Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 137 of 868 (825779)
12-17-2017 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
12-17-2017 5:05 PM


Re: The true threat from the folk like Faith is clear.
quote:
The Bible is God's word, it's full of references to supernatural things the unbelieving "scholars" can't be honest about.
You say that but you don’t offer an ounce of support.
Come on Faith. Come up with real examples where you actually know what you’re talking about. If you have any - it’s not something you’re known for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 12-17-2017 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2017 3:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 152 of 868 (825943)
12-19-2017 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by PaulK
12-17-2017 5:14 PM


Re: The true threat from the folk like Faith is clear.
So, to recap.
You claimed that:
I do remember that the mystery writer Dorothy Sayers wrote about her conversion by realizing that King Artaxerxes (the king in the book of Esther) really existed
and tried to claim that it was a sensible argument. Now I suspect you are leaving something out - Perhaps Sayers was only six at the time - but it is extraordinarily silly.
If we compare Esther with The Three Musketeers It doesn’t come off well.
We know that King Louis XIII was a real person. We don’t know if the Ahasuerus of Esther is meant to be Artaxerxes - or if he was, which of the several Kings of that name is meant.
We know who Queen Anne was, we don’t know if Queen Vashti was even based on a real person
We know who Cardinal Richelieu was, we don’t know who - if anyone - Haman was.
We even know that d’Artagnan was a real person which is more than can be said for Esther.
Are we supposed to think that The Three Musketeers is real history for that reason ? Never mind the almost fairy-tale story of Esther!
I suppose it’s not surprising then that you offer nothing substantive in support of your assertion and eventually retreat to making equally evidence-free attacks on Bible scholars - refusing to discuss the points I raise against your assertions and giving up when I challenge you to produce a real example.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2017 5:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 189 of 868 (826445)
01-01-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Phat
01-01-2018 10:45 AM


Re: there really is no problem there Phat.
quote:
You have a point, much as it makes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure yet if I can totally throw away the concept of Biblical Inerrancy, but I'll consider it for the sake of debate.
The challenge for me is that if i throw God away, I find myself plagued with a lot of uncertainty. It is most definitely not comfortable.
Plenty of people believe in God without believing that the Bible is inerrant. Throwing out Biblical inerrancy isn’t throwing out God.
Especially because Biblical inerrancy seems to mean throwing out understanding of the Bible. So what if the second creation story has hangovers from the time before that Hebrews were true monotheists. If they are there, they’re there. Does that change Jesus’ message in any way ? So what if the Flood story is two versions of the story mashed together. It is and you can see it if you read carefully even in translation.
Maybe you think you need Biblical Inerrancy as a foundation for your beliefs, but what value is a false foundation that may well interfere with your understanding of scripture ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Phat, posted 01-01-2018 10:45 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 521 of 868 (855705)
06-22-2019 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 520 by Faith
06-22-2019 7:00 AM


Re: The Evidence Is The Believers Themselves
quote:
So I'm this evll person who is madly in love with an evll doctrine. Wow. I don't even know what you are talking about, and I doubt even you know.
Let’s note the subtitle. “The Evidence is the Believers Themselves”
And as evidence, your behaviour doesn’t do your religion any credit.
quote:
It seems to be the mind set of the day though. Trump is totally innocent, hasn't done any of the things he's accused of, but your side of the political divide makes him out to be worse than the worst murderous despot in history.
Of course Trump is guilty of a lot, and your lying to defend him is just one of your many sins. But nobody has called for him to be subjected to a show trial and execution. That sort of thing comes from people like you.
But I don’t blame Christianity for you. I take your claim to be Christian as just another one of your smears.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:52 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 523 of 868 (855709)
06-22-2019 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by Faith
06-22-2019 7:52 AM


Re: The Evidence Is The Believers Themselves
Just more proof of my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 7:52 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Faith, posted 06-22-2019 10:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 806 of 868 (862908)
09-16-2019 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by Phat
09-16-2019 8:44 AM


Re: None Are Righteous..And Some Apologize
After reading about Ravi Zacharias’ attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust - tenuous links based in misrepresentations - i can’t consider him an honest person. Especially since a stronger case could be made against Christianity.
quote:
I don't trust many of the atheist speakers because I feel that they have an ax to grind...
ALL apologists have an axe to grind. By definition.
quote:
...I believe in the concept of a very real spiritual war
But apparently not enough to care which side you are supporting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Phat, posted 09-16-2019 8:44 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by Phat, posted 09-17-2019 6:32 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 808 of 868 (862943)
09-17-2019 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 807 by Phat
09-17-2019 6:32 AM


Re: None Are Righteous..And Some Apologize
quote:
That actually would be a good argument
Not really. Zacharias’ argument is that bad.
Summarising it.
Nietzsche was an atheist (true but nor really relevant - for all his distinction as a philosopher he’s not exactly that important to a lot of atheists)
The Nazis liked Nietzsche (only sort of true - Nietzsche’s sister was the Nazi of the family and she censored his work in ways that made it more appealing to the Nazis - Nietzsche himself hated anti-semites)
And that is the heart of it. Incredibly tenuous.
While Christianity has a long history of anti-semitism, has a history of massacring Jews and was the dominant religion in Germany at the time.
Which is more likely to contribute to the Holocaust ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 807 by Phat, posted 09-17-2019 6:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 809 by Faith, posted 09-17-2019 3:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 810 of 868 (862955)
09-17-2019 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 809 by Faith
09-17-2019 3:28 PM


Re: None Are Righteous..And Some Apologize
quote:
Hitler said he modeled the holocaust on the Catholic Inquisition.
If it is true that he said that and if he wasn’t lying that would support my point.
quote:
It is also known that he made use of eugenics as he understood it from Darwinism (as did Margaret Sanger).
Selective breeding pre-dated Darwin. That’s how he could use the results of selective breeding as evidence for his theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 809 by Faith, posted 09-17-2019 3:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 09-17-2019 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 813 of 868 (862959)
09-17-2019 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 811 by Faith
09-17-2019 3:49 PM


Re: None Are Righteous..And Some Apologize
quote:
Darwin made use of selective breeding for his theory, but Sanger and Hitler made use of Darwin for their notions about who should be weeded out of the human race.
No they didn’t. Darwin was against eugenics, and certainly said nothing to suggest that Jews, Roma or Slavs were subhuman.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 811 by Faith, posted 09-17-2019 3:49 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 819 of 868 (862980)
09-18-2019 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 816 by Faith
09-17-2019 9:09 PM


Re: It was LIBERAL Protestants in German that supported Hitler
quote:
Thanks to the 19th century Tubingen School most of the Protestant churches in Germany were Liberal, that is, like you and others here they didn't take the Bible as God's word.
Even if that is true it is hardly relevant. After all the Bible contains both anti-semitism and glorification of genocide.
quote:
True believers like Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the other hand opposed Hitler, and he was executed for his part in the attempted assassination.
I doubt that you know much about Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Like his leftist leanings
Bonhoeffer began to see things "from below"from the perspective of those who suffer oppression. He observed, "Here one can truly speak and hear about sin and grace and the love of God...the Black Christ is preached with rapturous passion and vision."
Which, of course, would motivate support for the Jews - thoroughly oppressed by the Nazi state, even more than Blacks were oppressed in America (the context of the quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 816 by Faith, posted 09-17-2019 9:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 3:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 822 of 868 (862984)
09-18-2019 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 821 by Faith
09-18-2019 3:56 AM


Re: It was LIBERAL Protestants in German that supported Hitler
quote:
He also had some Liberal Christian views.
So not exactly a good example for you. Not that a single example would be nearly enough to support your claim. But it was all you offered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 3:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 829 of 868 (862998)
09-18-2019 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 826 by Faith
09-18-2019 10:25 AM


Re: Eugenics and Darwin
quote:
I don't see a morality-defining worldview in the existence of aircraft, but I do see it in the ToE.
Then you are hallucinating.
Anyway, having established that Darwin added nothing to eugenics (selective breeding is mentioned in the Bible!) here is what he had to say about it.
This quote is from The Descent of Man, Darwin’s book on human evolution.
The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 10:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 11:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 831 of 868 (863000)
09-18-2019 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 830 by Faith
09-18-2019 11:16 AM


Re: Eugenics and Darwin
quote:
Thanks for that from Darwin. Yes that is how we supposedly derive some moral principles from the ToE, but do note: he had to make up WHAT principle we should derive from it, as we always have to make it up, because the ToE really doesn't prescribe a moral standard.
Scientific theories don’t prescribe moral standards. And they shouldn’t.
And that is why you don’t see a morality-defining worldview in there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 11:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 834 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 12:39 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 835 of 868 (863008)
09-18-2019 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 834 by Faith
09-18-2019 12:39 PM


Re: Eugenics and Darwin
quote:
And yet there we have Darwin talking about how we can derive a principle of helping the helpless from the ToE.
Except that he isn’t really. He is urging it as a good thing but the theory doesn’t go all the way to proving that. And it certainly isn’t a part of the theory.
quote:
We got the argument of "altruism" as a moral principle from the ToE too.
No, at most we get an explanation of why we have altruistic impulses.
quote:
Whatever anyone wants to claim as a moral standard that can be attributed to evolution is going to be used as a moral standard derivable from the ToE. So it's really just empty words to claim science shouldn't be the basis for morality
The first statement doesn’t prove the second at all. In fact it hints at the fact that it doesn’t work.
quote:
REAL science, of course, but the ToE is NOT real science.
Of course evolution is real science, and your saying otherwise is just another example of your anti-scientific attitude.
But go on. Tell me what REAL science is a basis for morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 834 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 12:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 1:15 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 837 of 868 (863010)
09-18-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 836 by Faith
09-18-2019 1:15 PM


Re: Eugenics and Darwin
quote:
Well I wouldn't argue that we get or could get any kind of moral system from the ToE...
Except that you did.
quote:
...but when people argue that we've evolved this or that trait that favors sympathy or kindness or whatnot I'd say it's the best we could ever get from Science and after Science has told us our religious morality is all made up people naturally try to find some kind of standard in that Science anyway.
That, of course is contradictory. The religious reasons for morality may be made up (and given how dreadful they are that’s probably a good thing). But the science does explain why we have at least some of our moral values - which means that they are not simply made up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 1:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by Faith, posted 09-18-2019 1:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024