Using the Bible as fact...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?"
--This is not exactly true, as I explained above, I explained what should and should not apply the scientific method. You would be correct, however, that pure faith events, concepts, or anything of the like shouldn't be decided by applying the scientific method, simply because it is not applicable on scientific grounds.

---

OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example.Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions.If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?
Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?Mark

"OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example."
--Allright then."Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?"
--Hm, I seem to not be fully understanding what you are implying, possibly an example on your inquisition?"Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions."
--Yes, but science cannot apply to something that it cannot use within the boudaries of logic or anything you can test, or experiment on."If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?"
--This is where faith stands, it is a subjective belief given to the wordly order, it is out of the realm of science or experimentation, or even a test of existance. There is no direct evidence of pink fairies or God, yes. What there is, however, is indirect evidence, which is where I give God the glory."You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?"
--Slightly reasonable in a scence, though seemingly forgetting something, see above."Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?"
--I give the credit of existance of the universe and everything in it, It is basically my amazment at its workings, not to mention the book that I believe he inspired to document earth history, I find it compatable with observation. As the pink fairy does not have this same credibility, unless ofcourse you would like to apply Godly attributes to the pink fairy and make up your own God or something of that nature.------------------

"I'm not sure why this is relevant."
--The statement addressed history, and seeminly implied that the bible is not reliable for accurate historical events, so I pointed this out."Cultural "origins"? I wasn't talking about the "origins" of culture or customs."
--Neither was I, I was addressing origins of the tribe/race itself."If you read the Bible, you get a pretty good idea of the culture and customs of the time"
--Right."For example, you learn that slavery was in practice, and that women were considered chattel."
--The problem with this notion, is that it implies that slavery is horrible. But why is it horrible, when you think of slavery you tend to think of the whips and the lashes and the different harsh treatments. This is condemned in the bible to 'all' people, and so, a 'slave', is more accuratly a 'servant' a more proper in-context biblical translation. Basically being a servant was like being a child with responsibilities in todays american culture.
--As for women, its a bit analogous to the above. Women are at a bit of a lower level than men, after all, who was it who picked the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil first?"Huh, what are you talking about? I don't understand."
--The separation of church and state in the history books. This is probably why they omit, say, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or mention of the the exile of Moses without the word 'myth' used in the same sentance.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The problem with this notion, is that it implies that slavery is horrible. But why is it horrible, when you think of slavery you tend to think of the whips and the lashes and the different harsh treatments. This is condemned in the bible to 'all' people, and so, a 'slave', is more accuratly a 'servant' a more proper in-context biblical translation. Basically being a servant was like being a child with responsibilities in todays american culture.

---

From Exodus 21: When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money.Now call me Mr Fussy if you must, but this doesn't seem to condemn harsh treatment at all.What you must bear in mind is that "slavery" or servitude in the bible covered a wide range of situations: there are several contexts where it is clearly meant in an oppressive sense, and it is often referred to in contexts where the instution of slavery itself (not just the treatment of slaves) is seen as undesirable.For example ...
Genesis 9:25 So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers."
Leviticus 25:39 If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave's service. The translation "servant" is not more proper - rather it requires careful reading to separate contexts where servant or slave may be better, and where other terms - bondsman, bondservant, etc - may be substituted. One thing we can be sure of: if the Hebrews of biblical times were remotely like the people of the modern world they would have taken all too many opportunities to abuse the institution of the law to their own advantage regardless of the suffering of others. I doubt being a slave in ancient Judea can be compared to being a modern american child - pity the children if it can.

quote:

---

--As for women, its a bit analogous to the above. Women are at a bit of a lower level than men, after all, who was it who picked the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil first?

---

I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!

"Now call me Mr Fussy if you must, but this doesn't seem to condemn harsh treatment at all.What you must bear in mind is that "slavery" or servitude in the bible covered a wide range of situations: there are several contexts where it is clearly meant in an oppressive sense, and it is often referred to in contexts where the instution of slavery itself (not just the treatment of slaves) is seen as undesirable."
--I found this Q&A site a good reference: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html"The translation "servant" is not more proper - rather it requires careful reading to separate contexts where servant or slave may be better, and where other terms - bondsman, bondservant, etc - may be substituted."
--Yes this was a bit of what I was pointing out."One thing we can be sure of: if the Hebrews of biblical times were remotely like the people of the modern world they would have taken all too many opportunities to abuse the institution of the law to their own advantage regardless of the suffering of others."
--Yes, its a good thing that were still not in the old-testament."I doubt being a slave in ancient Judea can be compared to being a modern american child - pity the children if it can."
--It was a poor analogy, I know, excuse me."I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!"I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!"
--I may have worded it incorrectly a bit, the men are given more responsibilities than the woman, and the women seemingly are not allowed to some things, such as be a preist or paster. Were living in the new testament covenant, why not go by its expectations.------------------

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]I found this Q&A site a good reference: /b][/QUOTE]ROTFLMGDAOTC just cited material from Landover baptist....lets see what else we can find there....Hmmm atheist merchandise....Could this be... a spoof site?????

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 04-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I found this Q&A site a good reference: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html

---

O dear TC, I honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is one of the most famous parody sites on the web: you should check out this other page on their site: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0102/phoneoffer.htmlI do hope you are linking to it as a joke. If not, and you thought it was serious, perhaps it will give you pause for reflection. It's a real shame to see your undoubted intelligence bent to perform excruciatingly doctrinaire logical manouvers, when you could open your mind to the glories of science and spirituality at one and the same time.BTW, when I lived in Scotland I thought Landover Babtist to be just a very funny parody site, so over the top that no one could possibly fall for any of it. But since moving to the USA, I can now see how some might belive it to be genuine: the commercialisation of Christianity over here is actually quite shocking and the absurd posturing and hamming of the typical soi disant evangelist on television is way beyond what I had expected. Out ofinterest, what do you make of it?

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-03-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example."
--Allright then.

​

"Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?"
--Hm, I seem to not be fully understanding what you are implying, possibly an example on your inquisition?

---

Not putting your hand in boiling water to get that egg out. Not crossing a busy road with your eyes shut & your fingers in your ears. Not taking a shortcut off of a tall building by jumping off & expecting to be OK at the bottom. Not doing electrical work with wet hands. Driving the CORRECT way down a motorway/freeway. Holding a cup of tea/coffee level so it doesn’t spill. Cooking chicken all the way through. Not drying your pets in the microwave, especially after washing them in the washing machine. The list goes on, any boring, mundane thing you do that you draw from your own experience (evidence) qualifies.So, do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of truth finding to one aspect of your life (& apply it), but suspend it for another?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions."
--Yes, but science cannot apply to something that it cannot use within the boudaries of logic or anything you can test, or experiment on.

---

But we left science behind, didn’t we? We’re not talking science. We’re talking about taking actions/decisions based on evidence, something as mundane as holding a coffee cup level so it doesn’t spill qualifies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?"
--This is where faith stands, it is a subjective belief given to the wordly order, it is out of the realm of science or experimentation, or even a test of existance. There is no direct evidence of pink fairies or God, yes. What there is, however, is indirect evidence, which is where I give God the glory.

---

And I am questioning your rationale for having faith in faith. Why, When you use evidence in every other aspect of your life? Explain to me why it is rational to have faith in faith, but not faith in jumping off a building & flying, without saying something tantamount to I have faith because I have faith, or repeat that faith is outside science, which I’m not arguing anyway. It is the REASON you have that faith in faith I am after.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?"
--Slightly reasonable in a scence, though seemingly forgetting something, see above.

---

Forgetting what?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?"
--I give the credit of existance of the universe and everything in it, It is basically my amazment at its workings, not to mention the book that I believe he inspired to document earth history, I find it compatable with observation. As the pink fairy does not have this same credibility, unless ofcourse you would like to apply Godly attributes to the pink fairy and make up your own God or something of that nature.

​

---

Well, why don’t you believe the pink fairy is God, then? You have no evidence for either, so how can you possibly determine if there is one God, or many pink fairies? What evidential REASON do you base your faith in? What evidential REASON do you believe the bible was inspired by God, & not many pink fairies?You seem to be very fond of evidence, & are happy to use it against people when it suits, yet switch off the requirement for it when applied to your own deity. This is hypocritical.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

I have asked this question before, though not on this forum, and not recieved a real answer. Maybe I'll get on here.

​

How can anyone argue using the Bible (or any other holy book) as fact when;

​

a) They can't provide evidence that there is a god of any sort.
b) Even assuming a, they would need to show that this god is the one that they worship
c) Even assuming a and b, they would still need to show that their holy book comes from their god or at least is sanctioned by him/her/it.

​

Maybe someone can give me an explanation?

---

I don't beleive that any of the above a REQUIRED to verify the
Bible.What IS needed is independent historical corroboration of the
MAIN characters of the bible.Major land battles may have been included in a work of fiction,
likewise important figures of the time (cf. Homer's Iliad ... a
work of fiction based upon the very real, archealogically
evidenced siege of Troy).Find some independent record about Moses or Abraham ... perhaps
Joseph would be a good one since he, like Moses, lived
in the Egyptian court.Or evidence for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah that CANNOT
be explained by natural phenomena.Or remants of the tower of Babel (which must have been a phenomenal
structure).Or evidence of a garden of Eden to which man is forbidden entry
by an angel with a fiery sword.

​

[This message has been edited by Peter, 05-15-2002]

Hugh Ross did it on the Trinity Broadcasting Network by using apparently feedback from geo-physicists as to that the 1 year of ecosystem source/sink relocation allocations halt be not done or decided in a day. I think this is not the light that his John booked me for down and out in NO.

quote:

---

"For example, you learn that slavery was in practice, and that women were considered chattel."
--The problem with this notion, is that it implies that slavery is horrible.

---

Well, no, the statement doesn't imply that. It says it existed, that's all.

quote:

---

But why is it horrible, when you think of slavery you tend to think of the whips and the lashes and the different harsh treatments. This is condemned in the bible to 'all' people, and so, a 'slave', is more accuratly a 'servant' a more proper in-context biblical translation.

---

Ah, no, I don't think so. "Servant" implies "paid employee with rights", not "human being owned by another".

quote:

---

Basically being a servant was like being a child with responsibilities in todays american culture.

---

What a load of apologist, revisionist crap, TC.

quote:

---

--As for women, its a bit analogous to the above. Women are at a bit of a lower level than men, after all, who was it who picked the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil first?

---

Ah, I see that you are a lovely mysogynist-in-the-making, TC. Just what we need in this world.Let me tell you something.Women are not at any kind of lower level than men. That they are viewed this way by certain sects of Christianity is one of the most demeaning, ugly, hateful, spirit-destroying attitudes that was ever propagated by any institution in history. It is a convenient way to blame everything on women and to justify male privilage.This attitude requires all Christian women to hate themselves and live their life feeling guilty.This disgusts and saddens me. [QUOTE]"Huh, what are you talking about? I don't understand."
--The separation of church and state in the history books. This is probably why they omit, say, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or mention of the the exile of Moses without the word 'myth' used in the same sentance.
[/B][/QUOTE]Gee, I wonder why they don't include every unverified religious story in every history book without qualifying it with the word "myth"?What is your evidence OTHER THAN THE BIBLE for these events, TC?Goodness, you ARE a sloppy-minded scholar.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]I found this Q&A site a good reference: /b][/QUOTE]ROTFLMGDAOTC just cited material from Landover baptist....lets see what else we can find there....Hmmm atheist merchandise....Could this be... a spoof site?????

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 04-02-2002][/B][/QUOTE]ROTFLMAO!!!Gee, I wonder if this qualifies as "accepting anything which seems to support your position, regardless of quality"?LOLOLOLOL!!!------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

No comments, TC??

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:"5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"--Odly, this seems to imply that the bible may cooperate with an old universe, though a young Earth, hmmmmm...***Interesting, I used a similar approach in another thread to imply that the earth must be exceedingly old, the argument being that in order for us to be able to observe light from stars and galaxies that are multiplied thousands of light years away, the earth must be extremely old. No one bit! Perhaps there were no YECs, perhaps they missed the subtle inferences that I made. Now do not misunderstand my point of view. I am indeed an OEC. I believe that there is Biblical evidence for this, even as a YEC must believe that there is Biblical evidence for their position. I just happen to be one of those OECs who believe that the earth was destroyed by a great flood between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I realize that EVOs are fond of using the argument that YECs and OECs apparently interpret certain scriptures differently. I see it differently. I accept it as a difference of opinion and not interpretation. I believe the Bible interprets itself without any help from men. The interpretation always remains the same, only the opinions concerning that interpretation are different. At any rate, I put the bait out there and not even one person took a nibble, not even the EVOs, and I thought they would at least try to use it as a justification for their belief in a universe that is billions, and an earth that is millions of years old. Go figure! Sometimes the fish just don't bite! They're still hungry, they just want different bait to nibble on.------------------
"KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! FEED YOUR BRAIN!".....................Jet"The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable.It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation.For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:"5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:"--Odly, this seems to imply that the bible may cooperate with an old universe, though a young Earth, hmmmmm...***Interesting, I used a similar approach in another thread to imply that the earth must be exceedingly old, the argument being that in order for us to be able to observe light from stars and galaxies that are multiplied thousands of light years away, the earth must be extremely old. No one bit! Perhaps there were no YECs, perhaps they missed the subtle inferences that I made. Now do not misunderstand my point of view. I am indeed an OEC. I believe that there is Biblical evidence for this, even as a YEC must believe that there is Biblical evidence for their position. I just happen to be one of those OECs who believe that the earth was destroyed by a great flood between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I realize that EVOs are fond of using the argument that YECs and OECs apparently interpret certain scriptures differently. I see it differently. I accept it as a difference of opinion and not interpretation. I believe the Bible interprets itself without any help from men. The interpretation always remains the same, only the opinions concerning that interpretation are different. At any rate, I put the bait out there and not even one person took a nibble, not even the EVOs, and I thought they would at least try to use it as a justification for their belief in a universe that is billions, and an earth that is millions of years old. Go figure! Sometimes the fish just don't bite! They're still hungry, they just want different bait to nibble on.[/b][/QUOTE]Would you care to elaborate the difference between 'an opinion
on the meaning of a text' and 'the interpretation of a text' ?