Why dont we all believe????

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

By the way, where in the bible do you get this fascinating information about genetics and mutation?

I don't believe I said anything with reference to the Bible concerning genetic mutation. I just said that people and the world were cursed after the fall of Adam and Eve. I quoted that previously. A read of Genesis will also tell you that the the world was a very different place prior to that.

Maybe words meant different things back then, too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Yeah, you do seem confused. Let me try to sort it out.

I'm saying I don't have all the answers. My faith isn't based on whether or not I can explain exactly how the human race progressed from its onset. It's more so based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus much, much, much later who confirmed and validated the authenticity of the creation story in Genesis. There's no need to be rude and insulting in your reply.

Quote

Cain and Able are brothers from the same two parents. Sisters of one are also sisters of the other. Come on man...

True.

Quote

Or is this more of the feels-good-but-meaningless wordplay like "distant sisters" to make us feel God's plan isn't really incestuous?

There was no prohibition against incest then. There was no need for there to be at that time.

[jakee 1,260]

Quote

There was no prohibition against incest then. There was no need for there to be at that time.

But there is now. Most people these days have an automatic revulsion to thoughts of incest so those nice fellows at CARM have used meaningless terms like distant sister just to make everyone feel a little bit better about the whole thing.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I'm saying I don't have all the answers. My faith isn't based on whether or not I can explain exactly how the human race progressed from its onset.

What I notice is that where you can't find an explanation in the bible, you make one up on the spot, then sidestep embarrassing questions about your explanation.

You're so good at this sidestepping that I no longer believe it's accidental. Thus you are no longer worth arguing with.

That's a shame. Sometimes I've thought you seemed honest and sincere.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[pajarito 0]

Quote

What I notice is that where you can't find an explanation in the bible, you make one up on the spot, then sidestep embarrassing questions about your explanation.

You're so good at this sidestepping that I no longer believe it's accidental. Thus you are no longer worth arguing with.

That's a shame. Sometimes I've thought you seemed honest and sincere.

I don't sidestep anything. I try and find the answers. When I can't, I'm not ashamed to tell you that I do not know. Again, there is no need for you to be rude and insulting. I don't think I've done that to you. If I have at some point, I appologize. Like I said before, just because it's not spelled out exactly how the first human beings populated the Earth, doesn't invalidate the Biblical account of creation.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

There was no prohibition against incest then. There was no need for there to be at that time.

But there is now. Most people these days have an automatic revulsion to thoughts of incest so those nice fellows at CARM have used meaningless terms like distant sister just to make everyone feel a little bit better about the whole thing.

Are we still talking about incest in 1st generation times and whether it was right or wrong?

[billvon 2,435]

>You're so good at this sidestepping that I no longer believe it's accidental.

It may also not be intentional. I know a lot of christians who intellectually know that science is the one to bet on - if their priest said "you have cancer because God is calling you home" they'd still go to a doctor and listen to him first. But they also have some level of faith in the bible or the koran or their particular belief. Their attempts to reconcile the two become reflexive at times because they have to do it a lot, and often depend on not thinking about the subject too deeply. So not thinking too much about it also becomes reflexive.

In Paj's case, though, he has clearly put a lot of thought into what he believes. It's possible to construct an airtight belief system if you start with a core belief and spend centuries redefining things to match what's happening in the objective world, and many churches have done just that. There are literally millions of works justifying various beliefs and actions taken by churches - google "catholic apologists" for one example. This research is now available to anyone who wishes to peruse it. It is often not self-consistent, which is why you sometimes see contradictions in such positions. But it is out there, and a lot of work has gone into it.

[pirana 0]

Re: Adam & Eve, the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, the lamp oil that burned for God knows how long, and all that rot; it is absolutely ludicrous that in this day and age anybody interprets the Bible literally. The fact that certain mainstream religious institutions allow such irresponsible and destructive beliefs to continue is what puts them to shame. For the sake of controlling the flock, they continue to give credence to stories that resemble kids fairy tales more than anything else. If they would stay with it being a great bunch of stories to learn the lessons of life, I'd be good with that. But their adherence to literal interpretation despite irrefuteable evidence to the contrary indicates they are just greedy for power and pride and not worthy of anyone's trust.

It has taken about 1,000 years for religious belief to fall from nearly 100% to about half that. Hopefully it will not take another 1,000 before the world sees the end of these idiotic Neolithic beliefs. Given the accelerating pace of change over time, my guess is about another half-dozen generations should see organized religion marginalized and fundamentalism pretty much limited to fringe lunatics.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

So you're telling us that God introduced genetic "impurities" to the human race on some periodic basis? (You said that the risk of genetic problems increased over time.) Presumably you're saying that god made a nasty little mutation every once in a while. Maybe one new flaw each day, or maybe one per child.

That's a clever little theory. Oddly sadistic, like a cat tormenting a mouse for hours just to cause continuing pain and terror. But that does fit the rest of your diety's character.

By the way, where in the bible do you get this fascinating information about genetics and mutation?

Yes, and that from an all-knowing, all-powerful, kind and benevolent Creator (A-K/A-P/K&BC). Makes a lot of sense to me - NOT!

It's funny when you ask people who think God manages all the world's details why God would allow innocents to suffer. Their answer is usually some nonsense about testing faith.

So let me get this straight, we have an A-K/A-P/K&BC who causes pain as a test of faith, then damns all who do not believe to eternal hell?


Riiiiiiiiiiight.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

My faith isn't based on whether or not I can explain exactly how the human race progressed from its onset. It's more so based on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus much, much, much later who confirmed and validated the authenticity of the creation story in Genesis.

Despite the overwhelming unreasonableness and outright lack of evidence, as well as contradicting evidence? By what mechanism did Jesus confirm and validate Genesis? This isn't going to be another one of the "Because he said so" answers - with all the flowery religious language thrown in.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

.......another half-dozen generations should see organized religion marginalized and fundamentalism pretty much limited to fringe lunatics

and other forms of subjective, power hungry, political control mechanisms put in place to fill the gap left behind by the religions. And other flavors of militant fringe lunatics based on the new power structure hurting and terrorizing your regular citizens.


just thought to finish that good thought you wrote there. Now that I think about it, it's already happening.

(we also found the other mini-doll for V - she didn't seem so upset about it though as S)

Quote

If they would stay with it being a great bunch of stories to learn the lessons of life, I'd be good with that.

This is a great point, and I think most do take this position in practical application of life.

I'd rather see the positives that religions based on mutual good will be absorbed into society instead of the whole mess 'marginalized' as a failed experiment.

Anyway, as corrupt religions fall out of favor, the more powerful corrupt governments (and political parties in larger societies) will just take over. But it might be worse, they don't even have to PRETEND to have morality as part of their basic identity.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

Like I said before, just because it's not spelled out exactly how the first human beings populated the Earth, doesn't invalidate the Biblical account of creation.

You are correct. The Biblical version of creation is however invalidated by the body of knowledge known as the genetic code. The foundation on which biology in general rests is completely wiped out by the kind of BS spewed by fundamentalists. Not too mention all of the Earth sciences, which are also completely invalidated by adherence to the God-created-everything-in-seven-days BS.

Wake up. It's 2006. It's OK to acknowledge that people from 2000 years ago did the best they could with the information at hand. However, their stories are woefully inadequate, and downright silly, given what we now know about the world.

Put down the Neolithic belief and step back from the Kool-Aid.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Put down the Neolithic belief and step back from the Kool-Aid.

Yeah, Paj - Stop believing in something that has had, at least, a personally positive impact on you and your family (regardless of the larger church structure's hypocrisy).

Join the RNC or DFL instead or even become a shrill activist for some specific political agenda.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[zoobrothertom 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

After a short review of the old testament. I think we should all find a kinder, gentler deity to waste our time on.

The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New. The prophetic continuation from the Old to the New is very much an instructional guide to inform us of what is to come. Before, the New Covenant with the sacrificial death of Jesus, however, God judged the world in the manner in which it deserves because of the breaking of God's moral law. He is withholding judgment until a time of his choosing now because he doesn't wish that anyone should perish. He wants people to come to repentance and trust in him. His patience will not last forever. There will come a day in which you will be judged for every thought and deed that you've done in this world and the punishment will be every bit (actually more) extreme as what you read in the Old Testament. We are already guilty of breaking the law (see attachment below). If we wind up in hell, it will be because we chose it. The judge (like in our court system) is simply giving us justice that we deserve.

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is, was, and ever will be, suddenly have a change of policy 2000 years ago?

Amen Brother! I'm curious, too.

____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!

[JackC 0]

Quote

Their attempts to reconcile the two [science and religion] become reflexive at times because they have to do it a lot, and often depend on not thinking about the subject too deeply. So not thinking too much about it also becomes reflexive.

That to me is the crux of the whole thing. If I rationally think about religion or even the whole god concept it doesn't fit with observable reality and it makes no logical sense. In order to buy into religion, sooner or later you have to suspend some aspect of rational thought. To me, suspention of rational thought is a bad thing. You may argue that religion in itself is not a bad thing (although I think it is) but it does, by necessity, legitamise irrational thought processes.

People put an awful lot of time and effort into what they believe which makes them reluctant to review their beliefs on a regular basis. That is understandable because some stability in belief is necessary or we would get buried in confusion. But unless one is willing to review ones beliefs in the light of new evidence, we quickly run the risk that those beliefs will become more and more out of touch with objective reality. In this event, something has to give. Either one accepts that deep held beliefs have failed and changes accordingly, or one becomes steadily further removed from reality with all the associated problems.

Religion is a very rigid structure, change does not come easily to it. Nor can it becuase it is stuck in mythology and superstition. Change can only come from divine intervention and that isn't going to happen. Each time someone claims it has happened, you just end up with a new sect. Weasle words and self inconsistency are the obvious outcome of trying to understand a logically incoherent concept that cannot be changed or questioned.

On the other hand, religion is at once understandable and entirely explained as soon as one realises it is man made fiction.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

By what mechanism did Jesus confirm and validate Genesis?

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew who lived by the Scripture. He believed it to be inerrant. He proved himself to be the Son of God through fulfilled prophesy (Matthew 11:10; 26:24, 53–56; Mark 9:12, 13; Luke 4:17–21; 18:31–33; 22:37; 24:44–47), forgiving of sins (something only God can do), his torture, crucifixion, death, resurrection, etc.
He quoted the Old Testament (including Genesis) and believed it to be historical fact.

Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
John 8:56–58—Abraham
Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife)
Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
John 3:14—Serpent
Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah

[billvon 2,435]

> In order to buy into religion, sooner or later you have to suspend
> some aspect of rational thought.

If you buy into every detail of it 100% that may be true. But a great many scientists have deep religious convictions that do not interfere with their scientific work. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a great book on this entitled "Rocks of Ages" where he discusses the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria. His belief (which I share) is that applying religion to science questions is like trying to design a nuclear weapon by studying the art of Degas. The two are not even in the same ballpark.

I think the mistake many people make is to define religion (or science) as the One Great Truth. It's not - it's _a_ truth. A religion that provides a moral framework for one's life is doing its job. A religion that encourages one to not provide medical care for one's child, or to blow oneself to bits in order to kill others, is not doing its job. Similarly, if science helps a scientist create a vaccine, it's doing a good job. If he studies genetics and determines that whites are superior and should not breed with inferior blacks, it's being misused - science does not make such moral judgements, or indeed even provide a framework for doing so.

>Either one accepts that deep held beliefs have failed and changes
>accordingly, or one becomes steadily further removed from reality
> with all the associated problems.

Or one reaches an accord with both.

>Religion is a very rigid structure, change does not come easily to it.

Right, but few people believe every bit of their religion. Most people start there and use the parts of it that work for them.

>On the other hand, religion is at once understandable and entirely
> explained as soon as one realises it is man made fiction.

Well, the US constitution is in a way the same sort of fiction. There's no objective reality in those papers. But there are some very important concepts contained therein that make it a very important document to us.

Now, it's not perfect. Heck, the original constitution said you had to give back escaped slaves, and that part has never been removed. But we had a mechanism to change it later (amendments) and so we changed it when we decided that was a bad idea.

Religions do the same thing, although it's a lot harder. Generally they change how they interpret something later, then claim that this time they got it right. (Until the next time they change it, of course.) This has more to do with some people's foolish tendency to consider themselves infallible than any inherent failing in religion.

The amendments to the US constitution did not invalidate it, and later changes by religions do not invalidate those religions - even if the result is a new sect or an entirely new religion.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Wake up. It's 2006. It's OK to acknowledge that people from 2000 years ago did the best they could with the information at hand. However, their stories are woefully inadequate, and downright silly, given what we now know about the world.

Please try to explain the hatred that all of the Arab nations have toward the small nation of Israel, who would prefer to just live quietly and peacfully where they are at, without going back to the " fairytale" of Abraham and the birth of his bastard son Ishmael, and his legitimate son Isaac.
Also, try to explain why, in very recent history, a number of nations would also desire to destroy a complete race of people, who really seem to be a very humble group of people, overall.

[Jaden 0]

Very well said...Thank you.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Stephen Jay Gould wrote a great book on this entitled "Rocks of Ages" where he discusses the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria. His belief (which I share) is that applying religion to science questions is like trying to design a nuclear weapon by studying the art of Degas. The two are not even in the same ballpark.

I seem to remember us butting heads on Gould's NOMA princliple before. I still tend to buy into Dawkin's idea that NOMA is "intellectual flabbiness" and therefore not very satisfying.

Quote

I think the mistake many people make is to define religion (or science) as the One Great Truth. It's not - it's _a_ truth. A religion that provides a moral framework for one's life is doing its job.

That may be but religions do tend to be rather difficult to interpret. Many people interpret some aspects to justify all sorts of ugly ideas. That in itself causes me some problems.

Quote

If he studies genetics and determines that whites are superior and should not breed with inferior blacks, it's being misused - science does not make such moral judgements, or indeed even provide a framework for doing so.

Quite so, science is just about facts, it has no moral position. Any idea that one particular genetic code is "superior" to any other relys on a particular definition of "superior". Moral judgements on what "superior" in the scientific sense may mean isn't part of science. Nor can it be.

Quote

Right, but few people believe every bit of their religion. Most people start there and use the parts of it that work for them.

But some do, others believe to a lesser extent as you suggest. But the big question is which bits do you believe? You obviously can't believe all of it because it leads to all sorts of unresolvable problems. But it was all written by god or by some other divine method, shouldn't it be perfect? How do you tell which bits are god given fact, which are parable, which are political ad-ons, which are abitrary embelishments and which are downright lies? I don't think you can tell and that makes the whole thing a confusing mess. I think throwing it all out and starting with a clean slate might be a better option. Hell, even "the big fat book of US law" would be more use. At least it is relevant to the world as it is now.

Quote

The amendments to the US constitution did not invalidate it, and later changes by religions do not invalidate those religions - even if the result is a new sect of an entirely new religion.

The US constitution can be changed a hell of a lot easier than any religion plus it has the added benefit of being the recognised law of at least one entire continent even if some of the population don't like it.

You say that changes to a religion do not invalidate that religion. Surely if that religion is handed down by god then you have to wonder why he would need to change it? Did god change his mind? Did man reinvent gods word? These questions should at least be enough to make you think abotu the validity of it. Until the matter of provenance is resolved (I can't see that it ever will) how can you place any weight in the meaning of it?

Maybe you could argue that the only objective reality as far as morals go is that which the collective opinion of the land believes and hold to be the law as in the constitution. Isn't that a better position than some so-called divine book of unproven provenance? At least we can then alter laws that don't work and produce better laws that do. If man does that to a religion, by definition you've just removed the god part.

Other than the placebo effect, I still can't see what "truth" religion has. It honestly baffles the crap out of me.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Wake up. It's 2006. It's OK to acknowledge that people from 2000 years ago did the best they could with the information at hand. However, their stories are woefully inadequate, and downright silly, given what we now know about the world.

Please try to explain the hatred that all of the Arab nations have toward the small nation of Israel, who would prefer to just live quietly and peacfully where they are at, without going back to the " fairytale" of Abraham and the birth of his bastard son Ishmael, and his legitimate son Isaac.
Also, try to explain why, in very recent history, a number of nations would also desire to destroy a complete race of people, who really seem to be a very humble group of people, overall.

Who lived in what is now Israel in 1890, 1900, 1920? Who consulted them about being evicted in 1948?

How would you like it if a bunch of armed Swedes turned up and told you and your family and friends that you were evicted from your homes and had to go to live in Guatemala?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,435]

>But the big question is which bits do you believe? You obviously can't
>believe all of it because it leads to all sorts of unresolvable problems.
>But it was all written by god or by some other divine method, shouldn't
>it be perfect?

You seem to be applying a standard to it which you yourself do not believe - which is a losing proposition. I do not believe that the Bible was written by beings other than fallible humans, and a great many people I know share that belief. I see no contradiction there. I can't speak for the people who believe that everything in the bible is the 100% literal truth, but they are in the minority.

>How do you tell which bits are god given fact, which are parable, which
> are political ad-ons, which are abitrary embelishments and which are
>downright lies? I don't think you can tell . . .

And you don't have to. Trying to establish an absolute level of truth in the bible is making the same mistake that one makes by trying to find morality in science. It's NOT 100% true, nor is it intended to be. It is merely a guide, and its usefulness lies in how it helps you form your own vision of morality - not in whether or not Cain was really X years old when he died (or even existed at all as described in the old testament.)

> Hell, even "the big fat book of US law" would be more use. At least it
>is relevant to the world as it is now.

Oh, I think you'd find just as much contradiction and ambiguity there (if not more) as in the bible. There's a reason there are so many lawyers. Can you really apply a law meant for horse-waste sanitation in NYC today?

>The US constitution can be changed a hell of a lot easier than any
> religion . . .

Oh, I think L. Ron Hubbard would find it much easier to change his religion than he would to get an amendment to the US constitution passed.

>You say that changes to a religion do not invalidate that religion.
>Surely if that religion is handed down by god then you have to wonder
>why he would need to change it?

Because while god may remain constant, we do not. Heck, since most people don't speak aramaic, the bible has to be translated - which ends up (slightly) changing its meaning. The translation of "virgin" or the meaning of "the eye of the needle" are good examples.

>Until the matter of provenance is resolved (I can't see that it ever will)
> how can you place any weight in the meaning of it?

Well, that's the great part. You don't have to!

>At least we can then alter laws that don't work and produce better laws
> that do. If man does that to a religion, by definition you've just
>removed the god part.

I disagree. Take the catholic church. It's changed dramatically over the years. Vatican II made some significant changes to the mass, the rules the church operates under etc. but the basic faith didn't change much.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I do not believe that the Bible was written by beings other than fallible humans, and a great many people I know share that belief.

I share that belief. But then what exactly makes the bible of any more consequency than say Moby Dick or Pride and Prejudice or Henry V? They too were written by fallible humans.

Quote

Trying to establish an absolute level of truth in the bible is making the same mistake that one makes by trying to find morality in science. It's NOT 100% true, nor is it intended to be.

Mody Dick is not intended to be 100% true, that's why they call it fiction. What's the difference?

Quote

It is merely a guide, and its usefulness lies in how it helps you form your own vision of morality

So it serves the same purpose then as Henry V? You can learn quite a bit about morals from Shakespeare or Melville or even Tarantino. Not all of them good but that's not too different from the Bible either is it?

Quote

Oh, I think you'd find just as much contradiction and ambiguity there (if not more) as in the bible. There's a reason there are so many lawyers. Can you really apply a law meant for horse-waste sanitation in NYC today?

Right but they are the laws you have to live by whether you like it or not, even if those laws are contradictory and ambiguous. But aren't actual real life legal rules that really do apply to everyone a better place to start than any arbitrary and optional religion?

Quote

Oh, I think L. Ron Hubbard would find it much easier to change his religion than he would to get an amendment to the US constitution passed.

Fair point but George Lucas can change the Star Wars script more easily than anyone can change the constitution. Where is the line that separates Jedi as not a religion and Scientologist which is?

Quote

Because while god may remain constant, we do not. Heck, since most people don't speak aramaic, the bible has to be translated - which ends up (slightly) changing its meaning. The translation of "virgin" or the meaning of "the eye of the needle" are good examples.

Most people would argue that the KJV and the NIV bibles may say slightly different words but the meaning is the same. When was the last time any of it was scrapped completely or a new gospel was added to clarify a point? That gets done to law all the time. You'd think a triple-O god wouldn't need the "Gospel Acording to John Ammendment Act (1856) superceded by The Gospel According to Luke Ammendment Act (2004)".

Quote

>Until the matter of provenance is resolved (I can't see that it ever will)
> how can you place any weight in the meaning of it?

Well, that's the great part. You don't have to!

Why would you?

Quote

I disagree. Take the catholic church. It's changed dramatically over the years. Vatican II made some significant changes to the mass, the rules the church operates under etc. but the basic faith didn't change much.

[kallend 1,651]

Bill, there's a big chasm between using the Bible as a guide to one's personal life and behavior, and using it as a stick to berate "non believers" and to justify claims made in public that non believers are not "good" people.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,260]

Quote

If you buy into every detail of it 100% that may be true. But a great many scientists have deep religious convictions that do not interfere with their scientific work. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a great book on this entitled "Rocks of Ages" where he discusses the concept of NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria. His belief (which I share) is that applying religion to science questions is like trying to design a nuclear weapon by studying the art of Degas. The two are not even in the same ballpark......


I do not believe that the Bible was written by beings other than fallible humans, and a great many people I know share that belief. I see no contradiction there. I can't speak for the people who believe that everything in the bible is the 100% literal truth, but they are in the minority.

Bill, I think the reason that NOMA works for you is that you see a religion as only a moral framework and discard all the divine stories. But for at least 90% of believers religion is about the guy up there who watches and interferes with what's going on, the soul which travels to an eternal afterlife and the stories about people who, long ago, did miraculous, impossible things.

I don't think NOMA can work for most people because religion isn't about the need for a code of morality, it is about the need for answers - where does everything come from, why do things happen the way they do, where will I go when I die etc. To get these answers from religion, science is (to some degree) generally ignored.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?