|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who Made God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: You say that but you don’t offer an ounce of support. Come on Faith. Come up with real examples where you actually know what you’re talking about. If you have any - it’s not something you’re known for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
So, to recap.
You claimed that:
I do remember that the mystery writer Dorothy Sayers wrote about her conversion by realizing that King Artaxerxes (the king in the book of Esther) really existed
and tried to claim that it was a sensible argument. Now I suspect you are leaving something out - Perhaps Sayers was only six at the time - but it is extraordinarily silly. If we compare Esther with The Three Musketeers It doesn’t come off well. We know that King Louis XIII was a real person. We don’t know if the Ahasuerus of Esther is meant to be Artaxerxes - or if he was, which of the several Kings of that name is meant. We know who Queen Anne was, we don’t know if Queen Vashti was even based on a real person We know who Cardinal Richelieu was, we don’t know who - if anyone - Haman was. We even know that d’Artagnan was a real person which is more than can be said for Esther. Are we supposed to think that The Three Musketeers is real history for that reason ? Never mind the almost fairy-tale story of Esther! I suppose it’s not surprising then that you offer nothing substantive in support of your assertion and eventually retreat to making equally evidence-free attacks on Bible scholars - refusing to discuss the points I raise against your assertions and giving up when I challenge you to produce a real example. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Plenty of people believe in God without believing that the Bible is inerrant. Throwing out Biblical inerrancy isn’t throwing out God. Especially because Biblical inerrancy seems to mean throwing out understanding of the Bible. So what if the second creation story has hangovers from the time before that Hebrews were true monotheists. If they are there, they’re there. Does that change Jesus’ message in any way ? So what if the Flood story is two versions of the story mashed together. It is and you can see it if you read carefully even in translation. Maybe you think you need Biblical Inerrancy as a foundation for your beliefs, but what value is a false foundation that may well interfere with your understanding of scripture ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Let’s note the subtitle. “The Evidence is the Believers Themselves” And as evidence, your behaviour doesn’t do your religion any credit.
quote: Of course Trump is guilty of a lot, and your lying to defend him is just one of your many sins. But nobody has called for him to be subjected to a show trial and execution. That sort of thing comes from people like you. But I don’t blame Christianity for you. I take your claim to be Christian as just another one of your smears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Just more proof of my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
After reading about Ravi Zacharias’ attempt to blame atheism for the Holocaust - tenuous links based in misrepresentations - i can’t consider him an honest person. Especially since a stronger case could be made against Christianity.
quote: ALL apologists have an axe to grind. By definition.
quote: But apparently not enough to care which side you are supporting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Not really. Zacharias’ argument is that bad. Summarising it. Nietzsche was an atheist (true but nor really relevant - for all his distinction as a philosopher he’s not exactly that important to a lot of atheists) The Nazis liked Nietzsche (only sort of true - Nietzsche’s sister was the Nazi of the family and she censored his work in ways that made it more appealing to the Nazis - Nietzsche himself hated anti-semites) And that is the heart of it. Incredibly tenuous. While Christianity has a long history of anti-semitism, has a history of massacring Jews and was the dominant religion in Germany at the time. Which is more likely to contribute to the Holocaust ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If it is true that he said that and if he wasn’t lying that would support my point.
quote: Selective breeding pre-dated Darwin. That’s how he could use the results of selective breeding as evidence for his theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No they didn’t. Darwin was against eugenics, and certainly said nothing to suggest that Jews, Roma or Slavs were subhuman.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Even if that is true it is hardly relevant. After all the Bible contains both anti-semitism and glorification of genocide.
quote: I doubt that you know much about Dietrich Bonhoeffer Like his leftist leanings
Bonhoeffer began to see things "from below"from the perspective of those who suffer oppression. He observed, "Here one can truly speak and hear about sin and grace and the love of God...the Black Christ is preached with rapturous passion and vision." Which, of course, would motivate support for the Jews - thoroughly oppressed by the Nazi state, even more than Blacks were oppressed in America (the context of the quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So not exactly a good example for you. Not that a single example would be nearly enough to support your claim. But it was all you offered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Then you are hallucinating. Anyway, having established that Darwin added nothing to eugenics (selective breeding is mentioned in the Bible!) here is what he had to say about it. This quote is from The Descent of Man, Darwin’s book on human evolution.
The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Scientific theories don’t prescribe moral standards. And they shouldn’t. And that is why you don’t see a morality-defining worldview in there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except that he isn’t really. He is urging it as a good thing but the theory doesn’t go all the way to proving that. And it certainly isn’t a part of the theory.
quote: No, at most we get an explanation of why we have altruistic impulses.
quote: The first statement doesn’t prove the second at all. In fact it hints at the fact that it doesn’t work.
quote: Of course evolution is real science, and your saying otherwise is just another example of your anti-scientific attitude. But go on. Tell me what REAL science is a basis for morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Except that you did.
quote: That, of course is contradictory. The religious reasons for morality may be made up (and given how dreadful they are that’s probably a good thing). But the science does explain why we have at least some of our moral values - which means that they are not simply made up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024