whitev70r

Hey JCviggen, we agree on more things than I thought. 1. Noah's Ark => irrelevant. 2. 'Well it can't hurt to believe, its a win-win situation'. I've never been a strong proponent of what is classically known as Pascal's Wager. Posted a number of times in various forms in this thread already. (Pascal is that brilliant mathematician whom we named some triangle formula after.) I've never thought that was a good argument and have never suggested it. First of all, it is pretty weak on its own. Pascal used it as a conclusion after running through a number of his arguments for the existence of God. And honestly, do you think God (who knows all things) would welcome this kind of 'just to be safe' reason? I don't think so, I'm a parent and I don't think I would accept that kind of 'just in case' motive for his actions from my 10 year old son. I want more than that. As well, if you believe the heart of that wager argument, namely, to cover your bases, then you should probably pay homage to Allah, go and burn incense at the Buddhist temple, and read Scientology to cover ALL your bases, because it begs the question, which God?

In short, Wyatt's "train-load" of evidence falls far short of his claims. He does not even show his readers the train, much less, the train-load of evidence. The Durupinar site is undoubtedly a natural formation. Noah's ark has yet to be found. My faith in God does not rest on whether what they found was Noah's ark or not. Nor does it rest on whether the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus. Nor whether the Usury/Burial Box of James, brother of Jesus was real or not. I give very little attention (and weight) to these so called evidence. These to me are rabbit's trails and tangents.

This is really a good topic. And I think I concur with you steves. When someone writes, ‘with one swoop of his sword, he destroyed the entire army’, we don’t take that to be literal. When I read something like that, it means to me that the general defeated the army efficiently and quickly. It is a literary device or method of writing. I don’t think the author meant it to be understood literally. These kinds of literary methods were used in writing the Bible as well. I think some of the misunderstandings found in the bible can be precisely pinpointed to this. One person sees it as literal, the other sees it as a figure of speech. Case in point, the seven days of creation. Some interpret that as literal 24 hour days, other sees the 7 days as a poetic device, each day meaning an era (or thousands/ hundreds of thousands of years). I am very open to that interpretation. You raised another good point about history. What exactly do we mean by history? Is any kind of historic accounts truly objective? Can there be ANY history written that is not subjective to some degree? You alluded to different perspectives of the same event. I agree, I don’t think you can have pure objective history written by one person and I don’t think historians think so either. In science, there is the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which states that you cannot simultaneously know the location of an atom and its direction of movement because the very act of reading it would alter its result. In the same manner, a person who records history, by the very fact of recording it has his/her preconceptions and will write and record accordingly, thereby affecting what is written. A current case in point. Who has an accurate and complete history of the Iraq war? American historians? Iraqi historians? There are some Americans who would write in support of the war and they would have a certain bent. There are some Americans who do NOT support the war and would write with a certain bent. The answer to the question of how one put together history is that you have to put together all the different accounts, understand the perspectives of the writers and tried to put together what happened. AND don’t forget this last factor, you as the person interpreting all this come with a set of preconceptions as well. All of this to say a few things: 1. Just as ALL history is written/recorded with some subjectivity and we don’t discount those writings, we should not discount the Bible on this similar grounds, namely it was written by people who followed Jesus. 2. The best way to reconstruct history is to look at the different perspective of all writers at that time to put together (as close as possible) the bigger picture. Some people ask why there are four accounts/gospels of the life of Jesus. I think four gospels written by four people of different backgrounds gives stronger support to the life of Jesus, his central teachings, his life, and who he was, what he stood for. 3. The original historians/writers of the New Testament were mostly or nearly all of Jewish heritage. Mainstream Jewish belief, at the time of Jesus (and today), was NOT empathetic to the teachings of Jesus (to put it mildly). So, you have authors who were persecuted and died for their beliefs and writings. Not that this alone proves anything but we should give some thought as to why people would write/record a controversial piece of history and put their life on the line. One of the reasons that people do that is because there is a bigger cause behind why they wrote. I submit to you that if a German person during the time of WWII wrote a critical piece of the Third Reich, we should seriously consider what he had to say. From a sociological point of view, the writings of the New Testament is a very critical piece on both the political structure (Roman power) and the external and hypocritical religious practices of that day (written about the Jewish faith and I emphasize here, BY Jewish authors). Some argue that it was anti-semitic. I ask this: if a German historian wrote a critical piece against his own German culture/government is it anti-German? Getting a bit tangential here. But, any comments?

The above is a beginning point but I think it is just that, the beginning or a very surface analysis of religions of the world. Apart from the above, there are many more questions that comprise the 'formula' or structure of religion. Questions like: the question of good and evil, life after death, meaning of life, how to treat fellow humanity, morality, answer to the question of suffering, what is the way to God, just to name a few more. And when you take a careful look, you find that there are MAJOR differences. What is wrong with a discipline that attempts to formulate answers to these questions? We spend far more time on less important things. I am very interested and open as to what other religions or worldviews (incl atheists) offer in terms of answers to these questions. For thousands and thousands of years, humanity have asked these meaningful questions, I suggest to you that this is one of the first generations (because of the overemphasis on the individual - me, myself and I) that doesn't ask good questions like these. And I for one, appreciate the fact that we can discuss this amicably. That's part of the freedom that we have, there are many who don't have this privilege.

On the issue of the accuracy or reliability of the Bible, I think we need to clarify a few misunderstandings. 1. The Bible that we have today is NOT a translation of a translation of a translation. The English Bibles that we have today are translated from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from scholars who study the original languages. It goes back to the most earliest original source. 2. When it comes to accuracy, there are thousands of copies of manuscripts for the Old Testament and the New Testament, far more than any other classical text, like Homer, Aristotle, Plato, texts which we do not question the authenticity, accuracy or reliability of, with far less manuscript evidence. 3. In 1947, there was the discovery of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls which were fragments of the Old Testament dated approx 150 BC. Before 1947, the earliest manuscripts that historians had were from 900 A.D. When historians compared the two, they were essentially the same. What this discovery showed was that the translations from 150 BC to 900 AD were very accurate. And if manuscripts separated by about 1000 years were essentially the same, we can safely conclude that the transmission of the Old Testament indeed is very accurate. In conclusion, you can disagree with what the Bible says, and you are free to do that, but I think the evidence will suggest that the translation of the Bible from the manuscripts that we have is very accurate. So, let’s talk about what the Bible says. Who wants to go first?

You are free to believe anything you want, I respect that. But please note this: your beliefs, or my beliefs for that matter, does not have any bearing whether God exists or not. God either exist or He doesn't, and our opinion has very little to do with that. In other words, God's existence is not based on an opinion poll. Agree?

That was what my 2nd point tried to address. Don't evaluate overarching principles by specific instructions. I submit to you that when you read the Bible in its entirety, the ideal is dignity, sanctity, freedom and respect of all human life. The instructions on slavery in Leviticus were to make a bad situation bearable for the victim. As one more support that God cares deeply for those who are captives/slaves, the Exodus event should demonstrate this (cf Prince of Egypt). Here is what Exo 3:7-10 reads: 7GOD said, "I've taken a good, long look at the affliction of my people in Egypt. I've heard their cries for deliverance from their slave masters; I know all about their pain. 8And now I have come down to help them, pry them loose from the grip of Egypt, get them out of that country and bring them to a good land with wide-open spaces, a land lush with milk and honey, the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.

Volvokiller, I apologize for the comment I made previously, I will try to stick to the issues: 1. Your 2nd paragraph from above quote. Yes, you can hold US ANCESTORS responsible for slavery. My point was that you cannot hold Americans TODAY responsible for slavery laws 200 years ago. Agree or disagree? If you agree, then therefore, you cannot hold Christians TODAY for slavery laws 3000 years ago. If you disagree, and you hold Christians today responsible for slavery laws 3000 years ago, that would mean you, presumably American are still responsible for slavery committed 200 years ago. Which do you choose? 2. I tried to explain that it's not black and white, yes or no. I thought fundamentalists were the ones that were stereotyped/labelled as black and white, either/or. I find this issue more complex and I used a previous illustration. War in Iraq. 1st statement: I am against the war in principle. 2nd statement: US troops should treat prisoners respectfully, no abuse, no torture, etc. If all you heard me say was this 2nd statement, you might think that I was condoning the war, condoning capturing prisoners, etc. but I'm not. The 1st statement deals with the bigger picture, ideal. The 2nd statement deals with the reality of the situation. If you read Leviticus, these are what I call 2nd statements that deal with the reality at that particular time namely, a society that permitted slaves. If you read the Bible as a whole, you can draw the bigger picture, and with a fair reading of the WHOLE bible, you must conclude that God does not condone slavery and that we ought to have respect and dignity for all human life, freedom and equality for all, this is the ideal.

There are some who would disagree with the war in Iraq and stand up and say so. But in the same breath, they can say to the US, if you capture Iraqi soldiers or civilians, treat them with respect, do not abuse them and don't torture them. If you say the latter, it doesn't automatically mean that you support the war. One statement deals with the ideal, the other deals with the immediate context. Likewise, just because there are some verses in the Bible that deal with the treatment of slaves, it doesn't automatically mean that God condones slavery. These are instructions to make a bad situation more bearable for the victims. The ones in the Bible that you refer to are ones that deal with the immediate historical context when slavery was part of the fabric of society. When you take a look at the Bible as a whole, and not just verses here and there, you have this ideal: the dignity and sanctity of human life, freedom and equality for all people. These are principles and ideals that are held high in the Bible AND I would think, in all world religions.

Volvokiller, you are so simple minded. I certainly do not have to disprove the earlier statement: "Religion is more present in undereducated and low-intelligence groups", whenever you post, you prove that this statement is wrong. (Just copying you, more emoticons mean that your arguments are stronger, right?) Nobody said that it is okay to have slaves today if you release them in 7 years. But instruction like that during the days of Leviticus was a monumental difference compared to what was accepted as societal norm.

Just a couple of points, it's not that simple as yes or no. 1. Is the US immoral today because at one time it was okay to treat blacks differently than whites? In fact it was okay in American history to own and trade slaves. Times have changed and now it is at least illegal to treat blacks differently but whether they are or not (treated differently) in reality, is another question. Most people would argue that though laws have changed, in essence, not much has. The movie 'Crash' is quite a provocative look at racism in America. My point is this: just because a country or a religion has had some laws in the past that appear to be discriminatory and then later on changed, it does not make that country or religion totally invalid today. No person of the Christian faith I know of today, thinks slavery is legitimate. Just as you can't hold present day US immoral for slavery in the past based on their history on this issue, you cannot conclude that the Christian faith is wrong based on the same grounds. Or if you do hold Christians responsible for slavery in the OT, then you should similarly, hold yourself responsible for the sordid history of US. Yes or no? 2. During the time of slavery in the US, there were stories of brave men who could not overturn the slavery law immediately and so, within those laws, they treated their slaves differently, with respect, fair provision, protection, and not abuse. I think we consider those examples as noble ones. Another illustration from history, WWII. Though some Germans could not overthrow the Nazis, there were many stories of Germans who treated Jewish people kindly, hid them, protected them, and fed them. Schlinder's List. If you cannot make a societal wrong, right immediately, then you have to be as moral/kind/loving as you can within those societal conditions. If you read Lev 25, and I'm hoping you did and not just quoting without reading, you will see that the law given then were for the people of God to be kind, generous, respectful to the slaves that they have. Eg. Every 7 years, they are to set them free. Lev 25:43, Show your fear of God by treating them well; never exercise your power over them in a ruthless way. I hope the above helps to shed some insight on the whole discussion.

I know of scientists, who are people of faith who have no problems with creation alongside of evolution. This, to me, is not the central issue that separates people of faith and atheist. Evolutionary principles like natural selection through variations that are best suited for the environment, can be seen as natural laws just like gravity. I am very open to that. In fact, I think it is very hard to dispute micro evolution, variations within species that adapt to their surroundings. What I have the most difficult time with in evolutionary theory (and I remain open to this) is the change of one species to another, what some people call macro evolution. I still don't understand this and I'm not trying to be facicious (sp?). If humanity evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? If 4 legged amphibians came from snakes, then why are there still snakes? Presumably, the ones with variations that could not adapt to the environment should have died off, ie. not pass their variation through their genes to the next generation. The Darwinian principle says the strongest will survive, the ones who can't adapt dies. That's what I'm puzzled about.

Religion, without a question, is something that humanity created to try to understand the divine. And I'm saying this as a person of faith. So as a result, there are a lot of errors in religion BUT those human errors should not reflect on the nature of God or the existence of God. Case in point, we would all admit that violence and crusades were errors committed in the name of religion but that is no indication of the nature of God. Crusades were human errors committed in the name of religion. We (humanity) misunderstood. But we shouldn't dismiss religion entirely just because there has been some errors. Like SteveS said, there is value in it for guidance, spiritual strength, goodness, etc. My point is this: even though there are errors in religion, lots of them, of which I contribute many, it is not a reflection of the existence of God or the nature of God. Errors occur precisely because religion is humanity's attempt to understand God. Religion should be dynamic, never static. Scientist in the pursuit of finding out facts about our universe makes errors all the time (Structure of Scientific Thought - Thomas Kuhn). But we don't dismiss the contribution of science, do we? At one time, the scientific community thought that everything revolved around the earth. (I know, I know about Galileo and the church, I'll concede that to be another error in the name of religion) But now we think we got it right, eveything revolves around the sun. Then we find out that even the sun moves in the galaxy and the galaxy is moving in the universe, etc. But no one dismisses the value of science even though there appears to be errors made in the past yet some people dismiss religion as for the weak, crutch, blind, etc. etc.

Yah, what is so strange about this? We are steps away from being able to clone human beings with far less than a rib, like a strand of hair, anything with DNA. We've cloned dogs, sheep and whatever. You're surprised that God can do something that humans are just beginning to learn how to do?

Actually, the old Russia/Soviet Union has a lot of Eastern Orthodox influence

Rabbit, all I'm interacting with, is this statement that you wrote: "Belief in a God requires faith - blind faith at that." This statement implies that ALL people who have a belief in God requires blind faith. I don't know how else to read/interpret that. Did you want to clarify? Because I simply disagree with that. All I'm saying is that some people believe in God based on what they consider to be good support and evidence. Now, if you can say that not all people who believe in God have a blind faith then we are in agreement, we're all good. BUT, if you insist that ALL people who believe in God require blind faith then I think you are wrong. So, which is it? by the way, I hope it is obvious that I do agree with the notion that belief in God requires faith, just not that kind of 'blind faith' that you refer to.

I've also heard this 'blind faith' cliche thrown around alot. Do you believe that Mars is real? Have you ever seen it with your own eyes? Have you ever touched it, or been there? We believe that Mars exist because based on the amount of evidence (eg. gravity that affect earth's orbit and a whole other pile of evidence) we think it is a safe conclusion that Mars exist vs. the idea that Mars does not exist. That's all people of faith are saying, based on what we have (archeological, historical, quantum physics (Einstein), human behaviour, personal experiences), we lean on the side that it is more plausible to believe that there is a supreme being than not. Let's just say that there are scholarly, educated people who are people of faith, not that this alone makes faith true or not, all this illustrate is that the phrase: 'blind faith' is a cliche and not a well thought out argument. You cannot dismss all people's spiritual/religious belief to this dumb cliche! Now we can close the thread if you want :D

But so many of us sacrifice almost everything else to make her go faster ... so, our Volvos are our gods? Welcome to the First Church of Volvo :D

This argument would be like saying that those who post or participate on Volvospeed forum are weak volvo owners, presumably because they seek other people's advice, share their thoughts, spend lots of $$ on mods, make some friends, get together for meets, spend their time (some even volunteer), etc. Why is organized religion a crutch if people of similar faith want to learn from each other, share their thoughts, make some friends, get together, etc.? WEAK argument !

Instead of beginning with the question: 'Is there a God?', I start with, 'Am I a spiritual being?' In other words, are there things that I think about that are bigger than me, myself and I, namely, questions about meaning of life, issues of justice, fairness, love, evil, goodness, loyalty, compassion, equality, goodness, etc. I'd have to say yes. If I am made up of something more than just the material/physical, something metaphysical or spiritual, then therefore, it makes sense to me, that there may be something/some being that brings all that together. So, my answer is 'yes, there is a supreme being'.