting resembles the man. This means that there is a resemblance between them. I know that the artist made the picture using brushes, canvas and paint, but with what additional tools did he make this third thing --- the resemblance? What would happen if God (while leaving the man and the painting both exactly as they are) used his powers of divine omnipotence to destroy the resemblance? What would the painting look like then --- when it still looked the same and the man still looked the same but the resemblance between the two no longer existed?"This is what happens when you reify things that aren't things. That depends. Let's grant that it is proper to honor one's dead. Curiously, we do it by dropping them in a pit in the ground and letting worms eat them. Some people have found it more reverent to eat them themselves. If one's society says that that is how one honors people, then that is, in fact, how one honors people in that society. (If there was a language in which the phonemes "your royal majesty" meant "you cretinous pig-faced git", then it would not be an honorific in that society.)I might add that millions of Christians ritually eat what they think is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus, and consider this about the most sacred thing one can do. Why do people hold funerals for pets? (Few people, I think, ever toss the remains of a beloved family dog into the garbage.)If I were to give an account of funerary customs, it would go something like this. When someone dies, we are sad. They leave behind them the most intimate possible memento we could have of them --- their body. Yet practical considerations force us to dispose of it (or, if we are a nomadic society, to leave it behind). In any case, to throw it away. Funerary customs help us to cope with that --- we wish to throw it away with respect, rather than like trash. I happened to mention things which were man-made, and you overgeneralized from that. I might just as well have asked whether a rose decomposed into its constituent atoms would smell as sweet. Not necessarily. If you wish, add to my list of things that could happen when I eat the pie the possibility that it has no effect at all. Please expand on this point. So far as I can see, to the extent that your claim is true or even meaningful it would be another instance of the wager. In the first place, this is obviously not true. For example, I can imagine what it would be like if the weather was the same every day even though the weather changes.In the second place, I don't see what this has to do with my supposed metaphysical assumptions. Again, we can throw that in to our hypotheses about the non-uniformity of nature. Suppose that I attempt to perform the series of actions that experience tells me will result in the eating of the pie, only this time I punch myself in the face. That could happen too.---Really, if people needed a set of metaphysical assumptions to get a grip on reality, how would babies learn to do it? Somehow they manage to learn to associate cause and effect without ever thinking about the Ding an Sich. In practice, metaphysics is what people jaded with reality entertain themselves with after they've learned every practical fact they need to cope with what life is likely to throw at them. An alternative entertainment, which I myself prefer, is to learn facts that I don't really need to know.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Modulous, One problem with saying that a believers "sensing" of God is empirical is that empiricism typically relies on our physical senses (sight, smell, taste, hearing, touch), whereas a believer would typically say that their sensing of God was a sensing through their spirit... "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8). So this idea that the sensing of God's presence is not a physical sense is indeed Biblical.Also, when I was talking about empiricism in the first place, I was talking about the use of empiricism in hope of determining (ultimate) truth. Relying on empiricism (or man and his senses) is inherently anti-God, because it denies God as being the final arbiter of (ultimate) truth. And besides, Christians do not typically claim to use reasoning and empiricism as their means of believing in God: salvation is a birth of the spirit, by the power of God, and God alone: "Jesus answered and said to him, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.'
Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?'
Jesus answered, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'" (John 3:3-7). So although Christians may use this as a proof, they typically do not say that it was of their own power and reasoning that they were born again. Then what standard(s) might you use to come to the conclusion that there are no objective morals? 1) "God exists": I am the God of your fatherthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. (Exodus 3:6)2) "God created the universe": "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him." (Col. 1:16)3) "God did so based on His unchanging nature": "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Malachi 3:6). And the reason we know that God created the universe based on his unchanging nature is because...what else could He have based it on? Nothing else existed, so there wasn't much choice. But the best reason is this..."Then God said, 'Let there be..."; "Then God said, 'Let there be...". This is repeated eight times in Genesis 1, during the creation. So we know that God us His Word to create the world. What about His Word? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1-2). So we note that God created the universe with His Word, which is Him.4) "God created an ultimate morality"...It is incorrect to say that God created an ultimate morality, because God did not arbitrarily create morals: morals are "abstract", in that they merely refer to the way in which one should live in the universe, in accordance with God. But God was merciful enough to lay down His morals in the form of laws: "And you shall keep My statutes, and perform them: I am the LORD who sanctifies you." (Leviticus 20:8).5) "God intended for us to keep this morality" - refer to verse above.6) "God dictated that doing otherwise is in direct opposition to Him": "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
'Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.' (Genesis 3:17-19); (Romans 1:24-32)Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

jar, This makes it very difficult to have a conversation, if you can disregard the ridiculous amount of "He's" used in the Bible in reference to God...why would you think that God is a "her", and why would you even want to think that? Which means before they ate the fruit, they did not have the ability to not eat the fruit, since you say that they did not yet have the tools to obey Laws? "Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)Will you disregard this verse as well?...And yes, Adam and Eve did die that day...spiritually, because they were separated from God: just as physical death is separation from physical life, so also spiritual death is separation from the source of spiritual life: God. Then what is your basis for knowing anything? And what arbitrary reasoning might have been used to pick and choose which verses can and can't be used?..."All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17) And you also deny God's omniscience....--------------------All these points will make it very difficult to carry on a discussion with you, seeing as how you deny the veracity of the book upon which your religion is based. And you have also added to, or taken away from, those words at will, which is not something to be taken lightly. "Thus says the LORD: 'Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD.'" (Jer. 17:5)

There is no such thing as ultimate truth. If there is no such thing as ultimate truth, then nothing is being denied.

I also use "It". The purpose is to get folk to think and not create god in the human image. GOD, if GOD exists, is not likely to be a Him or a Her. No, it means that before they ate the fruit they did not have the tools to make decisions about what is right or wrong behavior. I don't ignore either verse, I look to see what they say.The whole nonsense of "spiritual death" is of course, not in the story at all. Further, they were not separated from God, God walks with them, talks with them, makes clothes for them; it even carries on in the next chapters where God talks with Eve and her kids.Sorry but spiritual death or separation from God are just not in the story. First, 2 Timmy is NOT talking about the Bible but rather any inspired writings. When 2 Timmy was written there were no Bibles, the first Bibles were created by committees almost 200 years later.Second, there is still no such thing as "The Bible". Bibles are the product of Committees of Canon which is why there are so many different collections.I base my knowledge on first, what can be verified, second what the text actually said, third the brain God gave me. Too funny. It is not me, it is what the story said.

quote:

---

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

---

God is out checking to see if what he heard was true. He didn't know which is why he says "If not, I will know."Note that "will"?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Empiricism is about experiences - what the conduits for those experiences are is not relevant. I haven't come to that conclusion. Would you like to try again? I'm not so dense that I didn't realize that the Holy Bible claims that God exists, created the universe etc. Remember when I said

quote:

---

Your sequence of quotes from various authors is meaningless. Why should I accept their word?

---

?

Seeing as how this topic has almost doubled the typical message limit of 300, and since there exist only two veins of reasonable discussion, I am heretofore going to remove myself from this thread, which will most likely result in a termination of discussion.But thanks to all who shared their arguments and participated in this thread, and I above all hope that the discussion had some good fruit, and perhaps got some people thinking, that "glory might be brought to God"..."Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36) ~ Sola Deo Gloria

I'm inclined to think it was a pretty good thread.Very little was agreed on by the opposing sides. But I think the disagreement was discussed with clarity, and without a lot of nastiness. I'll thank you for a good discussion.

Is there a difference between a lack of belief and denial?If yes, what is that difference?To address the original post, the starting point to atheism is simply a lack of belief in theism. We are all born atheists, and belief in religion is a learned behavior.It is probably no different than a lack of belief in Santa Clause, and probably a similar path can be taken.We do not start out knowing about Santa Clause. Then our parents give us gifts and tell us Santa Clause brought them to us, then many believe. Then as we get older, we learn Santa isn't real and lose our belief in him.Edited by Tram law, : left out info by accident

Yes, there is. If you lack belief in something, you are merely saying you don't believe a claim. For example, If I claim that I have a leprechaun in my closet, and your reaction is: "I don't believe you", that's lack of belief, would you have said "No you don't", that's denial. The first one keeps the option open of it being true, but until evidence is brought forward to support the claim, you will disregard it.