Just in case anyone forgot

[stahleyp]

For instance, lc is like "you really believe that a woman was made from a man's rib?" If one is honest, wouldn't you say that is way, way more likely than life from nonlife? If we gave a team of scientists a man and told them to make a woman out his rib, that doesn't seem as far fetched as giving those same scientists a rock and saying "make something living out of this!" - and no they aren't allowed to pull of germs or something off of the rock for help.

Paul I'm not saying it's impossible. After all, If god exists, he can make a man out of a gum wrapper and a woman out of a spare cigarette, if he wants.

The point that Mr B pressed me on was "what scientific evidence exists which contradicts the bible".
Well, we have scientific evidence for how humans came to be, which directly contradicts the bible.

Being "good without a god" is so much bs.

Hah! I really find this hilarious. Let's try this again, because again the evidence is against you. 

Let's take an example: According to the bible, slavery seems to be OK. God, moses, jesus all seemed to be OK with it. In fact they encouraged it:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT


And for thousands of years we humans enslaved each other. All the while reading the bible, believing we were doing god's will, believing that "goodness comes from god".

And then over time human society gradually stopped enslaving each other. We as a society realized it was wrong. This realization came from the development of human society - not god.

And this same example happened with all the other bullshit from the bible that the "religious" now conveniently ignore. We realized stoning adulterers to death was wrong. We realized sexual slavery was wrong. Cutting off people's hands is wrong. Exterminating males and raping girls is wrong. Executing rival priests is wrong. Stoning a rebellious son is wrong. Exiling the disabled is wrong. etc. etc. etc.

And over time human morality realized these "words from god" were wrong, and so now you conveniently ignore them. That isn't god telling us to ignore this immorality, that is our own human morality guiding us.

So I'll have to say it, that unless you "religious" folks are out there stoning your son to death when he disobeys you, you are just as humanist as I am, and your morality is just as human-created as mine.

I don't really look at the Bible as a book for scientific evidence. Does the bible ever claim to be a book of science?

When does Jesus say that slavery is okay? In reference to Ephesians, what is Paul supposed to say? Rebel against your masters and die? When Paul wrote that it was a very, very, very small religion. When it's a small religion vs the Roman Empire, you probably don't want to make powerful people even more angry.

There was actually a Slave Bible where slave owners cut out a significant piece of it (I want to say 60% but could be wrong). If it's all about slavery, why remove over half of it?

In an era of declining natural resources, wouldn't you think eugenics is probably a pretty good move?

Now I could certainly be wrong about morality coming from God. If it's only made up in my mind, it's really quite dumb to listen to it when it goes against my best interest. Let's look at Dietrich Bonhoeffer. That's the guy Packer named his fund after.

Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and fought against the Nazis. He made it safely to the US. He actually went back to help fight against the Nazis and ended up being hung. From an atheistic view, isn't this very, very dumb?

He said:

"I have come to the conclusion that I made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period in our national history with the people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people."

You might like this quote from him:

"Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness, and pride of power, and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear ... Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now."

[LC]

LC I'm trying to catch up here, you're quite a few posts ahead of me. Have a few things going on. I appreciate the engagement though.

Oh no worries, I understand - the reality is this discussion has occurred for millennia and never changes anyone's mind. We'll miss points and talk past each other, but just having the discussion is the end goal 

In response to the above. Correlation does not prove causality. Look at the bold and underlined parts from the source quoted above. Firstly, according to the source Ferdinand was an "inspiration" to the conflict. It was also an important economic war with the Habsburgs. So there has to be a point where the actors in the conflict specifically and humans in general should take ownership of the conflict, from beginning to end. To argue that Jesus inspired it, there has to be causality and none of the above proves it.

This is having it both ways. "All the goodness is jesus, all the wickedness is human". What a crock of baloney!

Of course people fight and kill each other for power in the material world. The point is they use their blind faith in jesus (or mohommad or whomever) as the excuse and the means. How do you get countrymen to go kill each other? Is it by saying, "do this so my family can get richer while you die?" or by saying, "those evil wicked nonbelievers are an affront to god and we must risk our lives to cut them down! Oh and don't worry if you die you'll go to heaven!"

Jesus will bring God's judgement and the Thirty Year War will look like a tea party in comparison, so I'm not trying to suggest Jesus is some peace loving, cuddly, pacifist.

This may be a topic for another day but it is a juicy one. This is the death wish that the truly religious have, not the pseudo religious (i.e. the cafeteria catholics, etc.). They are waiting for the world to end, so that the wheat may be separated from the chaff, and all us nonbelievers will be sent to burn in hell. To the real believer who is convinced he will end up in god's embrace, every day on earth is a toil and they cannot wait for the "other" to be punished. In my interpretation, this is sadism and a very real evil of religion and christianity.

I originally put forward the definition of TRUTH in response to your observation “I thought you were posting in support of how we are treating these folks”, exactly to point out that TRUTH is not relative to which side I’m on. How people, including myself, “know/accept something is true” has no bearing on the TRUTH.

I don't disagree that facts exist. And some of these facts may be unknown to us.

The point I am making is the one Bertrand Russel makes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.


You believe the teapot exists, and you ask me to do the same!

However, if the Bible is true as it claims then any competing theory should be false. Evolution logically then should be false. You will disagree.

I don't disagree with this, but you must prove the bible is true.

If god exists he can create man from a gum wrapper and woman from an old tennis shoe if he wants to.
Of course, if spider-man exists then we can solve a lot of crime issues in NYC.

Convince me. What evidence "traces the evolution of homo sapiens"?

Well it's generally impossible to convince the religious, and certainly not with facts. But wikipedia provides a wealth of knowlege:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence

As does the Smithsonian:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/

Firstly, radiocarbon dating as a method is hotly debated as you will know

This is nonsense. I find it hilarious that the religious, whose method of factual verification is "trust me and my book", claim to challenge scientific rigor and independent verification. Here provides the evidence of radiometric dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html

Also, the  Braterman article you reference concludes that carbon dating is reliable.

Surely if it was a document invented by humans and exploited by different groups then someone somewhere would have tried to change the facts in the Bible to line up with the conventional wisdom of the time? How come it's always the estimates around the Bible that changes as in your section in bold above?

Well, scientific analysis changes as new facts and methodologies are introduced. Religion doesn't have this benefit (which is why as I mentioned in an earlier post, it was secular change which forced the religious to abandon slavery etc.)

As to the bible, what about the books left out of the canon? What about the different interpretations of jesus, which had to be "settled" at the council of nicea? To say the bible has been consistent (and to say they are facts) is just not true.

And this is really a moot point. The Epic of Gilgamesh far predates the Bible, and to my knowledge has been "consistent". That doesn't make it true.

God was satisfied until man rebelled against Him and then He was dissatisfied. Where's the contradiction? Contradiction is logical concept not a linguistic one. You would know that though, so what am I missing?

Why would god be surprised in something he knew would happen?
###

I'll pause here because my next response is (in my opinion) a bit of a cheap argument. But I have seen the religious use the same logic to cast doubt on scientific analysis, so let's have some fun and turn it right back around 


To the second half of your post, this is all your personal interpretation of what makes a "true christian" and how to identify one who has "the spirit". And as we have established, only those with "the spirit" can interpret the bible for the rest of us.

First, if we accept your interpretation, then we must keep jesus' commands to receive "the spirit". Here are some sampled commands that we must follow to get "the spirit":

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."


Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear.


Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself


Do you hate your family and hate yourself? Do you not worry about your health, your hunger, your clothes and shelter? By the very fact that we frequent an investment forum, we obviously have taken thought for tomorrow. So already, neither of us are fit to receive "the spirit"

But let's keep going! (why not right? ) If we wanted to identify those with "the spirit", they will have those characteristics you listed - love, peace, kindness, gentleness...

Now apparently jesus said some stuff like:

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

"Truly I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemies against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin."

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

I don't know about you, but this doesn't seem peaceful, kind, gentle, etc.. I mean, he literally says "i don't bring peace".

So apparently this jesus dude can't even follow his own commands and is unwilling of this "spirit"!

GREAT DISCUSSION. THANKS LC!!

This was a long post but hey, I stick by what I originally wrote: we'll never convince each other of anything but that isn't the point - it's an age-old discussion that's fun to have (at least when there's free time) 

[Ross812]

Ross, the point of the parable like what lc mentioned is that it is a parable.

Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!

"1 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."
As for Adam's rib. I don't see why it's so "asinine" to think the probability of a woman being created out of a man's rib is higher than life from non life? Do you think it's harder for human dna to be created from another human's dna or for life to create nonlife? How is this not intellectually honest? Is there any evidence life can come from nonlife? There is plenty of evidence that human dna creates human dna.

Ross I think this is a great point. Firstly for anyone accepting that God is who He claims to be and that the Bible is true does not have a problem with the statement that God created man from out of the earth and woman from man. Why would that be a problem if you can speak the universe into existence? As an aside, even the word "human" means from earth and "woman" is a female man; why not the other way around? Anyway, to the point thought, it is not intellectually inconsistent if your presupposition is that God is who He says He is.

Of course you can take issue with the starting point, but then you have to consider the intellectual consistency of the claim that matter was created from a big explosion and that man eventually evolved from that.

I think if you have an extreme starting point then each side has a huge chasm to cross.

The point was more that Christians like to follow their book up to a point and twist the point when it is convenient. I mean take wealth as an example. This entire forum is about making money.

Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Luke 18:25
"Indeed, it is easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I know you and Mr.B are going to throw out a few more versus and say that it is ok for christians to be wealthy. This whole rib question is met with some mental gymnastics "well there is DNA in a rib and it comes from other human DNA and the core of the word human is earth and woman is feminine man, so you see, the rib is perfectly plausible." You are willing to bend the teaching or find nuance when it comes to wealth, but there is no nuance when it comes to other less controversial topics.

As for Catholicism, I didn't talk about that. I will say that it does seem that many of the higher ups are not following Jesus teachings. There are many, many good Catholics out there though.

I mean 1.2B out of 2.2B christians are Catholic and the Catholic church seems to have a pretty good scriptural case for why they are Jesus's true church. The case has been made over the centuries by the "true church" that the other interpretations of christianity are heretical. I hope their interpretation is wrong for your sake. ;-)     

As for the conscience and religion. You might be right. But, as I said before, we can ignore the evolutionary cravings to follow it. Much like it's silly to follow your hunger instincts to eat the candy if you want to lose weight. It's silly to follow one's moral instincts if you want to improve society. It might be better to have a eugenics program. If one believes that their conscience is only an evolutionary instinct, it's silly to follow it.

Exactly, which is why religion as the manifestation of the conscious came to be. It makes no sense in many situations to follow your conscience and do what is good for the group. When we lived in small groups, you could be punished or ostracized for making self serving decisions. When the group got too large for self governance, we needed an all seeing god to punish us if we were self serving and ignored what was best for the group.

[LC]

Hey Paul, this is a response to your post:

When does Jesus say that slavery is okay?

You know, I've always thought christians made the best slave-owners. Now I know why. Here we are instructed to serve our christian owners even more diligently!

All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved.

what is Paul supposed to say? Rebel against your masters and die? When Paul wrote that it was a very, very, very small religion

Ah I see - slavery is only OK under certain circumstances. Thanks jesus! 

In an era of declining natural resources, wouldn't you think eugenics is probably a pretty good move?

Nope. Human ingenuity continues to improve, increasing the efficiency of resource gathering and use. And I think experts argue that population will stabilize at a somewhat sustainable level.

If it's only made up in my mind, it's really quite dumb to listen to it when it goes against my best interest.

Define your best interest.

He actually went back to help fight against the Nazis and ended up being hung. From an atheistic view, isn't this very, very dumb?

Well I'm not so sure. It goes to the "best interest" point - my "best interest" may not be someone else's. There are things in life I would die for, and I'm sure that goes for you as well (family, etc.).  Perhaps this was one of those things, for Bonhoeffer. Also, I don't see that he went back with the expectation that he would die, so it's difficult to say it was "dumb". In fact, his previous success fighting in Germany would support this.

[stahleyp]

Ross, you're somewhat right about the money part. I think if people worship it rather than God, then that becomes an issue.

Let's take to the two verses you had. In the first, Jesus said "if one wants to be perfect". It doesn't say that one must give all everything away to get to heaven.

For the second, and you may have already known this but the eye of the needle is basically like an arch. The camel has to get down on its knees. It's not easy for it to do but it can still be done. There are a ton of rich people who are evil (Epstein) but there are plenty that do a lot of good too.

I never said that woman being formed from a rib is perfectly reasonable. It doesn't even seem to make much sense in modern times. I look at as more plausible than the alternative view - namely atheist and life from non life. In order to be an atheist, one needs faith that life can come from life...though there is zero evidence that can happen.

Catholicism was the first church of Christianity. They do have a good basis for it. With that being said, I think of all of us can agree, that it certainly seems like a lot of the higher ups aren't following the teachings.

[MrB]

Ross, the point of the parable like what lc mentioned is that it is a parable.

Luke 19-27 (which is the slaughter them before me) one even says it's a parable!

"1 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."
As for Adam's rib. I don't see why it's so "asinine" to think the probability of a woman being created out of a man's rib is higher than life from non life? Do you think it's harder for human dna to be created from another human's dna or for life to create nonlife? How is this not intellectually honest? Is there any evidence life can come from nonlife? There is plenty of evidence that human dna creates human dna.

Ross I think this is a great point. Firstly for anyone accepting that God is who He claims to be and that the Bible is true does not have a problem with the statement that God created man from out of the earth and woman from man. Why would that be a problem if you can speak the universe into existence? As an aside, even the word "human" means from earth and "woman" is a female man; why not the other way around? Anyway, to the point thought, it is not intellectually inconsistent if your presupposition is that God is who He says He is.

Of course you can take issue with the starting point, but then you have to consider the intellectual consistency of the claim that matter was created from a big explosion and that man eventually evolved from that.

I think if you have an extreme starting point then each side has a huge chasm to cross.

The point was more that Christians like to follow their book up to a point and twist the point when it is convenient. I mean take wealth as an example. This entire forum is about making money.

That's a generalization Ross. What are the facts on which you base that claim?
Also the statement about wealth; what's your point?

[Ross812]

Paul, More than Mark 10:21. Mark 10:17-22:

17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions

Let's take to the two verses you had. In the first, Jesus said "if one wants to be perfect". It doesn't say that one must give all everything away to get to heaven.

Are we reading the same passage? Jesus didn't say if you want to be "perfect" he said give away your possessions if you want to have eternal life...

For the second, and you may have already known this but the eye of the needle is basically like an arch. The camel has to get down on its knees. It's not easy for it to do but it can still be done. There are a ton of rich people who are evil (Epstein) but there are plenty that do a lot of good too.

We actually talked about this in sunday school, but I looked it up for a refresh:

Now in Greek, the primary language of the Gospel, the word for camel is (depending on how it’s transliterated) kamilon. But Burgess argued (and he is one of many who have) that since the word for rope, kamiilon, is essentially a homophone, the passage actually makes more sense if Jesus is telling his fisherman followers, in whose former trade cords and nets played such a prominent role, to imagine trying to thread a thick, nautical rope through a needle’s eye.

Others argue that the camel, the largest thing around, made for vivid imagery: big beast, tiny opening. Still others say there was once an actual gate in Jerusalem’s wall called Needle’s Eye. Other ancient cities had such narrow, low-lintel passageways designed to be the only ones left open late and requiring travelers to dismount, unburden their camels, and squeeze through. A security measure. But no archaeological evidence exists to indicate that Jerusalem ever had a Needle’s Eye. More than that, there’s support for the “rope” hypothesis in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke most of the time, in which the words for camel and rope are the same: gml. (As in Hebrew, there are no written vowels in Aramaic.)

So either it is impossible (nautical rope through a needle's eye) or the rich man must unburden himself from his riches (unloading the camel to get it through the gate).

Your interpretation is twisting the TRUTH to be convenient. I think if people worship it rather than God, then that becomes an issue. Its convenient to "think" that's what the message is, but the actual scripture is a little less nuanced.

 

[stahleyp]

Ross, that's interesting. I'm probably a little too money motivated.

The verse I was referring to is from Matthew 19:21:

"Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

 

[bearprowler6]

Not sure if this question/comment has been covered so apologies in advance if it has...

I always find it curious when anyone...quotes from the Bible as support for any argument they are making. To the best of my knowledge there is no original copy of the entire Bible. Fragments of various passages and sections have been found throughout the centuries but no complete version. Assuming this is correct then I am wondered how anyone can be so sure that the Bible is the absolute word of God.

First you dont have an original version of the document that can be referred back to. Second, even if you did have the such an original document it would be written in ancient Aramaic or Hebrew which would require translation into English or whatever other modern language is preferred which would be no easy task. Practically speaking it would be almost impossible to know with absolute confidence that the Bible you are reading today is the word of God as he/she intended.

In todays modern world if you leave out a single word or comma from a sentence or a paragraph its entire meaning can change. So we need to believe that those individuals who filled in the blanks from the missing documents which were written thousands of years ago have it exactly right. That the word of God is being represented exactly as he/she intended. Does anyone else see this as problematic?

Sure faith is needed...thats always the answer I have gotten when I raised this issue in the past however something more than faith is needed ...is it not?

[Zorrofan]

I recently lost someone very dear to me, so this is a topic which has been on my mind of late. So if I may, let me throw in my $0.02 into the discussion....

The apostles Jesus chose should be in a good position to know whether or not Jesus was "the real deal" or not. They were there to witness the miracles he performed. If Jesus was a simple con man trying to trick the masses one would have to think that the apostles would know and be in on the scam. However, judging by their actions one can conclude that they truly believed Jesus was the son of God. Take Peter for example, he died by crucifixion, hanging upside down. IF one didn't believe why wouldn't you just renounce your beliefs and live? Clearly their actions show they had faith.

Famous 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal posited something along the lines of "It is better to believe in God and be proven wrong than to not believe in God and be proven wrong".

All I know is that people die far too young everyday, be it from illness or accident. As in all things balance is the key, plan for the possibility you may be fortunate enough to live to 100 but enjoy today as well. And treasure every moment you can with those you love for no one knows what tomorrow brings.