Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Working Definition of God
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 271 of 332 (201623)
04-23-2005 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 10:36 PM


Yes, we know all things were made through Christ, and God is active in the lives of every human being in one way or another, as He is throughout the Creation as a whole; and of course we're all sinners -- none of us deserves salvation at all; and those who are given more are more responsible -- ALL true. But nevertheless the Bible makes it very clear that salvation through Christ does not come by any other means than faith in His death on the cross in our place. Proclaiming Christ as Lord is only part of the gospel. If you leave out His sacrifice in our place you aren't proclaiming the gospel. But this is a side trip so I won't say any more on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 10:36 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 332 (201624)
04-23-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by jar
04-23-2005 9:53 PM


Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 9:53 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 11:10 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 273 of 332 (201626)
04-23-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Faith
04-23-2005 11:08 PM


Like I said, it's not a subject for this thread. But it's certainly one that we've covered before and likely will address again.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 11:08 PM Faith has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 274 of 332 (201640)
04-24-2005 12:52 AM


I think it might be relevent though in the sense of properly defining what "God" is. Dan and other have rightly commented on the different perceptions of God as portrayed from culture to culture. If we are to present a clear image of what God is so that he can compare and contrast the different claims, many of these points are bound to require some concrete definition.
At the very least, he can compare the different thoughts to each person's concept of what God is in order to test for some sort of continuity.
I admit it is a substantial digression, but it does seem relevent to the discussion on a peripheral sense.
These discussions all seem to come back to the words in the Scriptures which describe qualities of him. Certainly these are qualities that the church and the early fathers would have no trouble employing (ie, Sacred Tradition).
For example:
God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.
I suppose, in looking for an analogy, God would be like the light that iluminates, etches, and reveals a hologram. The hologram without light represents the universe -- and it has no image within it unless God's light shines in and illuminates it appropriately.
For example, according to Michael Talbot (reputedly), a hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.
To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. This could be symbolic of the Father illuminating his pattern for creation.
Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. This could be symbolic of the Son -- who in the Father's actually created all things.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. This could be symbolic of the Holy Sprit -- which reveals all things in the Father and the Son.
Consequently, the three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.
Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image.
Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram may provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order.
For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
A hologram may teach us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 12:00 AM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 06:25 AM

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 275 of 332 (201646)
04-24-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
04-23-2005 3:17 PM


The evidence is NOT physical
In a Message 245 you said you felt as if you'd already answered the question about evidence. I can't be sure which point I'm not getting across, so being as brief as possible, let me begin from scratch.
God has performed and still performs physical deeds in the physical world.
What kind of deeds are you thinking of? I've already discussed all I can think of in the previous posts. Message 215, Message 229 & Message 245.
These deeds leave behind physical evidence.
No they don't. Hardly any evidence at all, as I've said over and over about the miracles. I gave a long list of Biblical miracles, some of which would leave no evidence whatever, most of which would leave evidence that would rapidly disappear, within days to years.
The evidence from deeds of long ago has long since disappeared. But the evidence from recent deeds should still be around. Where is it?
Evidence of what exactly? Are you thinking of miracles or what? We've been through the miracles. The evidence was ephemeral, quickly dissipated. What kind of evidence are you expecting to show up? I said God no longer does those grand scale miracles as they served their purpose. Again, God's interventions otherwise follow His laws, but we don't normally see Him in them as we can always explain everything that happens on the basis of those laws. I've also said that more than once. Sensitive spirits see God's hand in natural events like the blossoming of a tree. I have no idea what kind of evidence you think there should be.
I have a feeling this isn't going to be enough, so let me say a little more. The Bible records momentous deeds that left copious evidence, like the parting of the Red Sea and so forth.
As I've said many times by now, the parting of the Red Sea would leave no physical evidence whatever, very very far from "copious evidence" as you put it, it would leave NONE. ZIP, ZILCH, NADA. I've said this many times and explained why not, but you just keep saying this as if you had never read it. The people passed through, the water went back to normal. WHAT physical evidence?
Is the reason that evidence from God's recent deeds isn't apparent is because he no longer performs deeds significant enough to produce detectable physical evidence? If a physical event is indetectable, how can we be sure it really happened?
Nobody's asking you to believe on the basis of physical evidence. There is none. God no longer does miracles on that grand scale, and in any case the physical evidence from those would have been gone as soon as the miracle was over.
If you had come upon the scene of the parting of the Red Sea right after all the people had gone through and the sea had gone back to normal, you'd have no more evidence even then than what the people told you about what had happened. ONLY witness evidence even then. Same as you have now. Their witness of the events is written down and has been carefully preserved. It hasn't changed in 3500 years or so. You believe them or you don't.
Or if after it was over you had come upon the scene of the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah's soaking wet sacrifice, you'd probably have found a couple of extremely messy bloody altars, one of them soggy and blackened as well, but how could you interpret what had happened from that evidence? You'd have to depend for your knowledge upon what the witnesses had to say about what had happened. Same situation you're in now. You believe the written report or you don't.
Or the scene of Jesus' healings or raisings from the dead. Say you happened to show up in the vicinity after each of these miracles and saw the people who had directly experienced them. Say you saw Lazarus after Jesus brought him back to life. On what basis could you believe there had been such a miracle at all? Only that people told you there was. Same position you're in now. You believe them or you don't.
You are asked to believe on the basis of witness evidence. That is the whole thrust of the Bible -- BELIEVE. Believe the people God chose to report on His actions. Believe what God spoke through them. They are telling the truth and it is the ONLY evidence God is giving us. You believe it or you don't.
Please keep in mind that by evidence I mean objective evidence. That's the kind of evidence where I can see it, you can see it, everyone can see it. This is the "parting of the Red Sea" and "the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" kind of evidence that is apparent to everyone living in that time and place. If we shift contexts later to consider witness evidence we must keep in mind that only one person can "see" it and testify to it.
One???? Millions saw the parting of the Red Sea, and Moses wrote it down. Millions were led by the pillars of fire and cloud. The millions on the basis of such experiences embraced God to be their ruler. That is also recorded. Thousands witnessed Jesus' miracles. Some believed their own experience, but actually even some of those didn't believe it after a while or doubted it in the moment; of those who didn't witness the miracles, some believed the witness reports, some didn't.
God does not look favorably on demands for physical evidence. Jesus graciously showed Thomas the evidence of His wounds that he demanded to see, but at the same time He warned: "You believe because you see, Thomas, but blessed are those who did not see and yet believed."
Again, it's exactly the same situation now that it was then. When there is only witness evidence, you are in the same position they were -- you believe it or you don't, it doesn't matter how much time has elapsed. The reports are credible to you or they are not. You will not be given any other kind of evidence.
It's excellent witness evidence in my judgment, and I've been blessed beyond all expectation in believing it, but you apparently consider it pretty unconvincing.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 01:20 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 01:22 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 01:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 04-23-2005 3:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 04-24-2005 11:07 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 332 (201647)
04-24-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 7:42 PM


Re: NO physical evidence for the miracles
I just seemed as if you were leaning well into personal attack territory with some of your statements and examples. If Faith expresses a belief that it is only through Christ that people are saved, this shouldn't be assumed to be a personal attack -- it is simply Faith expessing a denomination's theology.
However, if one turns around and starts accusing Faith (the person) about how closed-minded they are for holding this view, then it is becoming a personal attack.
quote:
I think I agree more with your theology than Faith's in regards to Christ's saving nature for "all people". However, I do not agree with insulting Faith (the person) by accusing the poster of being shallow minded or even suggesting ignornace for holding to a particular doctrine.
Sometimes it is much more important that somebody be able to recognize the reality of this kind of treatment than that they agree with my views. Thank you.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 01:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 7:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by paisano, posted 04-24-2005 10:38 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 277 of 332 (201648)
04-24-2005 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by sidelined
04-23-2005 7:58 PM


Re: Real physical events may not leave physical evidence
I found your post nearly incoherent. You make assertions you give no clear evidence for, such as the supposed coincidence of certain events with Noah's flood. The "selfsame day" as what? You seem surprised to find people violating God's laws, as if you expected them all to be pure rather than the sinners they all were, like all of us. And like many confused people these days you can't tell the difference between the murder of innocents and justice done to the guilty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by sidelined, posted 04-23-2005 7:58 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by nator, posted 04-24-2005 7:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 283 by sidelined, posted 04-24-2005 10:00 AM Faith has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 278 of 332 (201664)
04-24-2005 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
04-23-2005 9:16 PM


Re: Judging witness reports / a puzzle
Faith,
YOu give no evidence here that it ever means anything but false or not based on reality, you simply assert it.
No, I paraphrased the English Oxford Dictionary. Now I’ll quote it.
Myth: noun 1 a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, & typically involving supernatural beings or events.
The parting of the Red Sea is a myth in the context I wrote it.
No, it was the event of the Red Sea parting that was in question, and the written testimony to it is witness evidence of it. You are right I should not have used the term "corroborating" however, as the ONLY evidence is witness evidence.
Nor should you have used the words independent, or evidence. This is a theme I shall reiterate again in this post. In order to accept eyewitness testimony as being evidential, we must show we have a witness in the first place. In other words, where is the independent evidence that the witnesses are real people? I almost can’t believe I am having to force this point; that we must establish people are real in order to accept testimony from them.
Darth Vader exists because Luke Skywalker says so. Riiiiiiight.
If I know something happened & there is no evidence, then there is no reason that anyone need accept my words as fact.
Of course not, though normally you will be taken at your word on minor points of information unless you've proved yourself to be untrustworthy, and if it's very important information you are giving someone, they are going to have to figure out just how trustworthy you are and if others find you trustworthy and all that. That's how we judge witness evidence.
I have to prove myself untrustworthy for you not to accept my testimony. You therefore accept hook, line & sinker that I had martians for breakfast on Wednesday morning?
Not that often, though we may certainly make allowances for a human tendency to embellish. But that is why the Bible is hedged about with so many extra securities, so MANY witnesses, so many witnesses TO the witnesses
This is like saying that John Edwards testimony that Jack Smith murdered Sheila Boyle is acceptable if there is other evidence in support of it, but not if the other evidence contradicts it! If it is evidence, then it stands alone.
Lastly, since the parting of the Red Sea is only found in the OT, what allowances are you making for embellishment?
and I said to you earlier that you yourself experience this every day. Give physical evidence for what you had for breakfast on Wednesday.
I had aliens for breakfast. Martians. Delicious. Great with waffles. You have a reason not to accept my eyewitness evidence? You accept I eat Martians?
You offer none of the securities that your word is true in this case that the Bible offers, the securities that even normally attend everyday information. You are simply making a stupid mockery of the idea and refusing to think.
Rubbish, it’s eyewitness testimony in & of itself, or it’s not. I repeat, this is like saying that John Edwards testimony that Jack Smith murdered Sheila Boyle is acceptable if there is other evidence in support of it, but not if the other evidence contradicts it! I am refusing to think? Pah!
What securities? Where is the independent evidence that all those witnesses existed? I require a single security, that the witnesses were not fictional. That the bible says it rained on thursaday & got it right has no bearing on this. The people were fictional or they weren’t. Only independent evidence will potentially let us know either way.
Or could it be that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
Millions of witnesses is extraordinary evidence, and the internal consistency of the reports is extraordinary evidence, and the reverence which is character witness at the very least is extraordianry evidence, and the results of the teachings of Christ in extraordinary benefits to the world is extraordinary evidence. If you have no ability to judge such things you are up a creek.
And what millions of people would they be? I expect independent evidence that they existed, & that they were where they say they were at the relevant times, or they cannot be considered witnesses.
Given this is the case I am under no compulsion to accept anything in the bible as evidence of anything except the existence of a religious document. Even if we could get good evidence that, say, Moses existed, it's still a case of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, just like my Martian breakfast scenario (which, I promise you faithfully actually happened). Why is this? Because anyone can make something up.
Can, but some of us have the sense to tell the difference.
Nonsense. How do you tell the difference with no evidence? This is Faithspeak for you believing what you want regardless of evidence.
I had martians for breakfast. I am an eyewitness, this is my testimony, it is therefore eyewitness testimony. There are no other conditions that apply.
In the Mahabharata text, the sage Markandeya spoke to Vishnu, that’s eyewitness evidence that the bible is fundamentally false because Yahweh isn't the one true god, right?
And this is PRESENTED as fact? Or as instructive story? And these characters are placed in a historical context or just in the city of the imagination? Do you ask such questions? Apparently not. You jump to the silliest superficial comparisons and call it proof.
You can’t see the wood for the trees, can you?
It is presented as fact. We are being given information that Vishnu will walk the earth as an Avatar in times of need, it is an important part of Hindu religion.
Markandeya spoke to Vishnu & s/he told him this. We have a text where Markandeya speaks to a God, this meets exactly the same criteria as anything in the bible. If Moses was an eyewitness, so was Markandeya. It is, according to you, eyewitness evidence.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 9:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 12:37 PM mark24 has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 279 of 332 (201672)
04-24-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-23-2005 8:59 PM


Re: NO physical evidence for the miracles
quote:
Because you're looking at "all gods". I specifically said primitive sky gods.
repeat: primitive...sky...gods...
OK, but this hardly represents all, or even the majority of all the religious thought in the world.
The Eastern/Buddhist traditions, Hinduism and the Greek/Roman pantheon are completely ignored for some reason.
Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-23-2005 8:59 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 9:38 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 280 of 332 (201674)
04-24-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
04-24-2005 2:40 AM


Re: Real physical events may not leave physical evidence
I understood the noah contradiction just fine.
The biblical accounts of when Noah and his family went into the ark are self-contraditory. One says that they entered the ark and seven days later it began to rain. The other says that they went into the ark the very same day it began to rain.
Also, just to biggyback on this, are you going to be drinking poison any time soon? The bible says you should be able to do this without harm.
I will instantly become a Christian if you drink, say, a cup of bleach without damaging yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 2:40 AM Faith has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 281 of 332 (201680)
04-24-2005 9:08 AM


A word of caution in regards to the evidence {or lack thereof} for the Red Sea event.
On the one hand, faith is claiming (I think) that the Scriptures (as a testimony to those "eye-witnesses" who observed the event) represents at least one body of possible evidence.
I tend to agree with this -- however it needs to be examined carefully in the light of whatever archeological records are available in order to validate it.
Expressed simply, many people feel that they are trusting the testimony of people who actually existed -- people who have proven modern researchers wrong before.
For example, in the past detractors often accused Isaiah of having made a historical mistake when he wrote of Sargon as king of Assyria within the Scriptural record found in Isaiah 20:1. For years, in fact, this remained the sole historical reference -- secular or biblical -- to Sargon having been linked with the Assyrian nation. Due to this lack of evidence, many critics assumed Isaiah had simply erred in his account of history.
However, in 1843, Paul Emile Botta, the French consular agent at Mosul, working with Austen Layard, unearthed historical evidence that established Sargon as having been exactly what Isaiah said he was -- king of the Assyrians.
At Khorsabad, Botta discovered Sargon’s palace. Pictures of the find may be found in Halley’s Bible Handbook (1962, p. 289). Apparently, from what scholars have been able to piece together from archaeological and historical records, Sargon made his capital successively at Ashur, Calah, Nineveh, and finally at Khorsabad, where his palace was constructed in the closing years of his reign during c. 706 B.C. The walls of the palace were actually adorned quite intricately with ornate text that described the events of his reign.
Today, an artifact from the palace a forty-ton stone bull (slab) is on display at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute -- which is quite a weightly evidence of Sargon’s existence. Within this "historical sense", Isaiah had been correct all along -- and, likewise, the critics who often derided his account in the Scriptures had been wrong -- all along.
Although there are other examples that I could point out, I think this simple example demonstrates the mindset of many Christians that hold to a more literal account of the creation event here at Creation Vs. Evolution forums.
In other words, although science is claiming that evolution can account for the speciation of all life as we see it on earth (and perhaps it can), many creationists feel that further evidence is coming which may disprove the grander claims of the facts of evolution.
Admittedly, in situations like this, these are matters of faith for them. But, having said this, it is a matter of faith that, in their minds, is worth holding onto in the hopes that God will someday vindicate their belief.
Coming to the Red Sea event, however, we do need to be cautious before proclaiming that there will never be evidence to sufficiently prove the event happened -- and that the only thing we can rely on is the Scriptural record for its verification.
For example, as noted within Bill McGuire's book Raging Planet, if one is looking for "purely physical mechanisms" to explain Scriptural events, then the parting of the Red Sea may have been the waters withdrawing prior to the arrival of a deadly tsumani triggered by the volcanic obliteration of Thera.
As noted by McGuire, tree ring analysis shows that the year 1626 B.C. was much colder than normal, hindering plant growth in Europe and and North America and resulting in the formation of thinner rings of new wood.
The unusually cold conditions were not simply the result of our planet's capricious climate, but were caused by the gargantuan volcanic explosion that shattered the Greek island of Thera -- now more commonly known as Santorini. The huge blast -- one of the most violent ever recorded in the Mediterranean -- is charged by some scientists and archeologists with contributing to the fall of the great Minoan civilization, which althogh centered on Crete, also had settlements on Thera.
McGuire goes on to say that geological studies supported by computer modelling suggest that the earth-shattering blast generated tsunami that sped out across the entire eastern Mediterranean. It now seems likely that the coast of Northern Crete, which hosted most og the Minoan settlements, was scoured by huge waves up to 330 feet high, dealing a devastating blow to the seafaring nation.
It is interesting to note that the destruction of Thera may indirectly account for some details of the Hebrew Scriptures depiction of the Egyptian plagues. In fact, the timing is just about right.
Some have suggested that accounts in Exodus of three days of darkness might reflect heavy ash fall, while the "river of blood" might be the massive rafts of pink Theran pumice.
While I find the pumice theory to be less than adequate or even silly, I feel that the idea behind the "three days of darkness" may yet have much merit.
Regardless of whether these two theories can explain these particular aspects of the Egyptian plagues, perhaps more intriging, the receding waters from the marshy northern end of the Red Sea might have offered the Israelites an escape route before the tsunami rushed back to drown the pursuing Egyptian soldiers.
I guess it depends on how literal one reads the passage. For example, some would read the River of Blood Plague to read something like "And the Lord God caused the river to turn into real blood, blood which began to coagulate -- and it's blood type was a combination of A+ with O-."
I do tend to think that the Plagues of Egypts were more supernatural than purely natural -- and to this extent it may be difficult to prove anything concretely.
However, if Egypt fell in some violent conflagration of curses, I would expect to find some documented evidence somewhere that would confirm this event. Certainly other nations that traded with Egypt should have some record of their downfall -- or dip in economic influence -- as such an event would likely affect their own economies as well.
Likewise, if the Red Sea did indeed part and then crash back onto the Egyptian soldiers -- one should expect to find some artifacts of the Chariots in the waters. Some have found some articles at various points around the Red Sea, notably around Aqabah if I recall correctly. But I'm not sure what has ever come of this -- if anything.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:10 AM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 08:12 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 12:48 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1337 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 282 of 332 (201682)
04-24-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by nator
04-24-2005 7:47 AM


Re: NO physical evidence for the miracles
OK, but this hardly represents all, or even the majority of all the religious thought in the world.
Did you even read what I just said?
The Eastern/Buddhist traditions, Hinduism and the Greek/Roman pantheon are completely ignored for some reason.
Why is that?
Because you're not actually reading my posts -- except for the "tiny little sections" that apparently catch your attention long enough for you to reply.
For example, I already have mentioned the Hinduism aspect.
Requoted for your perusal from my previous post.
India
In the Rig-Veda, the most ancient of the Hindu sacred books, traces of a primitive monotheism are clearly shown. The Deity is called "the only existing being" who breathed, calmly self-contained, in the beginning before there was sky or atmosphere day or night, light or darkness. This being is not the barren philosophical entity found in the later Upanishads, for he is called "our Father", "our Creator", omniscient, who listens to prayers.
Consequently, Buddhism arose from an existing Hinduism culture, and inevitably many elements of other contemporary traditions are found in Buddhism. In the same sense one could argue that Christianity would be an offshoot of (or protest to) Judaism and Islam is an offshoot of (or protest to) Christianity...
Since the Buddha is considered by many Hindus (not by Buddhists themselves) to be one of the Avatars, Hinduism and Buddhism will probably always remain quite interlinked.
What are you not understanding here?
I'm not saying there aren't other religions in the world -- of course there are.
What I'm saying is that the common evolutionary assumption of monotheism evolving from polytheism is not always accurate. In many instances it is simply wrong because there are many examples in man's early history where some kind of "primitive monotheism" or "Sky God" is present.
Consequently, although the details differ, these "Pritimive Sky Gods" all seem to basically have the following characteristics:
He lives in, or above, the sky -- anthropologists refer to him as the "Sky-God", although the name the peoples have for him is more commonly one meaning "Father" or "Creator".
He is like a man, or a father.
However his form cannot be physically represented, and so there are almost never idols of him.
He is the creator of everything.
He is eternal (i.e. He existed before anything else, and He will never cease to be).
He is all-knowing.
All that is good ultimately comes from him.
He is the giver of moral law.
He is good, and abhors all evil.
He is all-powerful.
He judges people after their death.
People are alienated from him due to some misdemeanor in the past.
Look to the most ancient religious books in the world -- or even the most recently discovered primitive cultures -- they all have a common theme in them.
First, many of the peoples which had been thought to have no concept of religion at all were discovered instead to embrace belief in a single, all powerful deity. In fact, such peoples actually had a sophisticated religion, but it simply lacked public rituals. The theology in such cases was esoteric and in general it was something that was not to be spoken of to outsiders. Many reports, therefore, of primitive religions, had been limited to the observation of the external details of cult practice, but the existence of the High God challenged the adequacy of such reports and suggested that, in many cases, if the observer himself had not been "initiated" his report was not to be trusted.
Secondly, and of even greater significance, the discovery of the High God concept among primitive peoples challenged the popular 19th century theory of the evolution of religion from animism (belief in souls in humans and other aspects of nature) to polytheism to monotheism. Instead, a devolutionary approach seemed to be the more reasonable.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 09:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by nator, posted 04-24-2005 7:47 AM nator has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 283 of 332 (201683)
04-24-2005 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Faith
04-24-2005 2:40 AM


Re: Real physical events may not leave physical evidence
Faith
Faith writes:
I found your post nearly incoherent. You make assertions you give no clear evidence for,
I apologize,the fault is mine.Iforgot to attribute the opening quote to you in that last post of mine.Allow mw to correct this.
Faith writes:
The independent corroborating evidence is the witness reports of the Old Testament
I then gave you these 4 examples of independent evidence of witnesses that do not corroborate.
Gen.4:12 "A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."
Gen.4:17
"And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, ... and he builded a city."
A fugitive who built a city? Within 5 verses the fortunes of Cain are completely turned around.Someone is mistaken here and you can choose whichever since the witness reports are not in sync and thus are poor evidence indeed.
There is more.Since you missed it the first time I will repeat myself.
Gen.7:7-10
And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark.... AND IT CAME TO PASS AFTER SEVEN DAYS, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth
Gen.7:11-13
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. IN THE SELFSAME DAY entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark.
As I mentioned before the only witness that could have been available for these news items must have been aboard the ark and they still do not corroborate one another.
Let us carry on. Next we have these 2 verses.It concerns incest.
Lev.18:12 "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister
This of course must not have been a problem for Moses father.
Ex.6:20
"And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses."
Perhaps they were really special people though and as such exempt from such trivial taboos such as incest.
And,for the purpose of this post on corrborating eveidence of witnesses we have this.
Ex.20:13,
"Thou shalt not kill."
Ex.32:27
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor."
Would this be what you were referring to when you said in your present post and I quote
Faith writes:
And like many confused people these days you can't tell the difference between the murder of innocents and justice done to the guilty.
WTF? What were they guilty of these 3000 people? What was the inconceivable evil that they had commited that could only be rewarded by their slaughter by sword.Do you even engage your brain when you read this stuff?Do you not contemplate the horror of a death by sword? It is not instantaneous at the best of times.
LOL!! And these were to people they knew.If you find this holy in someway I bet Jonestown must have been thrilling for you.Where do you lose the inconsistency of the COMMANDMENT that shall not kill and the passage that allows for the slaughter of 3000? Does it mean thou shall not kill sometimes?
I think I am not the one confused here friend.
Faith writes:
You seem surprised to find people violating God's laws, as if you expected them all to be pure rather than the sinners they all were, like all of us
If the man who conversed with your bloody god,{an appropriate adjective{adverb?} don't you think?} and who brought the tablets containing the commandments{I'm sorry, perhaps they were requests} forgets one of these commandments immediately after descending from the mount back to his people then what the hell was the point?
Pure?Hell,try inhuman,psychotic mass murderers.How the hell do you manage to believe this crap to be some wonderous fable about man's relationship with god instead of a poorly verified record of an extraordinarily screwed up people? Faith? No,try ignorance.

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 2:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 12:55 PM sidelined has not replied
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 1:00 PM sidelined has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 284 of 332 (201687)
04-24-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
04-24-2005 2:33 AM


Re: NO physical evidence for the miracles
Like M.D. , I think it's inappropriate to label someone with pejoratives who is only enaging in presenting a Calvinist Fundamentalist Protestant perspective.
Unlike M.D. , I see Calvinist Fundamentalist Protestantism as a distinctly different religion from Catholicism that happens to feature Christ as a character, much like I see Mormonism. Therefore I'm much less sympathetic to its views than M.D. But you have the right to argue them and hold them.
I don't think you're doing a particularly good job of convincing the skeptics, if that's your objective. You might want to evaluate whether your tactics are effective.
I wonder if M.D. is an ex-evangelical convert to Catholicism, his style of argument and use of terminology is somewhat suggestive of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 2:33 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 11:14 AM paisano has replied
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 1:02 PM paisano has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 285 of 332 (201689)
04-24-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Faith
04-24-2005 2:17 AM


Re: The evidence is NOT physical
Faith writes:
Nobody's asking you to believe on the basis of physical evidence. There is none. God no longer does miracles on that grand scale, and in any case the physical evidence from those would have been gone as soon as the miracle was over.
Okay, great, there's no physical evidence of any of God's deeds in the physical world. This makes no sense given that the artifacts of an entire Egyptian army that should be resting at the bottom of the Red Sea, and given the huge amount of geological evidence a global flood only 5000 years ago would have left behind and that you argued lengthily about in other threads, and given the evidence that we *have* found from Biblical sites like Jericho that have been identified, but we'll just chalk this up as yet another Faith contradiction and move on.
That leaves witness evidence, and I think we have to be more precise about this term. You refer to the witnessing of the crossing of the Red Sea as witness evidence, and I think we should refer to this as eyewitness evidence. Your other earlier uses of the term "witness evidence" or "witness testimony" is probably more accurately referred to as witnessing for God or witnessing for Christ. You would likely know more about the terminology for this than me, let me know what the right terms are. I just want to avoid confusion by not using the same term for two different things.
The problem with the eyewitness evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea is that the account in the OT cannot be established to have been composed by an eyewitness. The events were not even written down until at least 500 years after they are presumed to have happened, sometime during or after the Babylonian exile. The ancient Israelites incorporated myths from other cultures into their own mythic structure, as exampled by the flood of Noah which is actually a myth borrowed from the earlier Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh. The story of the Israelites in Egypt may be original with the ancient Israelites, or it might have been borrowed from an earlier culture. Or perhaps it really happened and we just haven't found evidence for it yet.
The problem with witnessing for God testimony is that it is not objective. I'm using the word "objective" in the sense of "everyone one can see it, hear it, feel it, etc."
So, if God is to be, at least in part, defined by his deeds, it seems that there are no deeds that can be objectively established. We have no physical deeds that can be objectively established through physical evidence. We have no eyewitness evidence of physical deeds that can be objectively established, either. And witnessing for God testimony is subjective and personal.
So the only deeds of God we can use are what are at best second hand accounts from the Bible, and subjective witnessing for God testimony. As you say, you either accept this "evidence" or you don't. The evidence from the OT would appear to contradict Magesterium Devolver's characterization of God as love, though this is the definition I like most, and since I don't take the OT literally I see no contradictions for myself.
The evidence from the Bible would also appear to contradict Faith's characterization of God as omnipotent and omniscient, since the Bible is inconsistent on this point given the many places where God appears to be playing a somewhat lesser role because of the introduction of constraints.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 2:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-24-2005 11:37 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 297 by Faith, posted 04-24-2005 1:32 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024