Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Are you familiar with this?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nope, but it's interesting. Was it directed at me ? Do you place me in the low percentiles with an inflated perception or maybe a bit higher but able to recognize the limitations of his abilities ? Or maybe it was concerning the people in my course ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Given the content of this post Message 24 and it's predecessor, it is only my low opinion of apologetics that makes me think that your lecture even might represent any sort of improvement. For all I know it was a lecture focussing on the strict logical use of contradiction, introduced solely as a justification for rejecting issues which would be accepted as genuine contradiction in any other rational context.

Unless you think it is too hard for me to do a presentation on syllogism, inductive and deductive reasoning, and common fallacies, all things we learn in the education system here in Quebec before arriving at university; I don't see how you can really think it hasn't brought any sort of improvement to an adult crowd.Oh and btw, I don't see how you linking me giving the correct definition of what a contradiction is in formal logic shows in any way that I am incompetent in this area. Now you may have disagreed with me invoquing this definition at the time, preferring that we accept ''less stringent criteria'', but this isn't really in the area of logic as much as the area of how to analyse historical documents and what can be accepted as sufficient to affirm contradiction even when it does not fit perfectly with the formal definition.

quote:

---

Unless you think it is too hard for me to do a presentation on syllogism, inductive and deductive reasoning, and common fallacies, all things we learn in the education system here in Quebec before arriving at university; I don't see how you can really think it hasn't brought any sort of improvement to an adult crowd.

---

Let us say that when you open a post by "poisoning the well" I doubt your commitment to avoiding fallacies.

quote:

---

Oh and btw, I don't see how you linking me giving the correct definition of what a contradiction is in formal logic shows in any way that I am incompetent in this area.

---

I don't say that it does make you incompetent at formal logic. What I say is that it gives me reason to think that you are more interested in supporting dogma than at getting to the truth. You are implicitly arguing that ANY solution to a Biblical contradiction (in the broader sense of normal usage) should be preferred to accepting that there is a genuine disagreement.On the other hand I would say that you are DEFINITELY deficient in your understanding of the historical method. And that is almost certainly because your understanding relies on the inventions of Christian apologists.

I was thinking more of them.I shall add a corollary to the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The more often someone syas that their opinion are "logic" or "logical" or "simple logic" or "a matter of pure logic" ... and so on ... the more likely they are to be ridiculously wrong.

At what point was the convict interviewed about their religious beleifs? If they were asked as they entered the justice system, the statistics hold in your argument. But apologists I have debated have stated that the number is misleading bc most are immoral atheists that enter the prison and while there convert to a religion.

I've heard this argument before, as well. From the studies I've read, this may hold a grain of truth, although one must take into account a convict's theism (or lack thereof) before incarcerated. True, it may be that a disproportionate percentage of criminals are non-practicing theists pre-incarceration compared to religiousness of these same convicts after entering the prison system. But what's interesting is that, despite the arguments that these criminals were amoral atheists before incarceration, the data shows that, although these pre-convicts may not have been actively practicing their faith, they still identified with a god or gods. This is quite different from identifying with atheism as a pre-incarcerated individual, IMO.Of course, there may be some level of conversion of actual atheists to theism while in prison. But since I can seem to find no actual data to back this up, I'll go with the data I have which, I'm sure, was collected during incarceration and not while entering prison. Edited by Apothecus, : cleaned it up

---

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

I have proposed a new thread on "non-scientific evidence", which has been moved to the Is It Science forum. See you there.

Another factor would be theists misidentifying themselves as atheists. These would be theists who use the loophole offered to them by their doctrine, that if they don't believe in God then they are free to do whatever they want guilt-free.Case in point is a local creationist activist, Bill Morgan, who misidentifies himself as a former atheist; from one of this tracts (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart {the classic Time-Life ascent of man chart} up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information.

​

. . .

​

In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs.

​

. . .

​

Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them?

​

Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn’t.

​

But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt.

---

First, even though his tract kept claiming that it was evolution that had turned him into an "atheist", we see him admitting his real motives and inadvertantly exposing the real culprit as being his religious training. Also, he told me in an email that even as an "atheist" he prayed to God every single night. That clinched the fact that he was only pretending to himself to be an "atheist"; atheists don't pray to any gods.I'm sure that Bill Morgan is not the only Christian who has used that same loophole in their doctrine.

Absolutely.At no point! He will always continue to be supernatural.I myself will no longer be "natural" when I'm in Heaven. Therefore, I need make no distinction between the natural and supernatural, in Heaven. On earth? Sure. In Heaven? No need. No, it would not be a "wonder" and a "sign." As a science person, I would think that there's some mechanism, that needs to be studied, that is making that happen. Something would be very natural to me if it happened everyday. The point is, Dr A, what does not happen everyday we simply recognize as "supernatural." Laws exist for the sake of maintaining order and consistency, don't they? so when someone suspends a law and does something miraculous, He's wanting to get attention. That's how I look at it. If something, however outrageous, is happening everyday, people are bound to be like "heh, yeah, I've seen that before dude"--- and that by no means is "supernatural." You are right. But if you compare Jesus' three years of performing miracles, which people no doubt witnessed, to the thousands (millions, depending on how you look at it ) of years before and after His non-physical existence, THAT'S an awful short time of supernatural work!!! People HAVE to conclude that that is supernatural work.How can miracles be "observable, measurable, quantifiable etc"? I can observe blood circulation, or peristalsis, or sinus rhythm...but can I observe the miraculous healing of a leprous hand on such a regular basis as said mechanisms? I can measure blood pressure, or light intensity, or distance traveled, but can I measure anything about a miracle? Can I titrate, plumb, fathom, pace, meter or weigh anything about a miracle? Let me hear your understanding of "supernatural" Elaborate, please.

Yes, that would be the big question. And as I understand dwise1's (and your) argument, he's saying --Atheist morality targets inter-personal and societal well being-- and --Theists morality targets deity-appeasement--sometimes at the cost of societal harmony.Did I get it? {I did some formatting for my clarity's sake, hope that's fine...}Got it. That's much clearer, thanks Apothecus. I think we're on the same page now. *deep breath* Let's see...My intent is not to "refute" your points one by one. We'll talk atheist to theist here, in order to find some common starting point for further debate. You've put forth your understand of some things in theism--as a atheist, and now let me put forth my understanding of the same things--as a theist. And we'll see where this takes us... Well, here's how I look at it, Apothecus.There's a term called Sanctity which we often use in religion. Often it's adjective form is used as a qualifier; such as, the ark of the covenant is sanctified..or holy, or sacred....also, he Tabernacle... and the Holy of Holies...is sanctified. In the same way, God's laws are sacred, holy in that, 1) they are set part for a divine purpose, and 2) going against them is sin and 3) Sin is worthy of divine wrath. In this sense, yes, I--as a Christian--am following the Ten commandments (or try to) with such religious fervor because God's law is holy and a breach of it means punishment. There's two aspects in my following a moral standard: 1) Why do I follow it? and 2) Why should I follow it with fervor and fear? I just answered question 2). The reason I am so particular about following Biblical moral code with the intensity that I show (or try to show), is ultimately because it is God's commandment.Now question 1). Why do I follow a commandment? The answer Apothecus, is the same reason you gave me for why atheists follow their moral code: Brotherhood and harmony.So, when God says "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", He's:1. Setting a moral standard
2. Setting a moral standard, whose breach is a breach against Himself!, and not the moral itself! (Makes sense? I hope!)Do you see what 2. does? It makes the moral more weighty, and more serious! In this sense, am I being moral because I fear God? Yes, absolutely. I want to take said moral as seriously as He does. And I know that He takes a moral seriously when He says "I am the LORD...thou shalt [whatever]" As for the purpose of the moral itself, i.e the intent of..say, "love you neighbour" is ONE AND THE SAME, for both atheists and theists. Its just that we both have different accountability. I account myself and my moral standard to God. That's wonderful! Absolutely.If that statistic/study is a direct proof of causation, then that's really, really, really, really, commendable...and it attracts credence to the moral standards of atheists. If, on the other hand, it is a correlation...then? Show me some factors involved in the study that make the prisoners religious standing "the control" of the experiment, if you will...Oh and btw, I never will say that atheists have no reason to be moral. Societal brotherhood is a perfectly viable reason to be moral. Its just that, Apothecus, the demands of societal brotherhood are going to keep changing with the mood/attitude/fancy of the day. That, as a theist, I view as a problem. What might me considered "good/moral" today, might be considered "bad/immoral" tomorrow. The morals keep changing with the mood. ... Well, I'll take that as a "half in jest-half in seriousness" type comment. No comment form my side, Doc. It depends on how you look at it...with atheist lenses or theist lenses.Anyway, moving on[]*clears throat* So it may appear. We'll have to wait and see what a atheist-dominated world looks like...not just one statistic, you know? Christianity says "God forgives all your sins, no matter what they are" and here comes a random Christian named Dr. Sing and adds "umm, yeah, so long as they unintentional, please"....right?There is no sin that a Christian commits that makes him/her worthy of losing their salvation. {IF there were--then that's a direct pointer to God's incapacity to save--since salvation is by faith, not by works} However, every single intentional sin that is committed, is worthy of earthly punishment (=unforgivable/God can't just say "Ok, I'm not going to give you any punishment for that); not eternal damnation, if you're a believer. Now, unintentional sins--whether you're a believer or not, I believe--God lets them go. No punishment for them. I don't think you're differentiating between a believer's eternal standing and earthly life. I am.As a Christian, 1. every single intentional sin I commit is going to punished here on earth. 2. There is no sin that will count against me that will change my eternal standing. So, if were talking to one of my "incarcerated (believer) brethren", I will tell him that God will forgive his rape. (=not alter his eternal standing BECAUSE of said sin), but at the same time, God will give you some sort of earthly punishment (such as death of a loved one, or car accident, or cancer --or all etc) to teach you a lesson by punishing you here on earth. Edited by Dr. Sing, : clarifying moreEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

So does the biblical God's morals. One day it is eye for an eye, the next it isn't. One day it's okay to stone people to death, the next it's horrible. It was acceptable to kill your child if they mouthed off to their parents, now it's First Degree homicide. Religion is as fluid and maleable as any other trend. God's law is not as absolute as you portray it to be. To deny it would be a lesson in futility. Then no fear of God is necessary. According to you, you follow God's laws because you fear God. That you have an unbreakable covenant with God, you can do whatever you want and simply repent because "there is no sin that a Christian commits that makes him/her worthy of losing their salvation." If that is true then there is no recourse against you for sinning against other people, let alone God.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

There is no need to even repent. Since the sin of not repenting for your sins is not unforgivable, there is no moral requirement at all.

"Hi Slevesque
I have a general question about the biblical depiction of God. It's one I've asked before on this site but didn't get an answer.If God is perfect, how did he make us imperfect (in his eyes) and why does that make him angry?If God was perfect, he'd be happy all the time because he wouldn't make anything that was imperfect or, if he did, it could only have been deliberate. He would deliberately make everything exactly as he wanted.He can't be both perfect and angry.Hi Slevesque
I have a general question about the biblical depiction of God. It's one I've asked before on this site but didn't get an answer.If God is perfect, how did he make us imperfect (in his eyes) and why does that make him angry?If God was perfect, he'd be happy all the time because he wouldn't make anything that was imperfect or, if he did, it could only have been deliberate. He would deliberately make everything exactly as he wanted.He can't be both perfect and angry."There are some errors in the above statement. Firstly that God created an imperfect man, which is not true. God created man in his image, which is perfect. Imperfections came from eating the fruit of good and evil.Second, God isn't always angry. In fact, the Bible teaches that God is forgiving. God does not like sin, but he loves us completely. Like when you are feeding your baby boy a bottle, and he is kicking your ribs. You forgive him, because you love him enough not to chop him up and feed him to the dog for minor errors, that usually cannot be helped, because it is in his nature.We are similar to babies. Generally, we don't know what to do, we don't know whats going on, and the big picture will remain a mystery until our dad comes and takes us with him.Corny answer. I know. But this isn't science, it's spiritual (we are assuming that there is a God, and not debating the subject), thus it requires a spiritual answer.Dennis.