unbelievable ignorance

[cambraceres]

If this person, the one who composed this laconic article, knows just how wrong he/she is in this context, is it the most evil thing possible to facilitate it's existence?

How can he not see how "Little" his god is?

[ QUOTE ]

The god of religions is a "little god"In attempting to prove his point that religions are stupid, Dawkins quotes Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot:

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is much better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."

What Sagan failed to understand (and Dawkins, by quoting him) is that there is such a religion that directly ascribes the magnificence of the universe to the glory of the God who created it. The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.3 This is certainly no "little god." These same scriptures tell us that the awesome nature of the created universe reveals God's glory and power:



[/ QUOTE ]

Cam

[flipdeadshot22]

you probably will never understand Sagan (sadly). Your god truly is a "little" god, who has no conclusive outlook on our little corner of the universe (either that, or he doesn't give a [censored] about us, either way, i don't really understand why a theist would suck up to him they way they do. If he ever existed, he left us long ago, this should be obvious). As far as Sagan failing to understand your god, the postscript to the quote made me laugh. Quoting christian scripture as a way to prove the awesomeness of god strikes me as silly. If you can't see the circularity of your beliefs, i'd rather not point them out to you, since i have better things to do. And as a sidenote, has Sagan's atheist tendencies doomed him to an afterlife in hell? Is god angry with him for doubting his existence? Answers please...

[flipdeadshot22]

"The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.3 This is certainly no "little god."

Do you not see the logical fallacy embedded in this quote? If not, please explain how one goes about creating a space in which the creator him/her self cannot exist.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.3 This is certainly no "little god."

Do you not see the logical fallacy embedded in this quote? If not, please explain how one goes about creating a space in which the creator him/her self cannot exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is my post in condensed form. It seems those with religious belief have such in spite of, and in direct opposition to, logical acumen. I believe you have misunderstood my post however, assuming me to be religious. I am not one of religious conviction, however I was at one time.

In defense of those with religious belief, I turned from mine as a result of a certain bit of scripture, not because of logical arguments detailing such contradicitions within the textual and metaphysical basis of Christianity.

Ciao

Cam

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
cannot contain Him

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cannot exist

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think these are the same?

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cannot contain Him

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cannot exist

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you think these are the same?

[/ QUOTE ]






[ QUOTE ]
a space in which the creator him/her self cannot exist

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[the creator] cannot exist

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think these are the same?

[holmansf]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Christian scriptures say that God created time and the entire universe1 from what is not visible,2 and, as immense as it is, it cannot contain Him.3 This is certainly no "little god."

Do you not see the logical fallacy embedded in this quote? If not, please explain how one goes about creating a space in which the creator him/her self cannot exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not religious, but you honestly need to think outside the box to understand this stuff. For example, I have a small box of cookies sitting on the table next to me. My guess is whoever made the box couldn't fit inside.

I think the problem is that whoever wrote this didn't conceive of "the universe" as being everything that exists as you appear to. Rather "the universe" is more like the "world of man," or something like that.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
a space in which the creator him/her self cannot exist

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true about our world.

[flipdeadshot22]

okay, i get it, maybe this god can exist outside of our physical spacetime domain. are you telling me we should be worrying about things outside of that (things we cannot EVER experience or make any claims of what exists out "there")?

[holmansf]

Imagine a Venn Diagram with two circles one inside the other. The larger is named God, and the smaller is named the universe.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a Venn Diagram with two circles one inside the other. The larger is named God, and the smaller is named the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine a dictionary. Now use that dictionary to look up 'universe.'

I'll give it a try:

Universe - Biggest possible circle in a Venn diagram.

[holmansf]

My previous post made it clear that this is not the meaning of universe I was using. However, in the spirit of debate let me say this- There is no largest possible circle in a Venn Diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_of_all_sets

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
My previous post made it clear that this is not the meaning of universe I was using. However, in the spirit of debate let me say this- There is no largest possible circle in a Venn Diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_of_all_sets

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Any other definition of universe is pointless. When we want to talk about the universe, we mean EVERYTHING. Any more restrictive definition makes all the interesting questions uninteresting. Maybe our universe is just a computer program...but a computer program in WHAT? If the universe is just some small, contained thing inside some bigger thing, then why bother calling THIS one the universe?

[holmansf]

I was just trying to show how a statement from the original post could be interpreted in a logical way. I'm not a philosophy person, so I don't really want to get in a big debate about the meaning of the word universe. However I do think it can't be as simple as saying the universe is EVERYTHING. (what do you mean by thing? Are concepts things? Is a round square a thing? Are things I believe exist but have never seen things? Is the universe itself a thing? blah blah blah)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
(things we cannot EVER experience or make any claims of what exists out "there")

[/ QUOTE ]
We know about those things because God came here to tell us.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
We know about those things because God came here to tell us.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Txag007,

Did he tell you personally, or are you relying on a 2000 year old manuscript that makes no logical sense, to conclude that he came here and told us? I’m asking this because you say “We know these things”, well I don’t know it, so I’m wondering if this was a personal revelation to you, or if you are relying on a spurious source of information?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]

We know about those things because God came here to tell us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We humans have been visited by more than a thousand Gods, so far, each on separate occasions, and each God was supposedly a unique God.

How are we supposed to know which God was the true one?

In retrospect, Monty Hall (and not a holy text or other) suggests that almost all were phoneys.

It also seems to be the case that primarily geography decides which one of all those unique Gods you get to accept as the truly unique one for you. Y're born in Jeddah, it's Allah for ya.

Mickey Brausch

[cambraceres]

As OP I don't feel in the least indelicate when I say the post about God elucidating the elements of reality to us is absurd and not as interesting as the other side debate, that of what constitutes an entity.

It seems to me severly dismissive to say that an entity is only existent in itself. In other words, to say there are no "Bare Particulars" is just too restrictive a doctrine. On the other hand, when we, through our rationalities, assign a value or quality to this ir that entity, we lose the security blanket of objectivity. To apprehend a pattern, or geographical location, or whatever, is an action of consciousness, and that is an infinitely plastic and eternally creative mechanism, one which defies our means of comprehension. So in what light are we to view those items which cannot be said to have intrinsic structure, or those which have ancillary properties that are not connected to the physical elements of the entity?

Note that in the definition of this anamoly, I have assumed that location is NOT an intrinsic property, what does everyone have to say?

much love

Cam

[txag007]

God revealed himself to me personally (and continues to do so) through the "2000 year old manuscript" of which you speak.

[Ben K]

[ QUOTE ]
God revealed himself to me personally (and continues to do so) through the "2000 year old manuscript" of which you speak.

[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt this. Mainly because the bible contains a huge amount of pure nastiness and there isn't an index which says which bits to ignore and which bits to follow.

Oh, I see you rely on priests or personal intuition and the like to explain which bits are good and bad. The sort of changing scenario of human existence reconciled to god's unchanging word?? I.e. the bible doesn't change but which bits we follow does depending on wassup at the time.

To give an example Lev 25:44 says you can possess slaves, etc. 300 years ago - great. Now - not so great. But how to do you work it out?? It's revealed to you and yet you don't own any slaves? Is there a higher law than set out in the bible? Do you have the bollox to try and own slaves given it's against the law nearly everywhere?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
To give an example Lev 25:44 says you can possess slaves, etc. 300 years ago - great. Now - not so great. But how to do you work it out?? It's revealed to you and yet you don't own any slaves? Is there a higher law than set out in the bible? Do you have the bollox to try and own slaves given it's against the law nearly everywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've either never studied the entire Bible enough to put Leviticus into the correct context in which it exists, or you are reading the Bible with the purpose of picking out flaws and contradictions in Christian beliefs. Either way, you aren't analyzing it accurately.

How much do you know about the slavery described in Leviticus? How is it the same and how is it different than slavery in 19th century America? Or is slavery just slavery and that's the end of it?

What do you know about the Mosaic Law? How much of it applies to Christians today? How much of it does not? Or do Christians just pick and choose the parts they like or the parts that their priests and pastors like?

There isn't an index that says which bits to ignore and which bits to follow? First you have to understand what it is that you are reading, when it was written, to whom, and what the political and cultural context was in the authorship. Any intelligent investigation does this with any piece of literature. Why is the Bible different?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
How much do you know about the slavery described in Leviticus? How is it the same and how is it different than slavery in 19th century America? Or is slavery just slavery and that's the end of it?

What do you know about the Mosaic Law? How much of it applies to Christians today? How much of it does not? Or do Christians just pick and choose the parts they like or the parts that their priests and pastors like?


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's an excerpt From Mark Twain's autobiography that I found revealing regarding 19th century southern Christian preachers on the issue of slavery.

[ QUOTE ]
In my schoolboy days I had no aversion to slavery. I was not aware that there was anything wrong about it. No one arraigned it in my hearing; the local papers said nothing against it; the local pulpit taught us that God approved it, that it was a holy thing, and the doubter need only look in the Bible if he wished to settle his mind — and then the texts were read aloud do us to make the matter sure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Link (http://dig.lib.niu.edu/twain/race.html)

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To give an example Lev 25:44 says you can possess slaves, etc. 300 years ago - great. Now - not so great. But how to do you work it out?? It's revealed to you and yet you don't own any slaves? Is there a higher law than set out in the bible? Do you have the bollox to try and own slaves given it's against the law nearly everywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've either never studied the entire Bible enough to put Leviticus into the correct context in which it exists, or you are reading the Bible with the purpose of picking out flaws and contradictions in Christian beliefs. Either way, you aren't analyzing it accurately.

How much do you know about the slavery described in Leviticus? How is it the same and how is it different than slavery in 19th century America? Or is slavery just slavery and that's the end of it?

What do you know about the Mosaic Law? How much of it applies to Christians today? How much of it does not? Or do Christians just pick and choose the parts they like or the parts that their priests and pastors like?

There isn't an index that says which bits to ignore and which bits to follow? First you have to understand what it is that you are reading, when it was written, to whom, and what the political and cultural context was in the authorship. Any intelligent investigation does this with any piece of literature. Why is the Bible different?

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me to see the extent that an otherwise intelligent person (I'm assuming) will go to in order to delude their self. Do you ever wish that you were born an idiot so you wouldn't have to construct these elaborate arguments to suppress your reasoning abilities? Your claim basically amounts to stating that you must posses some esoteric understanding to decipher when/where/how biblical doctrine should be applied. I for one am immediately skeptical of anyone who thinks like this.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
It amazes me to see the extent that an otherwise intelligent person (I'm assuming) will go to in order to delude their self.

[/ QUOTE ]

See...even you have faith in things that are obviously untrue!

[JayTee]

The ability to construct a paragraph will put you in the front of the pack these days /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[txag007]

What's your point? That's not the first time somebody has used Scripture incorrectly to support an unbiblical opinion.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim basically amounts to stating that you must posses some esoteric understanding to decipher when/where/how biblical doctrine should be applied.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Just apply the same standards used on any other piece of historical literature.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your point? That's not the first time somebody has used Scripture incorrectly to support an unbiblical opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

You helped me to clarify my point. The reason Scripture is used repeatedly to support varying positions is that there are as many diverse interpretations of the bible ( or the word of God ) as there are Christian denominations. God’s word does not lend itself to simplicity and ease of understanding.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's your point? That's not the first time somebody has used Scripture incorrectly to support an unbiblical opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

You helped me to clarify my point. The reason Scripture is used repeatedly to support varying positions is that there are as many diverse interpretations of the bible ( or the word of God ) as there are Christian denominations. God’s word does not lend itself to simplicity and ease of understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, presumably God thinks the Bible's messages, whatever they might be, are very important. And yet they're relegated to a text from a barely literate age, written from sources decades removed from the principles, cobbled from obvious copies of tales relaying the exploits of prior deities, riddled with contradictions, stuttering language, often incomprehensible logic and mores, notions of the physical world in direct opposition to modern science. Never mind the mistranslations and selective editing, and the multiple editions.

You mean this is the best an all-powerful being can do?

Where the Hell is God's website?

And how can any intellectually honest person say they don't have a problem with all of the above?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
riddled with contradictions, stuttering language, often incomprehensible logic and mores, notions of the physical world in direct opposition to modern science

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true.

[MarkSummers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
riddled with contradictions, stuttering language, often incomprehensible logic and mores, notions of the physical world in direct opposition to modern science

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convincing.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]


Indeed, presumably God thinks the Bible's messages, whatever they might be, are very important. And yet they're relegated to a text from a barely literate age, written from sources decades removed from the principles, cobbled from obvious copies of tales relaying the exploits of prior deities, riddled with contradictions, stuttering language, often incomprehensible logic and mores, notions of the physical world in direct opposition to modern science. Never mind the mistranslations and selective editing, and the multiple editions.

You mean this is the best an all-powerful being can do?

Where the Hell is God's website?

And how can any intellectually honest person say they don't have a problem with all of the above?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as complete rigor in language. Therefore, a similar endless line of objections can be generated from any text, including your own questions. The meaning of a text does not lie in its incompleteness, but rather in its intended communication.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To give an example Lev 25:44 says you can possess slaves, etc. 300 years ago - great. Now - not so great. But how to do you work it out?? It's revealed to you and yet you don't own any slaves? Is there a higher law than set out in the bible? Do you have the bollox to try and own slaves given it's against the law nearly everywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]
You've either never studied the entire Bible enough to put Leviticus into the correct context in which it exists, or you are reading the Bible with the purpose of picking out flaws and contradictions in Christian beliefs. Either way, you aren't analyzing it accurately.

How much do you know about the slavery described in Leviticus? How is it the same and how is it different than slavery in 19th century America? Or is slavery just slavery and that's the end of it?

What do you know about the Mosaic Law? How much of it applies to Christians today? How much of it does not? Or do Christians just pick and choose the parts they like or the parts that their priests and pastors like?

There isn't an index that says which bits to ignore and which bits to follow? First you have to understand what it is that you are reading, when it was written, to whom, and what the political and cultural context was in the authorship. Any intelligent investigation does this with any piece of literature. Why is the Bible different?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I'm learning something, I like the teacher to explain from the ground up - to assume that I know very little about the subject. Can you give a quick summary of how the things you've stated here apply to slavery in Leviticus? Specifically, I'd like to know how the slavery defined there is different. More specifically, I want to reconcile the following quote with my view of what slavery is:

Exodus 21:20-21 (NAS)
"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. "



Can I get a brief summary of how this type of slavery differs from 19th century slavery, and why it is ok in God's eyes? Please don't think you will offend me by giving the little details that "should be obvious." Pretend I am a naive child that needs to be taught about God's view of slavery. Thanks!

[txag007]

Here's a start:

Don't assume that everything you read in Leviticus is equally applicable to us today. Leviticus is an historical document written to a specific culture in a specific time. There are parts of the book that apply to us, but remember that Leviticus must be taken in context with the entire Bible.

As for slavery under Mosaic Law, one way it was different is that it wasn't permanent. Many people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery as a way to pay off debt.

This isn't everything you asked for, but it is something to get you started.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a start:

Don't assume that everything you read in Leviticus is equally applicable to us today. Leviticus is an historical document written to a specific culture in a specific time. There are parts of the book that apply to us, but remember that Leviticus must be taken in context with the entire Bible.

As for slavery under Mosaic Law, one way it was different is that it wasn't permanent. Many people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery as a way to pay off debt.

This isn't everything you asked for, but it is something to get you started.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Isn't Leviticus part of the word of God? Are you saying that God was speaking ONLY to the jews that escaped Egypt and that his rules don't apply to us? How do I know which parts of the bible apply to me and which apply only to "a specific culture in a specific time"? I mean, should I be punished for striking my slaves with rods or not?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Can I get a brief summary of how this type of slavery differs from 19th century slavery


[/ QUOTE ]

See this previous thread on slavery (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=710003 9&Searchpage=1&Main=7098562&Words=slave+NotReady&t opic=&Search=true#Post7100039)

Check out the link I gave in my post.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't Leviticus part of the word of God?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that God was speaking ONLY to the jews that escaped Egypt and that his rules don't apply to us?

[/ QUOTE ]
Some of them, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
How do I know which parts of the bible apply to me and which apply only to "a specific culture in a specific time"?

[/ QUOTE ]
You study it.

I recognize that your posts are oozing with sarcasm, but anyone who is serious about this issue should read the link in Not Ready's posts. I've read some of it, and it gives a really good detailed explanation of the slavery issue.

[Ben K]

Sorry, didn't realise there was a good reply to one of my posts that I hadn't countered.

It's true I have never studied the bible enough to put various passages into context. I don't even own a bible, although I will change that when I find one that has a solid but bendy cover, is relatively small and has thin pages. I've looked but couldn't decide which version was best. Anyways, that's a different problem.

I think you're right about it being a guide for the times it was written in. However, what you haven't realised is that the bible is now an unneccessary document. This is for a number of reasons:

1. It requires study in order to derive the moral values applicable to today. You can more easily derive the same moral values without the bible.
2. There is no evidence that it is god's word as in we haven't established there is a god for his words to be heard and written down.
3. The stlye of writing is horrendous and unneccessarily so.
4. It's ambiguous. The conclusions from the bible that are currently enacted do not stem from the bible per se, but rather from the fact that the bible justifies almost everything and covers the required conclusions.

So why is the bible still in use? Well we are now be able to determine that an specific claim of god issuing new instructions is true or false, and so the religions are forced to rely on a very old document to keep their religion going. This is because they need the word of god in order to justify their actions as coming from a higher power than themselves else they wouldn't be believed and their source of power and money would dry up.

Do you see that the whole enterprise in all of these threads is defending against criticisms of the natural aspects of religion and about these we can have lots of discussions but eventually we reach the same end. In all cases your whole line in underpinned by the assumption that there is a god. You say that we should apply the standards of research and critical thinking to the bible and other natural points about religion but why have you not done exactly the same with regard to the supernatural aspect?