whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: Andy S. on February 26, 2013, 02:00:35 PM

Title: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 26, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: naemhni on February 26, 2013, 02:12:26 PM
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Many have tried.  I've never been impressed.

I personally don't even buy the Trinity aspect that most Christians do.  The concept of the Trinity is never explicitly mentioned in the bible, and indeed, there are very few passages that even hint at it.  I would think, in particular, that any Christian who subscribes to the doctrine of sola scriptura would have to reject it on that basis.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: mrbiscoop on February 26, 2013, 02:16:14 PM
  The bible would of benefited greatly from a good editor.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: naemhni on February 26, 2013, 03:21:35 PM
  The bible would of benefited greatly from a good editor.

Definitely.  If it were submitted as-is as a manuscript today, in a world in which Judaism and Christianity had never existed, I doubt there would be any publisher anywhere that would print it.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Aaron123 on February 26, 2013, 03:31:34 PM
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Really, what we have here is not a contradiction per say, but a change in the concept of god, or at least of the Jesus character.  The bible itself has more of a semi-limited power god, rather than the omni-max being that people tends to think of. (Just look at what happened when Adam and Eve ate the fruit.  First thing god does is try to find them!  Not something you have to do if you're omni-max.)  Problems arises when you try to read those passages with the omni-max idea in mind. 

Same thing with Jesus and Mark.  Everyone is reading it with all those other gospels and ideas in mind.  Mark didn't have the "100% god and 100% human" idea in mind when he wrote his story.  Or the virgin birth...  Or the resurrection.  Jesus not knowing stuff was fine when Mark was just its own little story.  It wasn't until later that the "Jesus is god himself" idea became fully fleshed out.  You're best off reading each gospels as their own thing (which is what some early christains did).


It can be amusing to see all the mental gymnastics that apologetics goes through to make everything fit together.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Nick on February 26, 2013, 03:32:20 PM
2 words.....mysterious ways.....
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tykster on February 26, 2013, 04:08:59 PM
I never trust anyone, be it human or deity, once they demonstrate that adding simple integers presents a problem.


Oh, and he/she/it totally mangled the value of Pi too ;)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on February 26, 2013, 04:51:24 PM
We have had Christians come here and say that Jesus or god could become selectively ignorant or selectively powerless. You know, so he could be killed and die and all.

It does make sense that we are talking about several different stories with different gods all blended like a smoothie. But there are a few big chunks that keep floating to the top....the pagan polytheism, for example, keeps shining through. The father (Zeus) the son (Apollo) and so forth.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Bluecolour on February 27, 2013, 10:40:54 PM
Okay.
So when discussing the trinity, i find the head of the problem is that most Christians grow up hearing the word Trinity, learn it and never understand what it means. You are being taught the father, son and holy ghost in Sunday school before you can make any sense of the bible itself and beyond that you never receive any further information about this. In fact the closest most people ever come to understanding the Trinity are a couple of vague doctrinal statements and some fourth century diagrams.

On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church. The word was used by these Christian academics in reference to a phenomenon that they themselves repeatedly found in scripture. Part of the reason that the trinity is such a stumbling block for most is because we hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture. This is not how it was done.

I want anyone reading this to imagine those scholars in the first century. So they're going over the manuscripts and letters that would one day become the bible and they see statements like:

Quote
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one,

Believe in God; believe also in me,

I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do

The glory that you have given me I have given to them,
that they may be one even as we are one,

know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Their confusion at this point should be apparent.
So their scratching their heads asking how this makes any sense but then they bunker down and keep searching through scripture for some kind of explanation. God is one, Jesus is God but at the same time Jesus is not God. If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.[1]
At this point what these scholars were looking for was some kind of distinction, because despite claiming to be God and one with God, Jesus had still created a distinction between himself and the Father who was also God.

What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two. The entire thing a complex and colorful, back, forth and upsides drama of sorts all taking place within the individual being. Proving that God was not the staunch, stoic and inflexible character they thought he was, but rather something beautiful, dynamic, and full of life. It must have been a shock, it was completely unorthodox and yet they should have been looking for it from the start.
How could a being who was alone in himself be called love?
How could a single fixed and solitary icon be responsible for all the beauty and wonder we see in this world?
The answer was clear, there it was rising right before their faces. And like explorers standing on the brink of something alien and undiscovered, they gave it a name: The mystery of the Triune God.

So the Trinity is not merely a doctrine, it is a revelation, and like all revelation it is in its core a mystery, carrying a sense of awe that fills you as you break step by step into the understanding of it. When we use the word it is in reference to this mystery that we speak, to this secret thing of God's hidden apart from his grace or his miraculous hand but buried within the physicality of his very nature.[2] The nature of the relationship that has been going on since before the founding of the world. The one atop of which everything we know was built and the one which through everything we have been asked to join. Looking back the trinity it seems should have been a self-evident truth because God is one, but at the same time He is so much more, He is infinite and he is eternal.
 1. Imagine what it was like for the disciples, standing around watching Jesus pray to himself. I think the fact that they didn't just shake their heads and walk away says something about the kind of man that Jesus was.
 2. The creeds use the word essence.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 28, 2013, 01:56:27 AM
Okay.
So when discussing the trinity, i find the head of the problem is that most Christians grow up hearing the word Trinity, learn it and never understand what it means. You are being taught the father, son and holy ghost in Sunday school before you can make any sense of the bible itself and beyond that you never receive any further information about this. In fact the closest most people ever come to understanding the Trinity are a couple of vague doctrinal statements and some fourth century diagrams.


The beginning of indoctrination!


On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church.

False!  The word/label trinity is not found in any Christian document in the first century.
 

The word was used by these Christian academics in reference to a phenomenon that they themselves repeatedly found in scripture. Part of the reason that the trinity is such a stumbling block for most is because we hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture. This is not how it was done.


1.)  Christian academics is an oxymoron

2.)  Yes! We hear the word first and then try to explain it in scripture only to find out the word trinity isn't even in scripture.  Your right, that is a stumbling block!


If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.

What a great question!!!


[nb]Imagine what it was like for the disciples, standing around watching Jesus pray to himself.



Jesus is never mentioned in the bible to ever pray to himself.  He always prayed to his father.  For instance: "My Father who art in heaven...".   


What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.



The definition of the trinity is one God in three persons that are consubstantial (one substance), coequal, and CO-ETERNAL.  According to the definition of the trinity the third person cannot be "born out of the communion" because he's supposed to have no beginning (birth) and be CO-ETERNAL.


The entire thing a complex and colorful, back, forth and upsides drama of sorts all taking place within the individual being. Proving that God was not the staunch, stoic and inflexible character they thought he was, but rather something beautiful, dynamic, and full of life. It must have been a shock, it was completely unorthodox and yet they should have been looking for it from the start.


The "staunch, stoic and inflexible character" is who God revealed himself as in the Old Testament.  Why should the disciples have been looking for something beautiful and dynamic?  That's not how God revealed himself in his revealed word of the Old Testament.


How could a being who was alone in himself be called love?



I ask myself this question everyday.  How can the Judeo-Christian God who is responsible for so many atrocities be called love?


How could a single fixed and solitary icon be responsible for all the beauty and wonder we see in this world?
The answer was clear, there it was rising right before their faces. And like explorers standing on the brink of something alien and undiscovered, they gave it a name: The mystery of the Triune God.



If the first century "scholars" gave it a name then why don't I see the word Triune in the New Testament or in any other first century document for that matter?  The number or word 3 is never used in the bible to describe the God of the bible.


So the Trinity is not merely a doctrine, it is a revelation, and like all revelation it is in its core a mystery, carrying a sense of awe that fills you as you break step by step into the understanding of it.



No, the trinity is merely a developed doctrine.  It is not a revelation.  If it was a revelation then it would have been spelled out more clearly in the bible.  I think Paul would have talked about this mystery more if it were true since Jesus taught him the gospel directly.

By the way, if you think you have an understanding on the trinity then you need to quit wasting your time on forums and start writing books that reveal your knowledge of the complex doctrine and mystery of the trinity.


When we use the word it is in reference to this mystery that we speak, to this secret thing of God's hidden apart from his grace or his miraculous hand but buried within the physicality of his very nature.[1] The nature of the relationship that has been going on since before the founding of the world. The one atop of which everything we know was built and the one which through everything we have been asked to join. Looking back the trinity it seems should have been a self-evident truth because God is one, but at the same time He is so much more, He is infinite and he is eternal.
 1. The creeds use the word essence.


1 Corinthians 14:33 says that God is not a God of confusion.  Why is the trinity and the nature of God so confusing?  The topic of who Jesus really was remains to be the most controversial topic in church history.  The trinity is not a "self-evident" truth.  People don't read through the whole bible and say, "Wow, that was amazing how God revealed himself as one in the Old Testament and then as one in three persons that are coequal, co-eternal and consubstantial in the New Testament. 

Many Christians have been ostracized, excommunicated, and killed over the course of church history because they had a wrong interpretation over the nature of Jesus.  I think if God was "love" and wanted his church to be united then he would have spelled out the nature and essence of himself more clearly so there wouldn't be so many divisions in his church.

I don't know if you have done a whole lot of research on the trinity since you thought the label was used by Christian "scholars" in the first century, but I bet you know enough about the topic to solve my riddle:

Who begot a son who took care of sin,
and his son is the same age as him? 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Samothec on February 28, 2013, 02:50:33 AM
What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.

So, you're saying we had some divine incest going on here and divine daddy impregnates divine son who gives birth to the holy spirit. Makes more sense than saying they are the same person but still seperate people which is really wacky.

I had always wondered how anyone got 3 - ever. When jesus is alive there are 2: god & jesus. When jesus is dead he is the holy spirit and there are still just 2: god & the holy spirit. There are never 3 at the same time.

Or was the holy spirit always the incestuous male pregnancy product?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Bluecolour on February 28, 2013, 08:25:42 AM
I just realized I never answered the first question. Sorry.
The Son is wholly dependent on the Father.
The Son is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He just is, He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because the Father is. All that the Father has is towards the Son but all that the Son has is what has been given to Him by the Father. Everything He does is what has come from His Father, in the same way all that He knows is what the Father has shown Him.
In conclusion, there are things with the Father that have not been passed to the Son, likewise there is knowledge with the Father that has not come to the Son.

If you still didn't understand then read these verses:

Quote
John 5:19,20  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

Notice the Father has shown some things but is yet to show other things, revealing that the Son does not have everything. Your question is like seeing this verse and asking, "If God is omnipotent then why does Jesus say He cannot do anything of Himself?" A question to which I would show you this:

Quote
John 1:3  All things were made and came into existence through Him [the Word]; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

Now we have a Father that does not do anything except by/through the Son, making the Father seem almost impotent without the Son.

The answer to your question is this: yes God is omniscient but when discussing this in terms of the Trinity then 'God' becomes a collective term. The Son is no more God without the Father than the Father is God without the Son, and neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit. I hope this solves the problem.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Bluecolour on February 28, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
So, you're saying we had some divine incest going on here and divine daddy impregnates divine son who gives birth to the holy spirit.

Actually, its more like divine masturbation than it is incest.
 
On this particular subject I think the most important thing to know is that the word Trinity is neither descriptive nor explanatory, its merely a label attached by first century biblical scholars in their attempts to compile a sound general doctrine for the church.
False!  The word/label trinity is not found in any Christian document in the first century.

Your right, that should be 4th century. Sorry.

Quote
If Jesus thought he was God then why not just talk that way all the time; why begin referring to yourself in second and third person like you're crazy.
What a great question!!!

But I answered that question. He was trying to create a distinction between the three persons.

Quote
What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two.

The definition of the trinity is one God in three persons that are consubstantial (one substance), coequal, and CO-ETERNAL.  According to the definition of the trinity the third person cannot be "born out of the communion" because he's supposed to have no beginning (birth) and be CO-ETERNAL.

Don't confuse what I said.
The Spirit comes out of the communion between the Father and the Son, but this does not mean he is not co-eternal (since the two have been in eternal communion) nor that one is prior to another. In  the same way when I say the Son comes from the Father or is dependent of the Father it does not mean that He was created or that the Father at any point existed without His Son.
Quote
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

1 Corinthians 14:33 says that God is not a God of confusion.  Why is the trinity and the nature of God so confusing?  The topic of who Jesus really was remains to be the most controversial topic in church history.  The trinity is not a "self-evident" truth.  People don't read through the whole bible and say, "Wow, that was amazing how God revealed himself as one in the Old Testament and then as one in three persons that are coequal, co-eternal and consubstantial in the New Testament. 

Many Christians have been ostracized, excommunicated, and killed over the course of church history because they had a wrong interpretation over the nature of Jesus.  I think if God was "love" and wanted his church to be united then he would have spelled out the nature and essence of himself more clearly so there wouldn't be so many divisions in his church.

Your failing to consider the intellectual gap that by needs exists between God and man. Have you ever tried to spell something out clearly to a child?
Confusion is unavoidable when attempting to understand complexity. If the revealed nature of God were not complicated it would be the 51st proof on this website.
I didn't say that the Trinity was self-evident, I said that retrospectively it seems that way. It's like looking back and saying "of course the moon isn't made of cheese," or like you thinking back and going "of course there's no God," even though we had you completely fooled at the time.
The Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned in the New testament not as a 'Trinity,' but as three distinct persons that we worship and in who's names all must be baptized. The trinitarian doctrine came up much later however to answer the question of who they were.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 28, 2013, 09:55:00 AM
Or was the holy spirit always the incestuous male pregnancy product?

Luke 2:30 the angel Gabriel said to Mary, "...behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son...".  Mary said, "How can this be since I'm a virgin?" (v. 34).  The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you...".

Mary's next questions should have been, "How can I become pregnant if the Holy Spirit comes upon me? Doesn't he have to come inside of me."



Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 28, 2013, 10:43:10 AM
The Son is wholly dependent on the Father.

If one being is dependent on another being then the two beings cannot be consubstantial.  You just shattered the concept of the trinity in your first sentence.

By the way, since your revealed word of God is so vague and ambiguous, I could make an argument that the son is not dependent on the father.  Matthew 28:18 says, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth".  All means all.  I could make the argument that the father is now dependent on the son.

The Son is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent because He just is, He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent because the Father is.

You need to read Mark 13:32 very carefully again.  The son is not omniscient!

All that the Father has is towards the Son but all that the Son has is what has been given to Him by the Father. Everything He does is what has come from His Father, in the same way all that He knows is what the Father has shown Him.
In conclusion, there are things with the Father that have not been passed to the Son, likewise there is knowledge with the Father that has not come to the Son.

If one being has to give, show, or pass knowledge on to another being then the two beings are not consubstantial.  You might want to look up the word consubstantial (one in being) which is a word that is used in the definition of the trinity.


John 1:3  All things were made and came into existence through Him [the Word]; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.

What a surprise, I discovered another contradiction in God's wonderful revealed word!  How can John 1:3 be true when Colossians 1:15 says that the son was the "FIRSTBORN of all creation".  In Revelation 3:14 Jesus says that he is "...the Beginning of the creation of God". 


The Son is no more God without the Father than the Father is God without the Son, and neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit. I hope this solves the problem.

First, this statement is completely unbiblical.  Nowhere in the bible will you find this nonsense.  Please give me the scripture that says, "neither is anything at all once we remove the Holy Spirit?"  I think you just made that up to try to make sense of your complicated God.

Secondly, this post did not solve my problem...it only made the understanding of the trinity more problematic for me.  I only discovered more ambiguities and contradictions in responding to you.

I actually don't really have a "problem" with this mysterious doctrine of trinity.  My problem went away once I discovered the bible is not the revealed word of God, but instead it's the revealed word of man.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 28, 2013, 11:38:24 AM

Your failing to consider the intellectual gap that by needs exists between God and man. Have you ever tried to spell something out clearly to a child?
Confusion is unavoidable when attempting to understand complexity.

I think God could have spelled it out more clearly.  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled it out more clearly than God did.  In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one".  This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible.  However, this verse is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.  This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

Furthermore, don't you think your loving and omnipotent God would express the trinity clear enough in the bible to where John Calvin wouldn't have to burn Michael Servetus on a stake for having a wrong understanding of the nature of Christ?  Why isn't the MAN MADE Athanasian creed in the divinely inspired New Testament?  This creed spells out the doctrine of the trinity clearly.  It sure could have saved Michael Servetus' life along with many others who denied the doctrine of the trinity because they couldn't explicitly find the mysterious doctrine in God's revealed word.

The Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned in the New testament not as a 'Trinity,' but as three distinct persons that we worship and in who's names all must be baptized.


Where does it say in the bible that Christians are to worship the Holy Spirit?

The trinitarian doctrine came up much later however to answer the question of who they were.

Right!  Like I said before, the trinity is a MAN MADE DEVELOPED DOCTRINE.  The bible does not explicitly and clearly express the trinitarian concept.  One God in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial is a MAN MADE formula.  The word trinity, it's formula and it's definition should have been expressed explicitly in God's revealed word especially since it is an essential doctrine of the church.  If the words that make up the formula to the trinity was included to the bible, then some confusion could be avoided.  Of course, not all confusion could be avoided because this formula contradicts other parts of the bible as I have already pointed out.  At least the church wouldn't have to spend centuries trying to nail down the exact nature of the godhead with their man made creeds and they could have minimized excommunications and killings for heresy. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on February 28, 2013, 03:52:48 PM
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form? 
 
Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

Jesus does know the time of the second coming - he says it will be within the lifetime of the Disciples. He does not say exactly when though. It is not because He does not know, it is because, the way hHe phrased it, requires all Christians to be prepared - i.e. to lead a constantly Godly life.

Your second thought that 1+1+1 = 1 is based upon what is known as "The Johannine Comma". John:5:7-8

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The red text is an error. The story can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html The words should not appear in the Bible. IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses ignore this and are not Trinitarians, however, they are probably closer to real scripture than all sects who accept it.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on February 28, 2013, 06:14:00 PM

Jesus does know the time of the second coming - he says it will be within the lifetime of the Disciples. He does not say exactly when though. It is not because He does not know, it is because, the way hHe phrased it, requires all Christians to be prepared - i.e. to lead a constantly Godly life.

I definitely think that Jesus, as an apocalyptic figure, did think he was going to return in the lifetime of the disciples ("this generation will not pass away...Matt 24:34).  However, Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 is specific as to not knowing the day or hour.  So although Jesus taught the imminence of his second coming, he clearly plead ignorance to the exact timing of his second coming especially since these texts say that the father alone knows.  My argument is that if Jesus plead ignorance to this knowledge, then he can't be God (1 John 3:20). 

Your second thought that 1+1+1 = 1 is based upon what is known as "The Johannine Comma". John:5:7-8

The King James Version, which was based upon these editions, gives the following translation:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The red text is an error. The story can be found at http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html The words should not appear in the Bible. IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses ignore this and are not Trinitarians, however, they are probably closer to real scripture than all sects who accept it.

I did mention the Johannine Comma in my reply #15.  I'm really curious how bluecolour is going to respond to this.  Thanks for the link!  I hope bluecolour reads it.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on March 05, 2013, 08:18:57 AM
A question I never get an answer to:

Where is Jesus' Heavenly Mother? Just as the Jesus story required a mother on earth, the term "son" also requires a mother in heaven. Son implies mother just as it implies Father. Where is Jesus' mother? It just doesnt make sense, at all.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: rev45 on March 05, 2013, 08:49:15 AM
^Possibly Asherah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on March 05, 2013, 09:14:32 AM
^Possibly Asherah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah)
definitely worth the consideration. I mentioned her when I posed this question elsewhere. But is Asherah mentioned in any translation of the bible? And she would have to have been there always, no?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on March 05, 2013, 10:47:13 AM
But is Asherah mentioned in any translation of the bible? And she would have to have been there always, no?

yes, but she's mentioned as a false god. 
judges 3:7
1kings 15:13
1kings 18:19
2kings 21:7
2kings 23:4
2 chron 15:16


the parts of hebrew/ canaanite polytheism/ henotheism that included her were scrubbed by time they got around to writing that stuff down. but not altogether.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on March 05, 2013, 11:37:12 AM

yes, but she's mentioned as a false god. 
judges 3:7
1kings 15:13
1kings 18:19
2kings 21:7
2kings 23:4
2 chron 15:16


I thought it was interesting that wikipedia (Asherah) didn't have any of these verses.  They said, the book of Jeremiah could have "possibly" referenced Asherah.  This thread maybe took a turn for the boring but I found it interesting that the King James version translated Asherah as grove or groves which means an "image of the same". 

http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/strongs_842.htm
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on March 05, 2013, 12:38:22 PM
I found it interesting that the King James version translated Asherah as grove or groves which means an "image of the same". 

asherim, being the plural.  If I recall, Asherah's symbol was a tree.  Thus plural, a grove.  However, it may have been indicating an asherah pole, which was a fertility symbol, and thus, a form of idolatry to the jews, harkening back to their pagan roots.  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan) on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

Also, I believe asherah was sort of a goddess of knowledge as well.  She was depicted as holding a snake or talking to a snake.  Thus, the whole Eden story was a polemic against asherah worship.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on March 06, 2013, 01:06:01 AM
  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan) on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

It sure doesn't take long to uncover more biblical contradictions when discussing just one single contradiction.

1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

2.  As you accurately pointed out, Hezekiah "...did that which was right in the sight of the LORD" and he broke the brasen serpent that Moses had made in pieces because the people were burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4).  So this brass serpent was being used by the Jews as an idol.  Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:14, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up".  NO WONDER THE MAJORITY OF DEVOUT JEWS REJECTED JESUS!!!  If I was a Pharisee like Nicodemus, I would say piss off to Jesus.  There is no way I would give allegiance, honor or worship to someone who compares himself in anyway to an idol that was ordered by YHWH to be broken into pieces.  Especially when the verse just before this comparison (v. 13), Jesus lies and breaks the 9th commandment.  Jesus is not the only man that has ascended up to heaven according to the inspired writings of the Jews.  What about Elijah and Enoch? 

In the end, I do believe Nicodemus ended up following Jesus.  This was bound to happen as I don't think Nicodemus thought too critically.  I mean, what do you expect from someone who asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? (John 3:3) :laugh:               

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on March 06, 2013, 01:47:54 AM
  It brings to mind Numbers 21:8-9, where yhwh instructed moses to erect a pole with a bronze snake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan) on it, for healing.  It is now the symbol of medicine.  Later, the jews were instructed to cut it down (2kings 18:4).

It sure doesn't take long to uncover more biblical contradictions when discussing just one single contradiction.

1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

2.  As you accurately pointed out, Hezekiah "...did that which was right in the sight of the LORD" and he broke the brasen serpent that Moses had made in pieces because the people were burning incense to it (2 Kings 18:4).  So this brass serpent was being used by the Jews as an idol.  Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3:14, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up".  NO WONDER THE MAJORITY OF DEVOUT JEWS REJECTED JESUS!!!  If I was a Pharisee like Nicodemus, I would say piss off to Jesus.  There is no way I would give allegiance, honor or worship to someone who compares himself in anyway to an idol that was ordered by YHWH to be broken into pieces.  Especially when the verse just before this comparison (v. 13), Jesus lies and breaks the 9th commandment.  Jesus is not the only man that has ascended up to heaven according to the inspired writings of the Jews.  What about Elijah and Enoch? 

In the end, I do believe Nicodemus ended up following Jesus.  This was bound to happen as I don't think Nicodemus thought too critically.  I mean, what do you expect from someone who asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?  Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? (John 3:3) :laugh:               

Something about that story being written in Greek rendered that verse as a later addition. Cant remember the exact facts of it, but being born again wouldnt use the same words in Greek like it does in english making that verse nonsensical.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on March 06, 2013, 11:49:56 AM

Something about that story being written in Greek rendered that verse as a later addition. Cant remember the exact facts of it, but being born again wouldnt use the same words in Greek like it does in english making that verse nonsensical.

Hey The Gawd,

I would be interested to find out more about these conclusions.  Do you have a link.  I have studied biblical textual criticism quite a bit and never heard that John 3:4 could be a later addition.  In addition, I checked the Greek on this verse and do not know how this verse could be rendered any different.  I love learning about new "additions" in the Bible so can you give me a source or link?  I checked around on the web a little but couldn't find anything.  I'm left to believe that Nicodemus was not a critical thinker if he thinks he could re-enter his mother's womb at an old age. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on March 06, 2013, 09:00:22 PM
Im no linguist, but I think I read it here somewhere first, but it revolves around the conversation being in Aramaic, not Greek... it apparently is Bart Ehrman's argument...

heres a lank explaining it http://errancy.org/born-again.html (http://errancy.org/born-again.html) (dont know about the source, but its a general idea)

here's a response to that argument. Again Im no linguist so someone much smarter than me would have to determine who's correct. I tend to not trust apologetics though, they love lying for jesus http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/the-born-again-narrative-in-john-3-an-aramaic-impossibility-well-no/ (http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/the-born-again-narrative-in-john-3-an-aramaic-impossibility-well-no/) (again, dont know about the source but youll get the gist)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Jstwebbrowsing on March 07, 2013, 02:18:43 PM
Quote
1.  Numbers 21:8 says, "the LORD said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole.  Exodus 20:4 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath...".  YHWH is contradicting his own moral law.  Either that or it was a test and Moses failed miserably by making a brass serpent.  Moses should have said He wouldn't do it!  But then again it couldn't have been a test because Jesus alludes to this brass serpent as being a foreshadow in referring to his forthcoming crucifixion.  So, once again, I'm left to believe that YHWH is contradictory.

Making a fiery serpent is not the same as making an idol.  Maybe you should look up the definition of "gaven image".  Bing defines it this way, "  1.carving of god: a carving representing a god."

Many Bible actually say "idol" and not "graven image".  But they are both one and the same.


So I guess if you change the meaning of words in the Bible then you can say there is a contradiction.  But that just means you are contradicting the Bible and not that it is contradicting itself.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on March 07, 2013, 04:26:37 PM
Making a fiery serpent is not the same as making an idol. 

Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

The word used for fiery serpent is "seraph".  According to Strong's:
Quote
1) serpent, fiery serpent
   a) poisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)

2) seraph, seraphim
   a) majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8314&t=KJV

The second meaning can be excluded because when Moses actually makes the idol it says he makes a serpent of bronze.  So, it is apparently a poisonous snake. 

So how did moses make a "fiery serpent"?  Why, he made it out of brass:
Quote
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole...
--Num21:9

just like a common idol.  Note, the word for serpent here is "nachash", which was used in num 21:7, when speaking of the fiery serpents that bit all the jooz.  In that case the "fiery serpents" was "seraph nachash", where seraph meant "fiery".  It's a little redundant there.

How is it different from an idol?  I think the simplest answer is it isn't.  More evidence that the yhwh cult grew out of canaanite polytheism/ henotheism.

Aside, I find it funny that yhwh would send poisonous snakes after the jooz and then tell them to make a magic idol to cure them of snakebite.  So much for a god that just wants people to love him.  This yhwh guy used poisonous snakes to coerce obedience and drive people back to Moses.  Makes Tony Soprano look like a choirboy.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on March 07, 2013, 04:27:48 PM
Some devout Muslims take this "no idols" thing literally and don't make images that resemble living things created by god. So no accurate renderings of humans, plants, animals. No images of Muhammed or Jesus or Mary or any other holy person, either. Most Islamic art uses the Arabic script, geometric figures and stylized plants and flowers. Only Asian and some Persian Muslims use images of people or the natural world.

But modern Christians are always trying to bend the rules and slip stuff past Jehovah. Naughty, naughty. Instead of being lawyers looking for the loophole, why not err on the side of assuming the bible really means what it says?  God is the word and the word is with god, right? It's all divinely inspired, every last mistranslated syllable of it. Stop interpreting like you live in the modern world, or something, just because it is too hard. Be like the Puritans and the Amish, goddamit. Suck it up.

No images means no images! The Sabbath is the Sabbath! Women shut the eff up in church! Burn those unbelievers and stone those disrespectful children. Full stop, end of story. 

(Because if they tried to do that, most people would realize it is all impossible to follow and absurd to try, and become Unitarians, Buddhists and atheists instead.)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Andy S. on March 08, 2013, 01:56:12 AM

Making a fiery serpent is not the same as making an idol.  Maybe you should look up the definition of "gaven image".  Bing defines it this way, "  1.carving of god: a carving representing a god."

Many Bible actually say "idol" and not "graven image".  But they are both one and the same.

So I guess if you change the meaning of words in the Bible then you can say there is a contradiction.  But that just means you are contradicting the Bible and not that it is contradicting itself.

Hey Jstwebrowsing,

Dictionary.com defines graven image as: an idol    The World English Dictionary: a carved image used as an idol

Provided link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graven+image

I'm not changing the meaning of words but I'm going to argue that it doesn't matter if you use my definition or yours.

I'm sure you think that your God is omniscient (1 John 3:20).  He knows the beginning and the end.  So YHWH tells Moses to make a fiery brass serpent to put on a post.  If you believe YHWH is omniscient then He still is instructing Moses to make a graven image according to Bings definition of graven image ("a carving representing a god").  YHWH is omniscient so he obviously knows that the Jews are going to be offering incense to this "idol" (2 Kings 18:4).  So basically, YHWH instructed Moses to make an idol that the Jews would later burn incense to. 

Now ask yourself this.  Why would the Jews be burning incense to this fiery brass serpent?  Who is the only person that the Jews should have been burning incense to?  Could it be that this idol was "representing a god"?  Hezekiah did "right in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 18:3) in breaking the fiery serpent to pieces.

Now ask yourself if your God and His revealed word is contradictory.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Azdgari on March 08, 2013, 11:32:45 AM
My memory of the story is rusty, but weren't they supposedly instructed by their god to set these things up?  In which case, it's a ritual sanctioned by their deity, rather than worship of another?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Samothec on March 18, 2013, 12:53:34 AM
Since the thread drifted onto idols, this seems the apropos point for this.

Isn't a crucifix an idol? A cross as a symbol of Xianity could be considered an idol, couldn't it? So including Jesus pinned to the cross makes it very much an idol, right?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jynnan tonnix on March 18, 2013, 07:38:31 AM
Since the thread drifted onto idols, this seems the apropos point for this.

Isn't a crucifix an idol? A cross as a symbol of Xianity could be considered an idol, couldn't it? So including Jesus pinned to the cross makes it very much an idol, right?

A Catholic priest (and Navy chaplain) I knew some years ago, when we were still going to church pretty regularly, once got himself in a bit of trouble with the local fundy bible-thumpers when he preached a sermon about how so many "Christians" out there were so fixated on the literal truth of every word in the Bible, and put such stock into John 3:16 that they never dared look outside or beyond it that they were, as he put it, "nothing but idolaters" themselves for basically valuing a book above living a real life.

He did tend toward a fairly Universalist philosophy overall, though, and was the only priest I ever remember who made me actually look forward to hearing his homilies every week.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: fides on May 02, 2013, 12:16:27 PM
Jesus did not reveal his second coming , not necessarily because he did not know, but because think of it this way. If your parents were out one weekend and you were left home alone. They told you "don`t do anything we wouldn`t want while we are gone, because we can be back at ANY time. Not just Sunday night." Well odds are the child would be hesitant to throw his party. However, if they said :"We`ll be back Sunday at 11 PM, don`t do anything bad." The child may just throw his party Friday night and clean everything up in the long time he has before his parents get back. He didnt reveal it because he didn`t want us to procrastinate in preparing ourselves for heaven.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on May 02, 2013, 08:45:16 PM
Jesus did not reveal his second coming , not necessarily because he did not know, but because think of it this way. If your parents were out one weekend and you were left home alone. They told you "don`t do anything we wouldn`t want while we are gone, because we can be back at ANY time. Not just Sunday night." Well odds are the child would be hesitant to throw his party. However, if they said :"We`ll be back Sunday at 11 PM, don`t do anything bad." The child may just throw his party Friday night and clean everything up in the long time he has before his parents get back. He didnt reveal it because he didn`t want us to procrastinate in preparing ourselves for heaven.
So when he said only the father knows he was lying?
If Jesus doesnt come back during the party then he wont know that we were partying?
Is Jesus trying to catch us partying?
When my parents went away for the weekend, they actually did stuff, what is Jesus doing?
When my parents went away for the weekend they left me and my sisters with people they trusted, not the devil. Who has control over this fallen world?
When my parents left me alone for the weekend they left me money AND food to eat to be sure I wouldnt starve, what did Jesus do to ensure that starving kids ate? (yes its a trick question)
When my parents came back home from being away, and they found the cigarette butts and empty beer cans, I got grounded for a finite amount of time. Why does Jesus plan on burning me forever?

I'll be honest, friend, it sounds like my parents are far greater parents than Jesus. But I may be wrong. Can you explain how Jesus would be considered better than my parents at parenting considering all that I just posted?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: magicmiles on May 02, 2013, 09:00:59 PM
^^ Holy crap, were your parents employed at a travelling circus on weekends?

 ;D
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on May 03, 2013, 06:42:19 AM
^^ Holy crap, were your parents employed at a travelling circus on weekends?

 ;D
never stated how often they went for the weekend. you could easily come up with a number as small as 2X based on the post in question.  :angel:
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: magicmiles on May 03, 2013, 06:48:14 AM
Come on....you must know I use the thinnest of opportunities to try and crack a funny.

I meant no offence.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on May 03, 2013, 07:25:44 AM
Come on....you must know I use the thinnest of opportunities to try and crack a funny.

I meant no offence.
hence the angel smiley at then end of my post... no offense taken.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tonus on May 03, 2013, 01:43:02 PM
Jesus did not reveal his second coming , not necessarily because he did not know, but because think of it this way. If your parents were out one weekend and you were left home alone. They told you "don`t do anything we wouldn`t want while we are gone, because we can be back at ANY time. Not just Sunday night." Well odds are the child would be hesitant to throw his party. However, if they said :"We`ll be back Sunday at 11 PM, don`t do anything bad." The child may just throw his party Friday night and clean everything up in the long time he has before his parents get back. He didnt reveal it because he didn`t want us to procrastinate in preparing ourselves for heaven.

It seems as if Jesus did not trust his followers to keep the faith?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on May 03, 2013, 04:32:28 PM
So, why did Jesus leave at all?

Does he have other planets to go check up on?

And what is taking him so long? He could have come back in an instant. I thought he was beyond time and space, or does he have to travel through normal constraints?

I don't think the second coming of Jesus is mentioned in the bible anyway, is it? Armageddon is not the same thing.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 06, 2013, 12:05:54 AM
"The Trinity" (a concoction of the church, not found in the bible) is just another spin tactic, in the long line of Christian spin. It is an attempt to rationalize away the glaring and obvious contradiction that exists in those pages.

-The bible says the father is God
-The bible says the son is God
-The bible says the holy spirit is God
-Yet, the bible says there is only one God

So, instead of admitting that the bible clearly and flatly contradicts itself (which would mean admitting it is NOT inerrant), Christians attempt to justify the statements (due to their pre-commitment to it) by claiming that the three are "one God in 3 persons". But why do they believe these texts are authoritative in the first place?! It's really absurd. Starting with your conclusion is bass-ackwards.

Why can't you apologists be honest?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 07, 2013, 01:39:39 PM
The clearest and easiest way this has been explained to me is like this. This is not an apologetic or philosophical argument - just a way i have heard it explained many times which hopefully can add to the discussion.

H20 - water is one thing. Yet we understand water in 3 forms - liquid, ice, and steam. Each is H20, yet we experience it in different ways.

God - God is one. Yet we understand God in 3 ways - Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. Each is God, yet we experience God in different ways.



Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tonus on May 07, 2013, 02:12:02 PM
I saw a man make that argument in Bill Maher's Religulous.  It's clever, and I think it serves to describe the trinity as well as any other concept or theory.  The issue is with the portrayal of the three 'aspects' of god in the Bible.

The new testament makes a compelling case that Jesus was a separate, subordinate being.  He refers to god as his father, and speaks of him as a separate entity.  At one point, when the priests accuse him of making himself equal to god, he wonders aloud why it bothered them that he said "I am the son of god."  But there are other verses that can be used to make the case that they're one and the same (John 1:1, for example).  And there is relatively little mention of the holy spirit in the Bible.  It is not always referred to as a person, such as the times when groups of people are "anointed" with it.  And its "name" is really a general description and less a formal name.  The holy spirit is, IMO, poorly defined in the Bible, and is not clearly a being or entity of its own.

The trinity was conceptualized long after the Bible was written.  And therefore there is no clear reference or definition for it in the Bible, and centuries have been spent trying to create something that wasn't there in the first place.  The fact that it's such a convoluted idea in and of itself simply makes the whole exercise that much more absurd.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 07, 2013, 02:46:50 PM
H20 - water is one thing. Yet we understand water in 3 forms - liquid, ice, and steam. Each is H20, yet we experience it in different ways.

God - God is one. Yet we understand God in 3 ways - Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. Each is God, yet we experience God in different ways.

I take it the holy spirit is vapor.  So which is liquid and which is ice?

That is a poor analogy because it involves physical states of matter.  Also, you are talking about the alleged omnipotent creator of all being.  To say that we experience it in different ways is silly.  That we need to put three different labels on it indicates we really have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about god.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on May 07, 2013, 04:12:02 PM
It makes much more sense to accept that Christianity has polytheistic origins like other ancient faiths. Then the three in the trinity or even more different god-beings described throughout the bible are just like the Hindu or Greek or Norse pantheon. War god, father god, love god, hero god, creator god, jealous god, hippy god, healer god, son god, protector god, mother god. Just with fewer names.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 07, 2013, 06:42:58 PM
In response to screwtape and only in regards to the trinity and the analogy of water. (And this is an analogy, how could any analogy perfectly describe the omnipotent creator.) You said


That is a poor analogy because it involves physical states of matter.  Also, you are talking about the alleged omnipotent creator of all being.  To say that we experience it in different ways is silly.  That we need to put three different labels on it indicates we really have no idea what we are talking about when we talk about god.

Why is it silly? We talk about many things that don't have physical stats of matter, and yet use our physical experiences to talk about them. When we talk about proving things we often try to corroborate different ways to experience something to show its authenticity. "Wind" for example. We can't see it - be we can see it's effect. Wind has no temperature - but we experience the cold or warmth that is carried in it. Wind has no smell, no taste, and no physical matter to speak of - yet we talk about how we experience the feeling of wind, the smells of wind, and the tastes carried in the wind. The way we experience things is paramount to our understanding of things. No one would say the wind doesn't exist.

We experience God in many ways. The Bible is writings about people's experience of God and in them God is talked about in many different ways. Now the trinity refers to God in more than just experience - in other words this is just a small part of it. The trinity is also about relationship, about love, about the incarnation (Jesus coming into humanity), and about spiritual things which most nonbelievers would immediately refuse as an answer.

So to stay with the analogy - this is simply a way to talk about how and why Christians refer to God as the trinity. The question is not how can 1+1+1=3, the question is solve A+B+C=God.

I will however concede that humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on May 07, 2013, 09:53:59 PM
Anyone can understand the qualities of natural phenomena, no "belief" needed.

If human beings can't understand god, then it makes no sense to punish or persecute people for not understanding god. And it makes no sense to try to tell someone that god wants this, that or the other thing. How does anyone know what god wants? Because we cannot understand anything for sure about god.

And analogies to physical phenomena fail because we can detect physical phenomena, even if we have to use technology.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Bluecolour on May 07, 2013, 11:45:23 PM
H20 - water is one thing. Yet we understand water in 3 forms - liquid, ice, and steam. Each is H20, yet we experience it in different ways.

God - God is one. Yet we understand God in 3 ways - Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. Each is God, yet we experience God in different ways.

I think I understand what you're saying here i.e God is one but we view him in three different ways/forms. I remember believing something similar to this a while back and it was very satisfying at the time. While I do believe that this line of thought is  in the right direction, it isn't quite there yet. The problem you're going to end up facing is the substantial distinctiveness between the three persons that your view doesn't account for.

To explain let me use your analogy[1]:
Ice can become liquid and liquid can become vapor.    But the Father never becomes the Son, nor does the Son ever become the Holy Spirit. They are fundamentally distinct from one another regardless of how we may or may not perceive them.
If you say you are seeing/understanding one thing in three different ways then the only true distinction between Father, Son and Spirit exists within your own perception. In reality, there is still only one thing.   The Trinity in contrast to this is about pointing out three things, calling them three things and then incontestably stringing them together as part of the immutable nature of the single omnipotent God.
And the irony of all this is that while the Trinity seeks to describe the immutable nature of God, your explanation of the Trinity would deny his immutable nature.
As screwtape said:

-snip-
...you are talking about the alleged omnipotent creator of all being... That we need to put three different labels on it indicates we really have no idea what we are talking about...

But like I said, it's a step in the right direction. So while this view and your analogy might make enough sense to appear convincing, it ultimately fails because it describes God and the Christ as perceived by the Christian, making no real affirmative statements about what they are in reality.
 1. This I realize could bring us into a very long and particularly unpleasant argument.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Azdgari on May 07, 2013, 11:58:37 PM
... it ultimately fails because it describes God and the Christ as perceived by the Christian, making no real affirmative statements about what they are in reality.

Since all that can be observed about this god is what is perceived by the Christian, is it even honest to go on and make affirmative statements about it beyond those boundaries?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 08, 2013, 02:11:37 AM
Why is it silly? We talk about many things that don't have physical stats of matter, and yet use our physical experiences to talk about them. When we talk about proving things we often try to corroborate different ways to experience something to show its authenticity. "Wind" for example. We can't see it - be we can see it's effect. Wind has no temperature - but we experience the cold or warmth that is carried in it. Wind has no smell, no taste, and no physical matter to speak of - yet we talk about how we experience the feeling of wind, the smells of wind, and the tastes carried in the wind. The way we experience things is paramount to our understanding of things. No one would say the wind doesn't exist.

We experience God in many ways. The Bible is writings about people's experience of God and in them God is talked about in many different ways. Now the trinity refers to God in more than just experience - in other words this is just a small part of it. The trinity is also about relationship, about love, about the incarnation (Jesus coming into humanity), and about spiritual things which most nonbelievers would immediately refuse as an answer.

So to stay with the analogy - this is simply a way to talk about how and why Christians refer to God as the trinity. The question is not how can 1+1+1=3, the question is solve A+B+C=God.

I will however concede that humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator.

Wesley,
First, thanks for responding and welcome to WWGHA Forums. As you may have already noticed, many of us are former believers and used to believe like you - until later discovering these views to be irrational. With that said, let me address at least two points you have made above.

1. Your wind analogy is another faulty one (in addition to the faulty water analogy - which I myself used to ascribe). Wind does in fact have "physical matter". It is, in fact, physical and it can be demonstrated as such. Is it your contention that non-believers in your religion think that we must always see things with our eyes to justify thinking they are real? I don't think one scientist I've ever heard of thinks this way. Your analogies fail because both water and wind can be DEMONSTRATED. The alleged deity "thing" named "Yahweh" that you believe in cannot.

2. You made the statement that, "humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator". There are at least two major problems here. For one, you've contradicted yourself quite directly. Which is it? Does humanity have the capacity to understand this "God", or does it not? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, if humanity does not have the capacity to understand this "thing" then why are you believing in it?? Can you see how this sounds like class A credulity? You have a presumption that your bible is "the word of God" (indeed a pre-commitment) and now you're trying to defend it. But how is that a good thing? Don't you find this approach just a little bit backwards?

Finally, anyone can makeup just about any term (such as "God the omnipotent creator") and then claim that, "Well, it's real but we just can't understand it." What if I said, "Hey, Blark the Magnificent Schmarbelfarben is real! But you just can't understand cause you're not like him." Wouldn't you be thinking, "WTF? Is this guy nuts?" So too, we find these assertions about your deity equally as preposterous and nuts. Can you see why?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: magicmiles on May 08, 2013, 02:24:04 AM

I will however concede that humanity doesn't and cannot have the ability to fully understand or not-understand what we are talking about when we talk about God the omnipotent creator.




Does humanity have the capacity to understand this "God", or does it not? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, if humanity does not have the capacity to understand this "thing"

Bold = mine.

Strawman = Median's

You knew he said "fully understand" (or should have) because you took the time to isolate the sentence. So why did you then proceed as if he admitted that it wasn't possiible to understand God at all?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on May 08, 2013, 02:51:29 AM
magicmiles:  The original statement was poorly-worded.  Fully understand or not-understand isn't totally clear on its meaning.  So median asked if humans have the capacity to understand God, or if they don't, to clarify what he meant.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: magicmiles on May 08, 2013, 03:13:05 AM
^ Yep, on further readings I think I've been too harsh.

And so Median, I apologise and retract my accusation of strawman. I will ask a moderator to remove that smite.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: sun_king on May 08, 2013, 10:23:48 AM
<snip>
H20 - water is one thing. Yet we understand water in 3 forms - liquid, ice, and steam. Each is H20, yet we experience it in different ways.
God - God is one. Yet we understand God in 3 ways - Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. Each is God, yet we experience God in different ways.

Not at the same time. You cannot have H20 in all the three states at the same time. Since you made this analogy, mind explaining when this god is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? And why the need for the three different forms?

I know of a few triple changer Decepticons, they change forms for a reason. I see no reason for the omnipotent to have this limitation.

What can Jesus do that YHWH can't?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 10:36:58 AM
Not at the same time. You cannot have H20 in all the three states at the same time. Since you made this analogy, mind explaining when this god is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? And why the need for the three different forms?

I know of a few triple changer Decepticons, they change forms for a reason. I see no reason for the omnipotent to have this limitation.

What can Jesus do that YHWH can't?
The analogy also breaks down because it is much closer to being analogous to a pantheon of gods - I don't know if it makes sense to think of the 'phase of matter' of a single water molecule[1].

With a pantheon, you could sorta shoe-horn the analogy in there - 'Jesus' is when Zeus, Thor, and Loki are all being really nice to each other; 'God' is when Zeus, Omnipotus, and The Living Tribunal are all in a huff fighting with each other being angry; 'The Holy Spirit' is when Thor, Shaggy, and Daphne are in a more somber mood and feel like asking if C-A-T really spelled 'dog'.
 1. Does someone more smarter than me actually know if phase-state applies to single molecules?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on May 08, 2013, 10:52:48 AM
Quote
The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373 atm). At that point, it is possible to change all of the substance to ice, water, or vapor by making arbitrarily small changes in pressure and temperature.
[wiki]Triple point[/wiki]

; )

Therefore there is a god who is 3 sorts of god. The earlier god, Yahweh kept his son, Jesus, a secret until the New Testament. They all live in heaven. Jesus sits at the right hand of the God of which He is a part, his official title is "Word". The god on Word's left is Yahweh. Yahweh has an "aura" that has a mind of its own and does things (mainly language skills and healing and moving mountains.) The position of this "aura" is subject to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty but you know when you have it.

The job of them all is "to bear record in heaven," Bearing record in heaven is a bit difficult to understand and it takes three to do it (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one." 1 John 5:7-8)

Now, what's complicated about that?

As Holybuckets will say, "Prove to me that that is not true!"
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Azdgari on May 08, 2013, 11:09:22 AM
Does someone more smarter than me actually know if phase-state applies to single molecules?

I can't speak to being smarter, but I do know that phase states do not apply to single molecules.  Phase refers to the relative structure of molecules, and if there's one, there's no structure.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 11:18:26 AM
Does someone more smarter than me actually know if phase-state applies to single molecules?

I can't speak to being smarter, but I do know that phase states do not apply to single molecules.  Phase refers to the relative structure of molecules, and if there's one, there's no structure.
That's what I thought.  Thanks!
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 11:40:06 AM
Thanks for welcoming me and thanks for the intellectual conversation - I hope I helping to make everyone think more fully through their arguments as you have all been helping me think through mine.


Wind does in fact have "physical matter". It is, in fact, physical and it can be demonstrated as such. Is it your contention that non-believers in your religion think that we must always see things with our eyes to justify thinking they are real? I don't think one scientist I've ever heard of thinks this way. Your analogies fail because both water and wind can be DEMONSTRATED. The alleged deity "thing" named "Yahweh" that you believe in cannot.

The problem here is that you guys are saying that I cannot use physical things to describe God and yet you are asking a physical question. How can 1+1+1=3.

As for demonstrating God directly where you must see God to understand it - you are right that I cannot. But as you have stated if there are other ways for me demonstrate God that do not have to yield to your senses then that is another story. I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people. Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, if humanity does not have the capacity to understand this "thing" then why are you believing in it??

Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.


Since you made this analogy, mind explaining when this god is Father, Son and Holy Spirit? And why the need for the three different forms?

Good point. Well first off in Genesis 1:1-2 we read about God creating the world (in Hebrew the word for God here is plural - not in the sense of multiple things, but like in many other languages the actual word is plural. Kind of like the word sheep - it is singular and plural at the same time). In verse 2 we read that the "spirit of God is hovering over the water." Thus in the beginning the Bible describes God and God's Spirit both active in the creation. In John 1:1 we read that the "Word" (meaning Jesus) was with God in the beginning. So the Father, Spirit, and Jesus were all together in the beginning. Here are two quick examples in Scripture where God, Jesus, and Spirit are together in the same place at the same time.

As far why they need different forms. God does need and cannot be in different forms and is not limited to it. God could have just simply wiped out sin, but God chose to use the example of his Son Jesus (in Jewish culture the first born son is literally a part of the Father and is why the son is given the rights to the entire inheritance). The Spirit is God with us. This is not a different form of God - it is literally the way we as humans have come to understand God's daily help as God walks with us. So there are no different forms - they are only different ways we experience (maybe a better word is perceive) God.

The whole point of the water analogy is not to show different forms - but to show that we understand the trinity as God is one and the other parts of the trinity are simply the ways we perceive God.

Again here you are asking for a physical explanation to the trinity and the trinity is not a physical question nor is it a philosophical question - it is a theological question. And theologically the very question is incorrect. It is not 1+1+1=3. It is A+B+C=God. We must understand God as Father, Jesus, and Spirit as all together, for they make up what we as humans have perceived and understand about God.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 12:15:01 PM
Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.
The comparison of 'understanding of evolution' and 'understanding of god' isn't particularly valid.  You are correct insofar as we do not have a full understanding of the process of evolution.  It also certainly possible that we will never be able to get a full understanding.  But there is at least some understanding of the process of evolution...I just don't think you can say the same thing for the concept of god(s).  For any particular aspect of god that you could claim to understand, I would bet dollars-to-donuts that you could find someone who's understanding of that aspect is contradictory and mutually exclusive to yours.  And the both of you would have no referent in objective reality to determine which, if either of you, have anything remotely close to a correct understanding of that aspect.

Furthermore, we have rational justification to believe that our understanding of evolution is changing and getting better as we engage it more.  The amount of data that the theory of evolution explains today is greater than the amount of data it explained 10 years ago, which was greater than the amount of data it explained 50 years ago, etc.  The same cannot be said for the concept of 'god'.  The current 'understanding' of god explains the same amount of data it did 10, 50, 100, 1000, 10000 years ago...which is pretty much 'none'.

I shouldn't really expect or need to fully understand god to be able to make a distinction between that entity's existence vs. non-existence, right?  Shouldn't that level of understanding really be the absolute bare minimum required level before you can possibly make a decision to 'believe in it' or not?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on May 08, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
Thanks for welcoming me and thanks for the intellectual conversation - I hope I helping to make everyone think more fully through their arguments as you have all been helping me think through mine.

I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people.
Hmmm...(i) there are probably solid reasons for all of those but, do you think that Hindus could say the same thing? (ii) Why would that indicate there is a god?

Quote
Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.

What is a spiritual question? As I see it, it would be one on e.g. the subject of human behaviour to which the questioner does not know the answer (although other people might) and assumes (for no good reason) that the answer to the question is divine intervention. Of course, if we assume divine intervention, we have assumed a god who can intervene.

Am I correct?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 12:37:32 PM

I just don't think you can say the same thing for the concept of god(s).  For any particular aspect of god that you could claim to understand, I would bet dollars-to-donuts that you could find someone who's understanding of that aspect is contradictory and mutually exclusive to yours.  And the both of you would have no referent in objective reality to determine which, if either of you, have anything remotely close to a correct understanding of that aspect.

I shouldn't really expect or need to fully understand god to be able to make a distinction between that entity's existence vs. non-existence, right?  Shouldn't that level of understanding really be the absolute bare minimum required level before you can possibly make a decision to 'believe in it' or not?


It depends on your definition of understanding. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. There are currently more people in the world who believe in God than don't. In fact, in all of human history more people believe (and many willing to die for those beliefs) than who don't by astonishing numbers (billions more have believed than have not). Including some leaders in science, philosophy, and physiology. So while there are many people who have a contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs than mine - Christians have billions of others who believe (have the same understanding) of the same foundational principals, such as the trinity. So I could argue that we (the combined thought of humanity) have far more understanding about God than we do about evolution or other physical scientific things. Then again we get to the same point - the trinity is a theological and spiritual thing - you are talking about a physical understanding. So while your mutually exclusive reason may preclude the existence of God - I could point to billions of others who have enough understanding to believe in that bare-minimum and more.

In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 12:45:26 PM

What is a spiritual question? As I see it, it would be one on e.g. the subject of human behaviour to which the questioner does not know the answer (although other people might) and assumes (for no good reason) that the answer to the question is divine intervention. Of course, if we assume divine intervention, we have assumed a god who can intervene.

Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. To ask a question about God - you must have some sort of belief in God (or at least that there could be God). And every example that anyone could give would be accepted or rejected by someone on their presupposition that God exists. That is my point entirely. You are all asking questions about the workings of something that you think doesn't exist. Therefore any analogy, example, or demonstration that I could attempt to give is rejected by on the merits of your believes. This thread asks a spiritual question (the trinity) - and I gave a spiritual answer. You either have to judge it on a spiritual level or not at all. To judge it on a different level presupposes a question and an answer on a different level.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 08, 2013, 12:51:39 PM

As for demonstrating God directly where you must see God to understand it - you are right that I cannot. But as you have stated if there are other ways for me demonstrate God that do not have to yield to your senses then that is another story. I could share stories of healing, of people dropping an addictive habit on the spot, of people praising in the midst of persecution, of families being reunited, we could study the interstices of an atom, the birth of a baby, or a million other things that has demonstrated God to certain people. Again either we must ask a physical question and hunt for a physical answer - or we must ask a spiritual question and hunt for a spiritual answer. We cannot mix the two.
A few things here: First, if you can't demonstrate this alleged "Yahweh" thing, why are you believing in it and basing your entire life on it?? How is this any different from superstition? Did you ever wonder what religion you would be had you been born in India or Afghanistan? There is ample evidence that your culture strongly influences what religion you are (and what religious "experiences" you claim to have). It seems you are not being critical enough.

Two, the "evidences" you presented here are not evidence of the supernatural. They are based in the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. It's the, "I can't understand it any other way. Therefore it must have been God" argument. And that argument fails b/c it is irrational. Whether we're talking about alleged "healings", "cured" addictions, families being reunited, the atom, or anything else; absolutely NONE of those things point to a "Yahweh" deity, let alone some divine mind behind everything. Nature doesn't tell us how it got here until we investigate. As a side note, this is also known as the God of the Gaps argument. Any place that you don't understand something you say, "There! That must be God." No. It's not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where is your extraordinary evidence for this Yahweh thing? Because so far, this just sounds like credulity.



Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.
This is another false analogy. Evolution is DEMONSTRABLE. Your God is not. In fact, your alleged God cannot even be defined in any coherent way that makes sense. But evolution, on the other hand, can. So, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to draw a comparison between a scientific fact and the thing you believe in which cannot be separated from an imaginary friend.

Do you have any good reason for thinking there are "two planes" (especially some non-physical "spiritual" thing) other than your presumed acceptance of the bible as "the word of God"? All of these arguments are stemming directly from the assumption you made regarding the bible. Can you not see that? But that is really a terrible way to seek truth (i.e. - starting with your conclusion is backwards). What makes you think this "Yahweh" thing is real? In fact, what makes you think there is any such thing as "the spiritual"? Can you even define what that terms means?

TIP: Before responding, please contemplate that I will be looking for logical fallacies in your reasoning (i.e. circular reasoning, red herrings, arguments from ignorance, arguments from authority/popularity, strawman, question begging, etc).
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 08, 2013, 01:09:40 PM

Yes, you are correct. To ask a question about God - you must have some sort of belief in God (or at least that there could be God). And every example that anyone could give would be accepted or rejected by someone on their presupposition that God exists. That is my point entirely. You are all asking questions about the workings of something that you think doesn't exist. Therefore any analogy, example, or demonstration that I could attempt to give is rejected by on the merits of your believes. This thread asks a spiritual question (the trinity) - and I gave a spiritual answer. You either have to judge it on a spiritual level or not at all. To judge it on a different level presupposes a question and an answer on a different level.

How do you know it is a spiritual question? This is just another one of your assumptions. You assume it's a spiritual question. Indeed, you have assumed there is such a thing. It really makes no sense to say that in order to talk about a specific subject that such a "thing" must actually exist in reality. Humans talk about Santa Claus with kids all the time. Big deal. But you are mistaken that we "think God doesn't exist". That is an entirely different question. What most of us here think is that your beliefs (i.e. - theism) have not met their burden of proof (and we therefore withhold judgment). That is entirely different from saying we think it's "not true."

But, why are you accepting this belief system on such scanty arguments? Indeed, why even allow yourself to have this pre-commitment to it? Isn't that just absurd? What was your experience when you were growing up? Did your parents raise you to be Christian? Did you have people around you (in your region) that influenced you to believe in the bible (and the doctrine of the trinity, etc)?? How you answer these questions should really shed light on how much confirmation bias you are willing to practice.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 01:24:08 PM
A few things here: First, if you can't demonstrate this alleged "Yahweh" thing, why are you believing in it and basing your entire life on it?? How is this any different from superstition? Did you ever wonder what religion you would be had you been born in India or Afghanistan? There is ample evidence that your culture strongly influences what religion you are (and what religious "experiences" you claim to have).

It seems you think I was born in a the western world and raised Christian. These are presuppositions on your part and you may be interested in my heritage as it is not what you think it is (nor is this the place for that discussion).

Quote
This is another false analogy. Evolution is DEMONSTRABLE. Your God is not. In fact, your alleged God cannot even be defined in any coherent way that makes sense. But evolution, on the other hand, can.

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

Quote
All of these arguments are stemming directly from the assumption you made regarding the bible. Can you not see that? But that is really a terrible way to seek truth (i.e. - starting with your conclusion is backwards). What makes you think this "Yahweh" thing is real? In fact, what makes you think there is any such thing as "the spiritual"? Can you even define what that terms means?


I do believe the Bible is real and use I can see that my arguments all stem out of my believe of that Bible. We could argue for years about the authority of the Bible, the archeological, historical, and yes even scientific evidence the Bible shows - but that would be vein as many can't get over the miraculous (or spiritual) aspects of the Bible. Yet, this thread asked a question about the Bible and is in a section called Biblical Contradictions - yet I am not supposed to use the Bible - can you see the falicy in that?

To define spiritual the dictionary says: Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Azdgari on May 08, 2013, 01:28:26 PM
You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

And what's in the Bible can be tested against what we know of reality, to see if it's true.

As it turns out, the parts we can test about what "God" has done, aren't true.  The book of Genesis is the prime example of this.

To keep with your analogy, the Bible is like a faked scientific experiment that has since been falsified.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 08, 2013, 01:33:57 PM
(in Hebrew the word for God here is plural - not in the sense of multiple things, but like in many other languages the actual word is plural. Kind of like the word sheep - it is singular and plural at the same time)

Incorrect.  The singular is "el".  The plural version is "elohim", meaning "the lords".  It is a trace of hebrew/ canaanite polytheism.  There are more remnants of that in genesis, where god is referred to in the plural 5 times, if my memory is correct.  One case is when Eve and her dim-witted mate eat the fruit of moral knowledge.  god exclaims "“See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;".  Us, precious?  Who is us?  Why, the other gods, of course.  The elohim.

It is known that el and yhwh - the two distinct gods of the peoples of Israel and judah, respectively - were members of a pantheon of canaanite gods which included Baal, Yam, yhwh's wife, Asherah,[1] and a few other assorted gods who are also mentioned in the OT.   

In verse 2 we read that the "spirit of God is hovering over the water." Thus in the beginning the Bible describes God and God's Spirit both active in the creation.

Eh, maybe, maybe not. The word used for "spirit" is "ruwach" and has many meanings.[2]  The possible meanings are, breath, wind, wind of heaven, breath of air, air, gas, vain, empty thing, spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation), spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour, courage,  temper, anger, impatience, patience, spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented), disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse, prophetic spirit, to name but a few.  So for you to conclusively link spirit in this case to the spirit spoken of in the NT, would be to stand on much less solid ground that you represent.

In fact, not all bibles even say "spirit". Some say "a wind".

 
 1. Yeah, yhwh was married.
 2. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7307&t=KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7307&t=KJV)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 01:42:36 PM
Sorry I did no see this before my last reply.

Quote


How do you know it is a spiritual question? This is just another one of your assumptions. You assume it's a spiritual question. Indeed, you have assumed there is such a thing. It really makes no sense to say that in order to talk about a specific subject that such a "thing" must actually exist in reality. Humans talk about Santa Claus with kids all the time. Big deal. But you are mistaken that we "think God doesn't exist". That is an entirely different question. What most of us here think is that your beliefs (i.e. - theism) have not met their burden of proof (and we therefore withhold judgment). That is entirely different from saying we think it's "not true."

You are right and I was wrong in deeming everyone atheist when you are in fact agnostic. If you in-fact believe that there might be a God then we can talk about spiritual things. Again, I am new - so sorry for this mix up.

Quote
But, why are you accepting this belief system on such scanty arguments? Indeed, why even allow yourself to have this pre-commitment to it? Isn't that just absurd? What was your experience when you were growing up? Did your parents raise you to be Christian? Did you have people around you (in your region) that influenced you to believe in the bible (and the doctrine of the trinity, etc)?? How you answer these questions should really shed light on how much confirmation bias you are willing to practice.

Well first and foremost I base my beliefs on a lot of arguments (not just scanty ones) and those would talk months and pages to fill up. I was only focusing on the trinity as that was the question.

I came to my belief in Christianity not because I was raised it, or because I was told to. Because Christianity is everywhere in the worlds of course people believed in Christ around me - it would impossible to go somewhere this is not so. I came to my believes by studying the Bible and other writings for years. I have a degree in philosophy and a graduate degree in theology. I have traveled to many countries in the world and have studied many different religions. I came to my belief because I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe. I looked through ht possible options and found that the Bible describes a God capable of those feelings and still holds up to extreme scrutiny. I studied it further and have sense seen God work in my life. I have seen someone crippled, who was prayed for, then stood up. I have also seen people prayed for and not healed. I don't completely understand why - but I also understand that I am not God nor am I as smart as God.

I know this isn't reason or an intellectual answer - but you asked about my journey and so I shared a small part of it. I don't think I will change our minds - I simply hope to add something to the discussion so that iron my sharpen iron and that we all may grow stronger in our beliefs whatever they may be.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
It depends on your definition of understanding. Christianity has been around for 2000 years. There are currently more people in the world who believe in God than don't. In fact, in all of human history more people believe (and many willing to die for those beliefs) than who don't by astonishing numbers (billions more have believed than have not). Including some leaders in science, philosophy, and physiology. So while there are many people who have a contradictory and mutually exclusive beliefs than mine - Christians have billions of others who believe (have the same understanding) of the same foundational principals, such as the trinity. So I could argue that we (the combined thought of humanity) have far more understanding about God than we do about evolution or other physical scientific things. Then again we get to the same point - the trinity is a theological and spiritual thing - you are talking about a physical understanding. So while your mutually exclusive reason may preclude the existence of God - I could point to billions of others who have enough understanding to believe in that bare-minimum and more.
Are you sure about that 'billions of others who believe (have the same understanding)' thing?  If that were the case, wouldn't you and the other billion or so people be able to give a coherent explanation of the nature of the trinity?  What percentage of those billion or so people do you think simply accept the truth-value of 'trinity' concept without understanding it?

And truth be told, I'm not talking about physical understanding.  I'm talking about understanding, period.  Similarly to being able to understand the concept of a geometric series for example, or what a number is, I make no prejudicial requirements that all things worthy of understanding have a concrete, tangible embodiment.
Quote
In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?
For things that are not imaginary the common ground is objective reality.  If there is such a concept of 'spirituality', and if that concept is real, then it is an aspect of objective reality, in the same way that 'physical' things are an aspect of objective reality.  I do not see the value in categorizing different aspects of reality as 'spiritual' or 'physical'.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 08, 2013, 01:48:01 PM
You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state.

It sounds to me like you either do not understand evolution or you are trying to make a bad analogy work despite it failing to convey the point you want.  Either way, you should probably let this one go.   

Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God.

I am a mechanical engineer.  I can make steel do things.  I can utilize physical laws (like those that govern evolution) to produce things I want.  I have a degree of control over nature in that regard.  That does not make me equal to it or greater than it.  I am categorically different than steel or natural laws.  To say they and I are equal or greater is...silly.  Your equivalencies are superficially deep.  When you look more closely at them, they are meaningless, at best. 

Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

Is it just those things in the bible we should believe, or will any old myth or legend work?



btw, you sound like an old Hindu man.  That's neither an insult nor a compliment. Just an observation.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on May 08, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
Evolution is widely believed in all scientific circles - even though we will understand more about it tomorrow than we do today. In fact because we cannot travel back see the beginning of evolution we will never fully understand evolution - yet most of the world believes in it without question. That is simply what I mean about God. We understand God with our finite brains and therefore cannot fully understand the infinite God. That does not mean we cannot believe in God - just simply we must understand that our understanding of God and who God actually is are on 2 different planes. In other words if you actually could know everything about God then would God really be God? I didn't mean we cannot understand God (I was actually using someone else's language), i was saying we can't fully understand God and therefore must not expect a full explanation about God.
It's not the same thing at all.  We can observe clear evidence that shows that evolution occurs and has occurred, and we can demonstrate that this evidence can't reasonably be taken to mean that something besides evolution occurred.  That's why evolution is commonly accepted as true, because the evidence supports it.

So, where is the evidence that shows that your god exists and has existed?  Where is your demonstration that shows that this evidence points to your god and not to some other explanation?

To put it another way, if your god exists, there will be physical evidence to show that fact.  You can use that evidence to demonstrate the existence of your god to others.  Yet, time and time again, Christians like yourself either use ambiguous 'evidence' that could mean anything, ambiguous analogies that only have metaphorical meaning, or ambiguous testimonials which are seldom reliable.  If people used that kind of evidence in support of evolution, people would be right to reject it.  But evolution isn't supported by that sort of weak evidence, it's supported by things that actually exist and thus can be demonstrated to others.

My point is that you can't really compare evolution and your god, because evolution can be demonstrated and verified by others.  So far, nobody's managed to demonstrate your god in ways which can be verified by anyone else.  If there is a demonstration, it's either subjective (and thus fundamentally unverifiable), or it's very very scanty on actual evidence which could be used to verify it (such as faith healing).
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 01:56:57 PM
Quote

And what's in the Bible can be tested against what we know of reality, to see if it's true.

As it turns out, the parts we can test about what "God" has done, aren't true.  The book of Genesis is the prime example of this.

To keep with your analogy, the Bible is like a faked scientific experiment that has since been falsified.

If you think Genesis is supposed to scientific then you are mistaken. It is not science every major theologian agrees on that. It is a narrative about Gods creating the universe and humanity, about humanities free-will and its desire to not follow God. This is however not about the trinity so I will stop. In fact many new studies have shown great correlation between what we know about evolution and Genesis especially if it is taken from a functional-ontological (creation as given function - such as seasons, plant growth, etc...) point of view, which is widely held in the intellectual Christian community.

The Bible is accurate in archeology, in historical people and place. It also has great textual-criticism (another topic). It called the Earth round and said is was suspended in nothing 2000 years before others believed it (we thought the Earth was flat on the back of a guy named Atlas). It talked about separating people who are sick (a thing which took us thousands of years to come to understand and because of it thousands of people died of diseases). It talks about blood being the life-giver to the body, even though until the last 300 years we thought blood was bad. I could go on, but this is no longer in the realm of this topic.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: sun_king on May 08, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
I looked through ht possible options and found that the Bible describes a God capable of those feelings and still holds up to extreme scrutiny.

What makes YHWH better than Brahma when it comes to Ex nihilo?

Bible holding up to scrutiny???? What kind of scrutiny?

Screwtape, I know a lot of old Hindu's, they went over to Christianity just for the money.

PS: Wesley You may need to check your quoting
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tonus on May 08, 2013, 02:01:33 PM
In other words your definition of understand is mutually exclusive to you and mine to me. What makes yours more valid than mine? What therefore is the common ground to which we all have in understanding?

Is it really the case that we each have our own unique way of understanding the universe, and that these are exclusive?  If that is the case, then no two people would ever agree on the nature of the universe and the world we live in.

However, I think there is a grain of truth in that concept.  People who believe in god have not been able to settle the issue of which god is the correct one to believe in.  Some people feel that as long as you live a "good life" it doesn't matter, while others think that it is critically important to worship the right one, and still others are adamant that it isn't enough to identify the correct deity-- you must worship him in a very specific and exact way, or your eternal soul may be at risk of horrible punishment.  While there may be more people throughout history who have believed in "god" than have not, all of our efforts to identify him clearly and in a manner that would allow humanity to properly thank him for all he has done for us have come to naught.

On the other hand, as we have developed the scientific method and researched the various branches of science, we are coming together in our understanding of how the world and the universe work.  In doing so, we have unraveled a lot of the myths and misunderstandings that men used to ascribe to gods and demons and provided natural explanations that can be tested and verified and refined with more knowledge and data.  And so, while there may be a difference in understanding between believers and non-believers, I don't think it's fair to pretend that they're equally valid.  One form of understanding remains fragmented after thousands and thousands of years of searching and learning, the other not only unifies people, but provides testable theories that allow us to progress and do amazing things (technology, medicine, etc).

No one needs to try and convince you that he saw this incredible miracle where he was able to view a baseball game on a large flat pane of glass hung on the wall; just this silly description should be enough for you to think "oh, he was watching the game on a flat-panel television."  The technology is so ubiquitous that we consider it mundane now, but no matter how amazing, it can be demonstrated and the particulars can be used to build more of them, and they work as expected!  But when it comes to supernatural miracles, we are left with a version of "take my word for it" because no one seems able to demonstrate them in a manner that is repeatable or even recordable.  That is a significant difference, to me.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on May 08, 2013, 02:02:18 PM
Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man.

Wesley, you're actually wrong about this -- We have quite a considerable amount of control over evolution.  Scientists (including My own brother, who works in immunology and cancer research) can actually influence the development of divergent populations by placing organisms in different chemical environments.

You see, genetic structures are not as black-and-white as all that.  They are not cookie cutters that produce identical output 100% of the time.  Depending on the presence or absence of certain proteins in their proximity, genetic alleles can switch on or off as their chemical bonds are "masked" in whole or in part by overlapping chains of organic molecules, making a heritable trait more or less available for replication.  If a trait is masked out, say by adding more of a certain amino acid to the mix, it will not be passed down to the offspring.

Quote
So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.

If it cannot be answered by physical evidence, and can only be addressed via a thought experiment, why should we think that your god is any more than a thought experiment?  No physical traces and no confirmed influence on the physical universe  -> Subjective and possibly imaginary until otherwise demonstrated.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 08, 2013, 02:14:36 PM
It seems you think I was born in a the western world and raised Christian. These are presuppositions on your part and you may be interested in my heritage as it is not what you think it is (nor is this the place for that discussion).

Wrong again. I was asking you a question. Nearly every major culture across the globe are riddled with superstitious dogma. Cultures all over the world raise their kids to believe in at least some form of superstitious ideology (Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, the ancient pagan cults, etc). What makes you think you are exempt from this?

You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated. For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man. Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man. If man could change evolution - then evolution would not exist in its current state. Yet, you ask Christians to call on God and for God to give you a demonstration. God is greater than humanity, if humanity could make God do something - then humanity would be equal to God and God would not be God. Therefore we can only use past demonstrations of God as perceived by human experience. Those things passed orally and through writing have come to be known as the Bible.

You are absolutely 100% wrong. And what this part of your response displays is that you do not understand the science of evolution (monkey into a man...really?). We CAN, in fact, demonstrate evolution right now. Have you ever heard of artificial selection, speciation, selective pressure, or genetic fusion? Evolution can be, and has been, demonstrated in a lab on numerous occasions. Go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5)

But all of these attempts to compare your alleged God to what can be demonstrated in science doesn't help your case. Why? Because this Yahweh thing you believe in is nowhere near demonstrable (in any way shape or form). And since you haven't even attempted to define what you're talking about when you use this term "God", there is really no reason whatever to think that you are making any sense at all. Anyone could makeup any word for any mythical creature they believe in, and then claim that it is similar to proving (for example) gravity. But the problem is that each time we show how this analogy fails, you move the goal post. Nature is not "God". So just pointing to unlikely or unexplained events doesn't, in any way, point to your God. It actually points to a human being who is willing to be gullible in order to protect a pre-commitment he has regarding his beliefs.

I do believe the Bible is real and use I can see that my arguments all stem out of my believe of that Bible. We could argue for years about the authority of the Bible, the archeological, historical, and yes even scientific evidence the Bible shows - but that would be vein as many can't get over the miraculous (or spiritual) aspects of the Bible. Yet, this thread asked a question about the Bible and is in a section called Biblical Contradictions - yet I am not supposed to use the Bible - can you see the falicy in that?
I asked you a separate question which did not pertain to the trinity. In fact, my question was more fundamental. I'm asking you to put aside the bible and demonstrate this alleged God you say you think exists, and whom you think you have a "relationship" with. If you can't demonstrate it (which I'm pretty sure you admitted to earlier), then why are believing this thing? In other words, why did you believe in the first place? What made you believe this bible was "divine"?

To define spiritual the dictionary says: Of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. So when you ask a question about God (the trinity) it is relating the human spirit or soul (because God is a relational being) and therefore cannot be answered by physical evidence.

The definition you provided here is also incoherent (and circular). Attempting to define a spirit as "a spirit" is a logical tautology. It tells us nothing about anything. I'm asking a different question. What is a spirit/soul? What is it's nature/essence? I am looking for primary characteristics (not secondary things like "what it does" or "Here's what it is not") because, thus far, I've never seen any definition that makes any sense at all. It's like trying to give a definition for "Blark Schmarbelfarben" as the most contradictory Schmark-Blark that can still exist.

In other words, not all words actually refer to anything in reality (such as Santa, unicorn, etc). What reason/evidence do you have for thinking that the term "spirit" refers to anything real? HINT: An argument from ignorance will not be sufficient.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 02:24:32 PM
Wesley, you're actually wrong about this -- We have quite a considerable amount of control over evolution.  Scientists (including My own brother, who works in immunology and cancer research) can actually influence the development of divergent populations by placing organisms in different chemical environments.

You see, genetic structures are not as black-and-white as all that.  They are not cookie cutters that produce identical output 100% of the time.  Depending on the presence or absence of certain proteins in their proximity, genetic alleles can switch on or off as their chemical bonds are "masked" in whole or in part by overlapping chains of organic molecules, making a heritable trait more or less available for replication.  If a trait is masked out, say by adding more of a certain amino acid to the mix, it will not be passed down to the offspring.
Other cogent examples of human-influenced evolution would be bananas, animal breeding programs, and nylon-eating bacteria.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 08, 2013, 02:31:33 PM
You are right and I was wrong in deeming everyone atheist when you are in fact agnostic. If you in-fact believe that there might be a God then we can talk about spiritual things. Again, I am new - so sorry for this mix up.

Actually, there is a very common confusion here. Atheism and Agnosticism coexist. They are NOT exclusive. Theism/Atheism go to what one claims to believe - while Gnosticism/Agnosticism go to what one claims to know. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God. That is all. It is nothing more. If someone says, "I know there is no God" then they are a Gnostic Atheist. So there are four possible categories:

1. Gnostic Theist
2. Agnostic Theist
3. Gnostic Atheist
4. Agnostic Atheist

Well first and foremost I base my beliefs on a lot of arguments (not just scanty ones) and those would talk months and pages to fill up. I was only focusing on the trinity as that was the question.

I came to my belief in Christianity not because I was raised it, or because I was told to. Because Christianity is everywhere in the worlds of course people believed in Christ around me - it would impossible to go somewhere this is not so. I came to my believes by studying the Bible and other writings for years. I have a degree in philosophy and a graduate degree in theology. I have traveled to many countries in the world and have studied many different religions. I came to my belief because I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe. I looked through ht possible options and found that the Bible describes a God capable of those feelings and still holds up to extreme scrutiny. I studied it further and have sense seen God work in my life. I have seen someone crippled, who was prayed for, then stood up. I have also seen people prayed for and not healed. I don't completely understand why - but I also understand that I am not God nor am I as smart as God.

But Wes (I hope it's OK if I call you Wes), this does not answer my question. Were you raised in a Christian home? What did the people who raised you, teach you in this regard? See, you said something very telling just a second ago. You said, "I came t the conclusion there that had to be a creative force behind the universe." But how exactly did you get from this conclusion to "the bible is the word of God"? Was there one particular argument that was the King-Pin? If so, what was it?

I am certainly interested to hear an allegedly "A Game" argument that made you a theist but (as you might guess) it is quite hard to imagine that you came to believe in a deity solely due to an argument (or group thereof). It is far more likely that you were preconditioned to believe and that you were in a prepared psychological state of acceptance. However, I won't make a judgment on that until I hear from you.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 08, 2013, 02:37:04 PM
If you think Genesis is supposed to scientific then you are mistaken.

If genesis says things about the world - for example, there was a worldwide flood - then those statements can be subject to the scientific method to determine their truth value.  Genesis says many things about the world, and thus, can be subjected to scrutiny. 

It is not science every major theologian agrees on that.

You are incorrect.  There are a lot of stupid xians who think it is.

It is a narrative about Gods creating the universe and humanity,

That would be subject to verification by the scientific method.  It does not pass muster.

The Bible is accurate in archeology, 

Incorrect. It is hit and miss.  Mostly miss, especially when it comes to the big, theatrical kinds of events, like exodus.



Screwtape, I know a lot of old Hindu's, they went over to Christianity just for the money.

lol.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on May 08, 2013, 02:37:10 PM
You can demonstrate evolution - but you can call on it to be demonstrated.

That is incorrect: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22039872

Quote
For instance you cannot make a monkey turn into a man.

Men were never monkeys and monkeys were never men, no sensible person has ever claimed that. The most notable person to claim it was a bishop who was obviously steeped in biblical thought -> the religious, eh? What can we do with them? How can we help them understand the wonder of the world?

I think your preconceptions need adjusting to fit in with 21st century knowledge.

Quote
Humanity has no control over evolution - evolution it greater than man.

I assume that you have heard of genetic engineering? That is human involvement in evolution.

I always say that god is our ignorance. What we do not know, we attribute to gods - at least, some of us do.

 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 02:49:29 PM
This must be my last reply today as I am getting on a plane in a few minutes. Sorry I cannot respond to everyone. Let me simply share a few things, then you guys can bash them while I am on a plane.

1. You are right you can demonstrate micro-evolution and it was a bad analogy - sorry (however it might still work with macro-evolution - but I will concede this for the sake of argument). I was simply trying to show how it is impossible for us to demonstrate God because we are created by God and have no power to make God do things.

2. As for spiritual things it seems that the thought of this group is that all things deemed spiritual are silly and therefore not allowed in an argument. I understand but also ask you to think about what you can actually objectively observe. You see a bird. But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc... In this you see that philosophically everything at some point has to be accepted on a personal understanding of reason. (Many argue that many people see the bird - so it is real - but how do you know that many people are real). You think the bird is there is true because you believe your sense of sight, or maybe touch and sound. You believe that evolution is real (and by the way I have never said it is not) because you believe in the scientific process's that have shown evolution. I believe that God is real because my personal understanding of reason allows me to separate physical and spiritual.

3. As for the Trinity (the original post) from the earliest of church fathers humans have struggled on how the trinity works. It is part church dogma, it is completely doctrine, and is has its foundations in the Bible. But never the less, if you don't think God is real, then why do you care about the Trinity. I would rather you decide if there is a God. If there is not - then it doesn't matter. If there is, then the arguments of spirit, the Bible and others will take on new light. But as for Christians we understand the trinity as this: God is one, we as humans perceive God through our experiences which have shown the collect Christian body that God is Father, God is Jesus, and God is spirit. These are ways in which we understand God - they are not different Gods.

4. As to what helped to become a theist. It was a long process (about 10 years of various studies) and there was no one thing that led me to believe that there was a God. It was studying the complexities in science and seeing how in-probable it was that it was all random. This lead me to a creator entity. That lead me to study who this entity was and there was no answer untell I studied textual-criticism of the Bible and other things which lead me believe the disciples saw a risen King and because of that they were willing to die to stand up for what they believe in.

I guess at some level I have to take it on faith. But so do you. You believe in the Big Bang theory, but if you follow it all the way down you get to - where did the particles come from, magnetic fields, where did magnetic fields come from, laws of physics, where did the laws of physics come from - and you have to faith you will someday find an answer.

As more people are posting before I can even type responses I will hold off on talking about Genesis, Archeology, and other things until they are in topics and posts that we can focus on just those things. Sorry I have to run.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: magicmiles on May 08, 2013, 02:55:45 PM
Good post Wes. I'm getting a plane this morning also, and I don't much like them.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 08, 2013, 03:02:49 PM
But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc...

dude, this losing argument leads to Last Tuesdayism - the belief that the entire universe was created last Tuesday, including us, with memories of our lives pre-installed.   It is a solipsist argument and not worth discussing.


You believe in the Big Bang theory,

jesus christ.  Could you possibly drag out any more of these classic cliches?  No, we do not have faith in the big bang like you have faith in god.  The big bang is demonstrably true.  But if for some reason science finds a better explanation, I am willing to accept that answer instead.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: wesleythenazarene on May 08, 2013, 03:13:02 PM
Seriously last one, lol

Quote

No, we do not have faith in the big bang like you have faith in god.  The big bang is demonstrably true.  But if for some reason science finds a better explanation, I am willing to accept that answer instead.

Faith is trusting in something (at least that is the way I define it). And you just said that if science gives you a better explanation you would believe it - because science tells you so. So you have trust that science in right. Therefore you  have faith that science is right. It's still faith.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Azdgari on May 08, 2013, 03:58:08 PM
If faith means trust, then you should use the word "trust" as it is less ambiguous.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 04:06:10 PM
This must be my last reply today as I am getting on a plane in a few minutes. Sorry I cannot respond to everyone. Let me simply share a few things, then you guys can bash them while I am on a plane.

1. You are right you can demonstrate micro-evolution and it was a bad analogy - sorry (however it might still work with macro-evolution - but I will concede this for the sake of argument). I was simply trying to show how it is impossible for us to demonstrate God because we are created by God and have no power to make God do things.
But it's not necessary for us to make god do anything.  It is only necessary for us to come up with some manner of recognizing if god does something.  We certainly don't have any power or control over the moon, but we can certainly observe and measure the effects that it has.
Quote
2. As for spiritual things it seems that the thought of this group is that all things deemed spiritual are silly and therefore not allowed in an argument. I understand but also ask you to think about what you can actually objectively observe. You see a bird. But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc... In this you see that philosophically everything at some point has to be accepted on a personal understanding of reason. (Many argue that many people see the bird - so it is real - but how do you know that many people are real). You think the bird is there is true because you believe your sense of sight, or maybe touch and sound. You believe that evolution is real (and by the way I have never said it is not) because you believe in the scientific process's that have shown evolution. I believe that God is real because my personal understanding of reason allows me to separate physical and spiritual.
Do you have a process for separating the spiritual from the imaginary?
Quote
3. As for the Trinity (the original post) from the earliest of church fathers humans have struggled on how the trinity works. It is part church dogma, it is completely doctrine, and is has its foundations in the Bible. But never the less, if you don't think God is real, then why do you care about the Trinity. I would rather you decide if there is a God. If there is not - then it doesn't matter. If there is, then the arguments of spirit, the Bible and others will take on new light. But as for Christians we understand the trinity as this: God is one, we as humans perceive God through our experiences which have shown the collect Christian body that God is Father, God is Jesus, and God is spirit. These are ways in which we understand God - they are not different Gods.
But according to the Catholics they are distinct 'persons'.  It's difficult to determine whether the Catholic understanding of the Trinity jive with your understanding because...well, the concept, frankly, is just plain incoherent.  Three distinct entities that are in fact the same entity but still distinct just doesn't make sense in the same way that a 12-sided triangle doesn't make sense.  Or are we going to start discussing the merits of spiritually understanding 12-sided triangles and '7 + 4 = Balloons'?
Quote
4. As to what helped to become a theist. It was a long process (about 10 years of various studies) and there was no one thing that led me to believe that there was a God. It was studying the complexities in science and seeing how in-probable it was that it was all random. This lead me to a creator entity. That lead me to study who this entity was and there was no answer untell I studied textual-criticism of the Bible and other things which lead me believe the disciples saw a risen King and because of that they were willing to die to stand up for what they believe in.

I guess at some level I have to take it on faith. But so do you. You believe in the Big Bang theory, but if you follow it all the way down you get to - where did the particles come from, magnetic fields, where did magnetic fields come from, laws of physics, where did the laws of physics come from - and you have to faith you will someday find an answer.
Well, I have hope that someday humanity (or some other sentience) will find the answer.  And the questions you pose are indeed very interesting questions - all the more reason to not just make up an answer.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Bluecolour on May 08, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
^^Why have hope? What purpose does it serve?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on May 08, 2013, 08:25:10 PM
^^Why have hope? What purpose does it serve?
Well, it doesn't really serve any purpose per se.  To make me feel better I suppose, but nothing beyond that.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 09, 2013, 12:21:22 AM
1. You are right you can demonstrate micro-evolution and it was a bad analogy - sorry (however it might still work with macro-evolution - but I will concede this for the sake of argument). I was simply trying to show how it is impossible for us to demonstrate God because we are created by God and have no power to make God do things.

If it is impossible for you to demonstrate this God, how is this any different from not being able to demonstrate unicorns, fairies, or other gods? You keep throwing around this term "God" as if it actually refers to something, but you give no reason why we ought to think that it does (just like we have no reason for thinking the term "Santa Claus" refers to anything real). Do you see how this is no different from just being gullible and credulous?

2. As for spiritual things it seems that the thought of this group is that all things deemed spiritual are silly and therefore not allowed in an argument. I understand but also ask you to think about what you can actually objectively observe. You see a bird. But what makes you know the bird is real, you see it. But how can you trust your eyes, because you have seen other things. How do you know those other things were real...etc... In this you see that philosophically everything at some point has to be accepted on a personal understanding of reason. (Many argue that many people see the bird - so it is real - but how do you know that many people are real). You think the bird is there is true because you believe your sense of sight, or maybe touch and sound. You believe that evolution is real (and by the way I have never said it is not) because you believe in the scientific process's that have shown evolution. I believe that God is real because my personal understanding of reason allows me to separate physical and spiritual.

I didn't say you weren't allowed to use the term "spiritual" in an argument. All I'm saying is that if you do you're going to be pressed to demonstrate 1. a coherent definition of this "thing", and 2. how you know this thing is real. If you can't do those two things, then it is really hard to see why you are basing your entire life upon this belief. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We have seen nearly all the arguments for God, and they all fail at one point or another. It's time for demonstration! Not just talk.

Now, your response here regarding the epistemic question of certainty, along with ontology, brings to mind the famous term (which was utilized by the great philosopher David Hume) Skepticism! How do we "know" that birds actually exist. Well, that question depends highly upon what you mean by the word "know". So, of what are you speaking about? Put simply, in my terms, knowledge is justified true belief. That is, we can ascertain that something is most probably true if it can be demonstrated to us via the avenues of evidence and sound reasoning. It is really of no consequence to me if the bird happens to be a figment. At that point, who cares? However, this argument is hardly a good justification for "having faith" in your religion. I know so many Christians want so badly to put their beliefs on the same footing as science but that is absurd. Scientific facts are demonstrable (and they certainly don't require you to dedicate your life to them!), but your religion is NOT demonstrable. So again, they are not even in the same category and cannot rightly be stated as analogous.

3. As for the Trinity (the original post) from the earliest of church fathers humans have struggled on how the trinity works. It is part church dogma, it is completely doctrine, and is has its foundations in the Bible. But never the less, if you don't think God is real, then why do you care about the Trinity. I would rather you decide if there is a God. If there is not - then it doesn't matter. If there is, then the arguments of spirit, the Bible and others will take on new light. But as for Christians we understand the trinity as this: God is one, we as humans perceive God through our experiences which have shown the collect Christian body that God is Father, God is Jesus, and God is spirit. These are ways in which we understand God - they are not different Gods.

What you claim to "understand" is exactly what is in question here. We are asking for a justification for your believing this stuff. Why have you accepted the bible as the divine word of a deity named Yahweh?

4. As to what helped to become a theist. It was a long process (about 10 years of various studies) and there was no one thing that led me to believe that there was a God. It was studying the complexities in science and seeing how in-probable it was that it was all random. This lead me to a creator entity. That lead me to study who this entity was and there was no answer untell I studied textual-criticism of the Bible and other things which lead me believe the disciples saw a risen King and because of that they were willing to die to stand up for what they believe in.

As Christian apologist William Lane Craig once said, "Two fallacious arguments, put together, do not make a sound argument." Just because you perhaps had lots of different "small" arguments that convinced you doesn't in any way mean those arguments are valid or sound. So what were they? What were these arguments? You mention improbability but is that the best you can do? That is called the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Lots of improbable things happen all the time and, for all you know, the universe just is that way. At best, you'd be left with agnosticism, not belief. This leads me to think there was something deeper which actually drove you to believe this stuff.


I guess at some level I have to take it on faith. But so do you. You believe in the Big Bang theory, but if you follow it all the way down you get to - where did the particles come from, magnetic fields, where did magnetic fields come from, laws of physics, where did the laws of physics come from - and you have to faith you will someday find an answer.

Eh! No. First, I do NOT have to "have faith" that someday I will find the answer. What if I don't care to find the answer? How does that strike you? What if I simply admit that I don't know? Is that too much for you? I do not "believe" the Big Bang theory. I understand the science and accept the evidence.

But there is another, bigger, problem here. You are making a fallacious equivocation in terms when using the word "faith". Faith is not merely trusting something. Part of faith is being COMMITTED or FIXED to it. It is actually pretending to know something you don't know, and then DEFENDING it as if you know it's true. But that is nowhere near what science does. In fact, it is backwards. Honest investigation requires skepticism and a willingness to hold ideas only TENTATIVELY (not dogmatically as you apologists do). Faith is not a pathway to truth because people can put "faith" in anything and hold to it tightly.

Whether we are talking about where things "came from", how things developed in the universe, etc faith cannot get us the answer we need because faith is unreliable for separating fact from fiction.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 09, 2013, 08:00:34 AM
Seriously last one, lol

Faith is trusting in something (at least that is the way I define it). And you just said that if science gives you a better explanation you would believe it - because science tells you so. So you have trust that science in right. Therefore you  have faith that science is right. It's still faith.

Faith is an amorphous, ambiguous word.  It is not one thing.  It is many things.  Often times when discussing it in the context of religion, the meaning shifts from one definition to another without notice.  While I do have a kind of faith in science, it is categorically different than faith in an invisible, undetectable, aloof god.  So I think you've not thought very hard or long about what faith is.

My essay on faith:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,10690.msg240850.html#msg240850

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 09, 2013, 11:18:59 AM
Seriously last one, lol

Faith is trusting in something (at least that is the way I define it). And you just said that if science gives you a better explanation you would believe it - because science tells you so. So you have trust that science in right. Therefore you  have faith that science is right. It's still faith.

Faith is an amorphous, ambiguous word.  It is not one thing.  It is many things.  Often times when discussing it in the context of religion, the meaning shifts from one definition to another without notice.  While I do have a kind of faith in science, it is categorically different than faith in an invisible, undetectable, aloof god.  So I think you've not thought very hard or long about what faith is.

My essay on faith:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,10690.msg240850.html#msg240850 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,10690.msg240850.html#msg240850)

Screwtape,
I liked your essay. However, I have a slightly different approach to the definition of faith. Dr. Peter Boghossian (atheist philosopher at the University of Oregon) once allowed Christian philosopher Phil Smith (of George Fox University) to present his various "definitions of faith" to his class at UofO (see below). In a fashion similar to your essay (though, to your credit, much more affirming of each definition) Mr. Smith reasons that there are at least 7 different definitions of faith. Since it is likely that most here have not seen this video I will just deal with the varying definitions you presented, and present where I think you "hit the nail on the head" so to speak.

The problem with these "shifting" definitions of faith is that they are mere equivocations. Christians shift categories of what faith is (trying to use it in exchange for nearly any ambiguous religious terminology). Now the definitions you presented are as follows:

1.   Faith is religion
2.   Faith is trust
3.   Faith is loyalty
4.   Faith is believing without evidence
5.   Faith is some kind of mechanism that keeps you religious

Regarding 1,2, and 3 I think we have good reason for thinking these definitions are false. 1) Religion is not "faith". Religion is, well...religion. While it is true that religion requires faith I don't think these terms can be used synonymously (at least not without some serious ambiguity), in some very key places. If someone says, "I put my religion in Jesus" it simply doesn't make sense. If Jesus said, "Anyone who has the religion of a mustard seed will be saved" it sounds absurd. So faith is not religion. They are different things. 2) Now trust is not faith either. Do we "trust" a fast talking salesman who comes to the door? How about a fast talking religion that comes to the door? Trust is based on evidence and is placed tentatively (meaning it can be easily changed). Even if one trusts strongly in a loved one, that trust can be easily broken with a proverbial stab in the back. But faith is not like this at all because religious people who "just have faith" are fixed (or "set") in their beliefs (i.e. - their beliefs cannot be easily changed). So trust and faith are not synonyms either. 3) How about loyalty? I think it is easy to see that this idea falls apart upon further examination. Can we exchange those terms in a religious sentence like, "I have loyalty in Jesus" and still be coherent? I think not. Like the term religion, loyalty is...loyalty. It is a kind of devotion or dedication. It is not faith (more on this in a second).

For the last two, we have faith as believing without evidence and faith as some kind of mechanism that keeps you religious (I say credulous). I think #4 hits the mark the closest and I think #5 is simply a by-product of #4. When someone believes without evidence they tend to create the mechanism by which they will continue to practice their religion. In that sense, #5 is not faith but a by product of faith.

Let me turn for a second though to something in your essay that I found very telling. Pertaining to faith, you stated, "It is the trick of the holy man to keep his customer base." Bingo! Faith is not only believing without evidence. It is a perseverance toward credulity. It is the continuance of belief due to intellectual laziness and personal delusion. And this motivation toward this perseverance is brought on by clergy and those who prop up it's foundation "just believe". This is why Dr. Peter Boghossian calls faith "pretending to know something you don't know."

So, whenever religious folks, apologists and such, attempt to obscure and/or equivocate on the definition of faith we shouldn't allow it. Faith is believing something when you have no good reason to do so. It is really just gullibility with a mask. It is nowhere near the tentative trust in evidence that apologists want us to think it is, for one because they aren't trying to scrutinize their beliefs like we scrutinize scientific hypotheses. Indeed, they do the reverse. They start with their conclusion and work backwards. Now that is main fault with faith. Here is the general difference:

Science: Hypothesis -> Testing/Scrutinization -> Verification -> Tentative Trust
Faith: Conclusion -> Fixed Belief -> Confirmation Bias

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLGCLqX7NHY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLGCLqX7NHY)

Finally, I don't think Christian apologists are really being honest in this thread and/or toward this OP. Why? Because their belief in their personal interpretation of their "experience of Jesus" is FIXED and unwavering. It is SET and unalterable (contrary to their words) and it is based upon something unalterable (at least in the short run). So why did they even answer the OP in the first place? I think this is because they want to appear open-minded. That is all. It is merely another case of self-delusion.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on May 09, 2013, 11:53:29 AM
I'm glad you liked my essay.  I like it too, but when I reread I see where I could have made it better.

Anyway, you say that certain ideas that I include as faith aren't really faith.  I think you are looking at just a very narrow context of the word.  I agree with you that where the rubber hits the road in these theological discussions, your definition is kind of what we are all really talking about.  But I was making a point that the word is tough to nail down and not effective for communication.  I wanted to make explicit all the various common uses of the word. 

The word faith is synonymous with religion.  http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/faith 
But I agree, that is not usually what we are talking about, nor how we use it.   

It is also trust and loyalty.  http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/faith 
And again, I agree that this is not really what people mean when they talk about faith.  However, trust is one meaning xians will often try to shift to when called out.  They also claim "trust" when they really mean "blind faith".   That's a point I would include if I were to update that essay.  They say "I'm not talking about blind faith, I'm talking about trust..." and then they go on to very precisely describe blind faith.  It might be asking too much to listen to me, but I would be happy if they just listened to themselves.

One of the practical points I came away with after posting that essay was to insist that people not use the word "faith" and be explicit about what they really meant.  Most of the time they don't even know what they mean.  Usually they should say "confidence".  "I have grown in my faith" is just another way of saying "I'm more confident in my superstitious beliefs".  "I have faith" can be translated as "I'm confident" or sometimes, "I'm not listening to you!"


Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tonus on May 09, 2013, 12:25:08 PM
I guess at some level I have to take it on faith. But so do you.

That presumes that we're on an even level in terms of evidence or justification for belief.  And that's just too simple.  For example: I may have faith that science will eventually discover the origins of life and of the universe.  That faith may be mistaken, but it's based on the progress that science has made in answering so many questions and finding ways to make things work.  You may have faith that the universe is a product of god's creation, but it's based on... the claims in an ancient book?  The majesty of a starry sky?  The gaps in scientific knowledge?

Anyway, have a safe trip.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 09, 2013, 12:36:30 PM
Screwtape,
I actually agree with your thesis that the term "faith" can be quite slippery. But I'm not sure it can't be nailed down. Let me explain. Of course, it is often the case that we can't agree on a definition of that term, with apologists/believers etc, because they want to make it slippery, just like they want to make science a wide open door for any quack hypothesis they "believe" in. But that doesn't mean there isn't one main definition. It just means they don't like that definition. But this drives closer to the point I was making regarding equivocation. The term "faith" is either useful (at which case believers won't want to use it because it has one main definition they don't like), or it is meaningless because it is so utterly ambiguous and vague that it has no explanatory value. If the religionist takes option #2 then he/she is fixed on using a term that doesn't help us get any closer to what they are talking about (just as I maintain the term "God" doesn't refer to anything specific.

So if they want to use this term "faith" to "mean lots of things", who cares!? I can use the term "blark" to mean anything I want but that is really just an obfuscation and it doesn't contribute to honest discourse or truth seeking/investigation. They might as well say, "I'm just going to use this term, and although it won't mean the same thing to both of us, I'll just use it anyway." As far as I'm concerned, that is just not good enough, and really, it's not good enough for them either! If a salesman came to their door and used this kind of slippery verbiage they would either 1) stop him to clarify/nail him down, or 2) say, "No thank you" and shut the door. But do they do this with their funny little "faith" word game? Nope. And that is because they have made an assumption about the bible and/or Christian doctrine (i.e. - they've started with their conclusion) and are now trying to defend it by any means. What a dishonest way to go about seeking truth!
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Tonus on May 09, 2013, 12:45:06 PM
I don't think it's possible to get theists to agree to a single definition of the word "faith," which is why I prefer to use the word "belief" even though it's not the same.  I can remember when I was a believer and I could define faith any number of ways depending on which definition was most convenient.  And I was quite sincere about it, as I think many believers are.  I think it's an attempt to get out from under the definition that states that it's "belief without proof."  I never saw it that way as a believer, even though that is what it was.

Frankly, even if you do get them to define it, I'll bet that most of them will re-define it the moment it becomes necessary to do so to protect their belief system.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on May 09, 2013, 01:12:52 PM
So then it seems pretty clear, Christian doctrine (including the trinity doctrine) is both ambiguous and self contradictory (which should not be the case if there was truly an omnipotent deity who "wished that all would be saved"). Apologists try to spin and rationalize the definitions of terms, trying desperately to avoid refutation, but in the end their rationalizations (and spin doctoring of word meanings) makes their theological positions pure unpalatable nonsense.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 12:28:22 PM
1 John 3:20 says that God "knows all things".  If the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily then why did Jesus not know the time of his second coming (Mark 13:32)?  Isn't this a contradiction?  If Jesus is 100% God and God knows all things then how could Jesus not know the time of His second coming?  Many Trinitarian Christian apologists have given me Phil. 2:7 as a response.  But if Christ "emptied" Himself of divine attributes (omniscience) then how can the "fullness" of deity dwell in bodily form?  Can a Trinitarian Christian please try to explain this "supposed" contradiction to me?

The  "Trinitarian" explanation is that God has three personalities.  They are not identical.
My own father is in the DNA of every cell of my body.  I am fully my father as well as my mother. And yet we differ quite a bit.

My family unit covers my father, mother, sister and me.  That is 100% of my family unit and the DNA goes no further up or down. 

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: One Above All on June 10, 2013, 12:31:16 PM
<snip>
I am fully my father as well as my mother. And yet we differ quite a bit.
<snip>

Spoken like someone who doesn't know a thing about biology.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 10, 2013, 12:38:42 PM
The  "Trinitarian" explanation is that God has three personalities.  They are not identical.
My own father is in the DNA of every cell of my body.  I am fully my father as well as my mother. And yet we differ quite a bit.
If that is the case, is it fair to say that Christians who subscribe to this view acknowledge three distinct deities?
Quote
My family unit covers my father, mother, sister and me.  That is 100% of my family unit and the DNA goes no further up or down.
Incorrect.  It goes much further up.  I suggest you study up on what can be done with analyzing genealogy.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 12:39:54 PM
<snip>
I am fully my father as well as my mother. And yet we differ quite a bit.
<snip>

Spoken like someone who doesn't know a thing about biology.

Is that a requirement?  I'm new here. Please refer me to the rules about
who can say what and when to who.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 12:47:29 PM
The  "Trinitarian" explanation is that God has three personalities.  They are not identical.
My own father is in the DNA of every cell of my body.  I am fully my father as well as my mother. And yet we differ quite a bit.
If that is the case, is it fair to say that Christians who subscribe to this view acknowledge three distinct deities?
Quote
My family unit covers my father, mother, sister and me.  That is 100% of my family unit and the DNA goes no further up or down.
Incorrect.  It goes much further up.  I suggest you study up on what can be done with analyzing genealogy.

No.  The particular combination of my parents begins and ends with my family.

This is an ILLUSTRATION of the Trinity.  If it were an exact match it wouldn't be an illustration, it would be the same thing.

Because there is no other exact match, all illustrations will have some differences.
My parents don't have the same names as the Trinity either.  Just getting the jump on
that objection.   
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: One Above All on June 10, 2013, 12:50:48 PM
Is that a requirement?  I'm new here. Please refer me to the rules about
who can say what and when to who.

It's only a requirement if you want to be taken seriously.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 01:09:36 PM
Is that a requirement?  I'm new here. Please refer me to the rules about
who can say what and when to who.

It's only a requirement if you want to be taken seriously.

Your approval is indeed not my concern.  I was referring to any official rules.
Not ones you invent for yourself.  I have no control over your thinking.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: One Above All on June 10, 2013, 01:13:15 PM
Your approval is indeed not my concern.

Maybe not my individual approval, but what about the approval of the entire community? True, there are those who would approve you regardless, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority won't.

I was referring to any official rules.

And did my reply imply otherwise?

I have no control over your thinking.

Of course you do. You just don't know how to use it.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 01:21:43 PM
Your approval is indeed not my concern.

Maybe not my individual approval, but what about the approval of the entire community? True, there are those who would approve you regardless, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority won't.

Democracy is an interesting experiment that seems to be working out OK in many countries.
But the need for majority approval in not in my DNA.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Truth OT on June 10, 2013, 01:35:06 PM
What they found was a relationship within the Godhead between a loving Father, an obedient Son, and a third person born out of the communion of the two. The entire thing a complex and colorful, back, forth and upsides drama of sorts all taking place within the individual being.

What they found or what they made up via poor rationalization? They made up the concept of a godhead which gave rise or was one and the same with the Trinitarian concept that is in fact poorly supported by the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

So the Trinity is not merely a doctrine, it is a revelation, and like all revelation it is in its core a mystery, carrying a sense of awe that fills you as you break step by step into the understanding of it. When we use the word it is in reference to this mystery that we speak, to this secret thing of God's hidden apart from his grace or his miraculous hand but buried within the physicality of his very nature.[1] The nature of the relationship that has been going on since before the founding of the world. The one atop of which everything we know was built and the one which through everything we have been asked to join. Looking back the trinity it seems should have been a self-evident truth because God is one, but at the same time He is so much more, He is infinite and he is eternal.
 1. The creeds use the word essence.

On the contrary, the trinity IS merely a doctrine cooked up to explain apparent contradictions related mainly to Jesus of Nazareth and his presummed pre-human status that manages to somehow slip a 3rd "person" identified as the Holy Ghost to give the whole God in 3 persons foolishness its foundation. Limited pantheism stripped down to only include 3 God-manifestations is what the whole Trinity mess sounds like to me.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 10, 2013, 01:35:48 PM
No.  The particular combination of my parents begins and ends with my family.

This is an ILLUSTRATION of the Trinity.  If it were an exact match it wouldn't be an illustration, it would be the same thing.

Because there is no other exact match, all illustrations will have some differences.
My parents don't have the same names as the Trinity either.  Just getting the jump on
that objection.
Jump on the 'three distinct deities' objection then please.  That's what I'm confused about.  Your illustration demonstrations 3 distinct people who are genetically related and doesn't address the "how can 3 distinct persons be 1 and only 1 person" objection I have to the doctrine of the Trinity.  If your illustration is supposed to be valid, what is the point of the doctrine of the Trinity in the first place?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just say that there is a Most High family, comprised of god, his son Jesus, and their cousin The Holy Spirittm (or whatever relationship analogy works)?

The fact of the matter is - you aren't your father.  You share genetic material with him, he raised you and likely was a massive, major influence in your life as a person.  But from what I remember from Christianity, what the doctrine of the Trinity appears to be saying, what priests over the years have told me, what my theology teachers had told me...god is Jesus is The Holy Spirittm.  They are, paradoxically, the same entity.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 01:55:25 PM
No.  The particular combination of my parents begins and ends with my family.

This is an ILLUSTRATION of the Trinity.  If it were an exact match it wouldn't be an illustration, it would be the same thing.

Because there is no other exact match, all illustrations will have some differences.
My parents don't have the same names as the Trinity either.  Just getting the jump on
that objection.
Jump on the 'three distinct deities' objection then please.  That's what I'm confused about.  Your illustration demonstrations 3 distinct people who are genetically related and doesn't address the "how can 3 distinct persons be 1 and only 1 person" objection I have to the doctrine of the Trinity.  If your illustration is supposed to be valid, what is the point of the doctrine of the Trinity in the first place?  Wouldn't it make more sense to just say that there is a Most High family, comprised of god, his son Jesus, and their cousin The Holy Spirittm (or whatever relationship analogy works)?The fact of the matter is - you aren't your father.  You share genetic material with him, he raised you and likely was a massive, major influence in your life as a person.  But from what I remember from Christianity, what the doctrine of the Trinity appears to be saying, what priests over the years have told me, what my theology teachers had told me...god is Jesus is The Holy Spirittm.  They are, paradoxically, the same entity.


Being one-of-a-Kind, we can only draw analogies.

Same last name
Same species
Same family group
Unique connection
Unique powers
Unique aspects (from man)


Most critically, the "trinity" does not exist as a scriptural teaching.
It is a teaching method for grouping what we read.
The "trinity" does not exist any more than the "ten commandments" exist.
There just happens to be ten of them.
There just happens to be three personalities or aspects to God and we call them "the Trinity" out of convenience.   I'm sorry for your instructive years.  Church people are humans, nothing more.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 10, 2013, 02:41:04 PM
Being one-of-a-Kind, we can only draw analogies.

Same last name
Same species
Same family group
Unique connection
Unique powers
Unique aspects (from man)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.  Apologies.
Quote
Most critically, the "trinity" does not exist as a teaching.
It is a teaching method for grouping what we read.
The "trinity" does not exist any more than the "ten commandments" exist.
There just happens to be ten of them.
There just happens to be three personalities or aspects to God and we call them "the Trinity" out of convenience.   I'm sorry for your instructive years.  Church people are humans, nothing more.
If this is the case, then your illustration of family above is an exceptionally poor illustration, insofar as it illustrates away and obfuscates that which you are trying to illustrate.  You're describing 'The Trinity' as some means of teaching that god has different aspects in the same way a person can have different aspects (e.g. a 'work' persona and a 'bar' persona).

Describing 3 differently named entities that talk to each other seems like...an incredibly bad way of teaching that lesson.  Like, exceptionally, incredibly, mind-numbingly bad.  I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to explain that god behaves differently depending on the circumstances.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 10, 2013, 02:52:14 PM
The Trinity then is like the Hindu pantheon where the gods have different avatars or personalities. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all individuals but are also separate avatars of the one true big god.

Like Krishna is his own god with his own legends and powers, but is also an avatar of Vishnu the Sustainer (who, incidentally is one of the Hindu Trinity or "big three" gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).

African polytheism has some of the same stuff going on. Hmmm. Could it be that Christianity was trying to make a polytheistic ethnic religion into a monotheistic universal one with a few committee meetings? Seems that way, don't it just?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 02:59:01 PM
The Trinity then is like the Hindu pantheon where the gods have different avatars or personalities. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all individuals but are also separate avatars of the one true big god.

Like Krishna is his own god with his own legends and powers, but is also an avatar of Vishnu the Sustainer (who, incidentally is one of the Hindu Trinity or "big three" gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).

African polytheism has some of the same stuff going on. Hmmm. Could it be that Christianity was trying to make a polytheistic ethnic religion into a monotheistic universal one with a few committee meetings? Seems that way, don't it just?

All religions have their basis in Truth and reality.  God's chosen people were selected to
clean up the rumors and track the birth of Jesus who provided the link to the Father.
When you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 03:01:39 PM
Describing 3 differently named entities that talk to each other seems like...an incredibly bad way of teaching that lesson.  Like, exceptionally, incredibly, mind-numbingly bad.  I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to explain that god behaves differently depending on the circumstances.

Too bad. If you read some more perhaps?
Jesus did talk to the Father and he did speak back to His Son.
The Holy Spirit is indeed silent as when the wind stops.
I can't change the nature of the spirit.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 10, 2013, 03:07:45 PM
The Trinity then is like the Hindu pantheon where the gods have different avatars or personalities. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all individuals but are also separate avatars of the one true big god.

Like Krishna is his own god with his own legends and powers, but is also an avatar of Vishnu the Sustainer (who, incidentally is one of the Hindu Trinity or "big three" gods: Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva).

African polytheism has some of the same stuff going on. Hmmm. Could it be that Christianity was trying to make a polytheistic ethnic religion into a monotheistic universal one with a few committee meetings? Seems that way, don't it just?

All religions have their basis in Truth and reality.  God's chosen people were selected to
clean up the rumors and track the birth of Jesus who provided the link to the Father.
When you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father.

my bolding

All religions are based in truth, huh?  I assume you mean Haitian Vodun and the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec and Maya are based in truth, right? As well as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies and the Mormons.

Now, are you going to stand by that statement or are you going to weasel your way out by saying that some practices and beliefs-- say, Scientology, Rastafarianism and Wicca-- are "not really" religions but anything you understand and approve of are?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 03:14:35 PM
All religions are based in truth, huh?  I assume you mean Haitian Vodun and the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec and Maya are based in truth, right? As well as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies and the Mormons.

Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.
People make mistakes and are usually too proud to change their minds.

I've studied with JW's in bible study.  Their version of the Bible is 99.9% accurate.
I recall about 7 words being translated different. But their focus is on those
7 words.  If you ignore their focus on the differences, its the same as mainstream
Christianity.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 10, 2013, 04:33:20 PM
All religions are based in truth, huh?  I assume you mean Haitian Vodun and the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec and Maya are based in truth, right? As well as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies and the Mormons.

Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.
People make mistakes and are usually too proud to change their minds.

I've studied with JW's in bible study.  Their version of the Bible is 99.9% accurate.
I recall about 7 words being translated different. But their focus is on those
7 words.  If you ignore their focus on the differences, its the same as mainstream
Christianity.

Uhhh. Okeydokey.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 10, 2013, 06:36:45 PM
All religions are based in truth, huh?  I assume you mean Haitian Vodun and the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec and Maya are based in truth, right? As well as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies and the Mormons.

Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.
People make mistakes and are usually too proud to change their minds.

I've studied with JW's in bible study.  Their version of the Bible is 99.9% accurate.
I recall about 7 words being translated different. But their focus is on those
7 words.  If you ignore their focus on the differences, its the same as mainstream
Christianity.

Uhhh. Okeydokey.

Sure they argue about the shape of the cross and if anyone actually bowed before Jesus or didn't.   Then they rant about BLOOD and a bunch of other odd ideas.  Then the three headed monster complaint. One body with three heads.  They even have that right.  There is no "trinity".  Its just a teaching tool. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on June 10, 2013, 07:28:50 PM
Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.

How on earth do you have an inaccurate truth? Admit it, you're making this up as you go along.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 10, 2013, 08:11:01 PM
All religions are based in truth, huh?  I assume you mean Haitian Vodun and the human sacrifices of the ancient Aztec and Maya are based in truth, right? As well as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Moonies and the Mormons.

Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.
People make mistakes and are usually too proud to change their minds.

I've studied with JW's in bible study.  Their version of the Bible is 99.9% accurate.
I recall about 7 words being translated different. But their focus is on those
7 words.  If you ignore their focus on the differences, its the same as mainstream
Christianity.

Uhhh. Okeydokey.

Sure they argue about the shape of the cross and if anyone actually bowed before Jesus or didn't.   Then they rant about BLOOD and a bunch of other odd ideas.  Then the three headed monster complaint. One body with three heads.  They even have that right.  There is no "trinity".  Its just a teaching tool.

I agree that the JW's are closer to living by what the bible actually says than most modern Christian denominations. So are the Amish. But that means very few people really follow the bible. It's a crazy book with a lot of wacky ideas, so I don't blame people for ignoring most of it. I wish people would ignore more of it. 

But what about all the other religions, the ancient pagen ones, the recent non-christian ones, the non-biblical ones? C'mon, what about the Moonies, Jim Jones, Bagwan Rajneesh, Hari Krishna, Rastas, Scientology? Are they also based in truth?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 13, 2013, 09:06:52 AM
Yes, all based on Truths about God.  I didn't say they were all accurate.
How on earth do you have an inaccurate truth? Admit it, you're making this up as you go along.

In English, when you say some thing is "Based On" something, that MEANS that
parts of the original have been used to create something different.

No, I'm not making up English as I go. 

Synonyms:   be at mercy of, be based on, be conditioned, be connected with, be determined by, be in control of, be in the power of, be subject to, be subordinate to, bottom, found, ground, hang, hang in suspense, hang on, hinge on, pend, rest, rest on, rest with, revolve around, revolve on, stand on, stay, trust to, turn on
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 13, 2013, 09:14:05 AM
But what about all the other religions, the ancient pagen ones, the recent non-christian ones, the non-biblical ones? C'mon, what about the Moonies, Jim Jones, Bagwan Rajneesh, Hari Krishna, Rastas, Scientology? Are they also based in truth?

I'd study them one at a time for the answers you seek.

Indeed, Jim Jones was a "Christian" cult. A Christian cult is were you take mainstream
ideas and alter some of them and form a group who all follows the alternate version.

You could say Protestants were a cult branch of Catholicism.  Most would not agree.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 13, 2013, 11:01:12 AM
But what about all the other religions, the ancient pagen ones, the recent non-christian ones, the non-biblical ones? C'mon, what about the Moonies, Jim Jones, Bagwan Rajneesh, Hari Krishna, Rastas, Scientology? Are they also based in truth?

I'd study them one at a time for the answers you seek.

Indeed, Jim Jones was a "Christian" cult. A Christian cult is were you take mainstream
ideas and alter some of them and form a group who all follows the alternate version.

You could say Protestants were a cult branch of Catholicism.  Most would not agree.

Then by your own definition Christianity, itself, is a cult. It borrowed, and stole, ideas from it's pagan competitors in the surrounding areas (dying/rising gods, three wise men, Dec 25th, born of a virgin, son of god, light of the world, etc) as evidenced by both Egyptian/Mesopotamian, and Roman religions prior to, and during, it.

They all can't be right, but they CAN all be wrong. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 13, 2013, 11:02:00 AM
How much do you have to study of a religion to know if it is "based in truth" or not?[1] Is it how much the religion agrees with what you already believe? If the religions disagree with one another, how could they all be "based in truth"? And if a religion leads people to do bad things, like give their children poison koolaid, or burn people to death for not believing the same stuff, or blow up buildings full of people, does it really matter if it is "based in truth" or not?
 1. You can give Scientology about a minute. Most of the others, about ten minutes. You will quickly discover that none of the religions invented so far are "based in truth" if by that you mean "reflect reality as we know it".
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 13, 2013, 11:14:24 AM
Too bad. If you read some more perhaps?
Jesus did talk to the Father and he did speak back to His Son.
The Holy Spirit is indeed silent as when the wind stops.
I can't change the nature of the spirit.
So...they are three distinct entities?

Sorry - I'm just really unclear on what you are saying.  I thought you were arguing that there is one 'god' and that descriptors like 'Jesus' and 'Holy Spirit' are meant as descriptors of different aspects of one entity.  The above seems to run counter to that perspective.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 13, 2013, 11:15:26 AM
I'd study them one at a time for the answers you seek.
Any tips on how to go about studying?  When I come upon contradictory claims from different religions, what do I do?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 13, 2013, 12:59:20 PM
I'd study them one at a time for the answers you seek.
Any tips on how to go about studying?  When I come upon contradictory claims from different religions, what do I do?

Besides that, even if you are really starting with "the truth" the stuff about that truth available for "study" was written by flawed humans who make mistakes. How can we tell what is actually from a god versus what was made up by people, or is a mistake in re-copying or translation. It is pretty easy to let an error slip in when you are talking about normal everyday stuff. How much more likely when you are dealing with stories that describe supernatural events, are meant metaphorically or are parables to begin with?

I witnessed this first hand while traveling to different villages with some US missionaries. They preached about Jesus, and someone from the local area was translating. The translator was making mistakes, but I was the only other person there who knew both languages. So, the message the local people got was not exactly what the missionaries were preaching. That was just one incident. Multiply that event by thousands of times over hundreds of years. The result is what we are supposed to "study".
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 06:11:35 AM
I'd study them one at a time for the answers you seek.
Any tips on how to go about studying?  When I come upon contradictory claims from different religions, what do I do?

Besides that, even if you are really starting with "the truth" the stuff about that truth available for "study" was written by flawed humans who make mistakes. How can we tell what is actually from a god versus what was made up by people, or is a mistake in re-copying or translation. It is pretty easy to let an error slip in when you are talking about normal everyday stuff. How much more likely when you are dealing with stories that describe supernatural events, are meant metaphorically or are parables to begin with?

I witnessed this first hand while traveling to different villages with some US missionaries. They preached about Jesus, and someone from the local area was translating. The translator was making mistakes, but I was the only other person there who knew both languages. So, the message the local people got was not exactly what the missionaries were preaching. That was just one incident. Multiply that event by thousands of times over hundreds of years. The result is what we are supposed to "study".

Excellent point.
According to the scripture, the scripture is not required.
Not even the retelling by man is required.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 14, 2013, 11:38:22 AM
Excellent point.
According to the scripture, the scripture is not required.
Not even the retelling by man is required.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm (http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm)

Do you just believe everything you read? This selective cherry picking of which claimed 'holy' books to accept, and which to reject, is quite arbitrary and hypocritical (not to mention question begging). Just because you were raised one way, and were taught to just believe these passages written by Paul (i.e. - being gullible), doesn't make them true. The world as we know it doesn't tell you how it got here until you investigate. The trees and rabbits don't say "Made by Jesus" or "Hecho in Heaven" on them. I don't care what some old dusty book says (and fact is neither do you - when it comes to all the other ancient religious texts that disagree with the one you assumed was true). So just because some old dude named Paul wrote a letter making claims about a God, doesn't mean it's true. Why would you just believe this nonsense wholesale without investigating it's claims?

Starting with your conclusion is backwards and unreliable for discovering what is true.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 14, 2013, 01:12:01 PM

Excellent point.
According to the scripture, the scripture is not required.
Not even the retelling by man is required.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

How does that even make sense? You are getting your information from a book that says, "pay no attention to this book". Would you trust recipes from a cookbook that said, "do not follow these recipes"?

Are you saying you do not need a bible to be a Christian? Isn't the bible the main source of information on Christianity? If you were all alone on a deserted island, having never seen a bible, how would you become a Christian? :?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 08:38:28 PM

Excellent point.
According to the scripture, the scripture is not required.
Not even the retelling by man is required.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm

How does that even make sense? You are getting your information from a book that says, "pay no attention to this book". Would you trust recipes from a cookbook that said, "do not follow these recipes"?  Are you saying you do not need a bible to be a Christian? Isn't the bible the main source of information on Christianity? If you were all alone on a deserted island, having never seen a bible, how would you become a Christian? :?

The book is only about the condition of man in that we are not beings from this material world.  If we were we would be happy as pigs in slop.  Every watch "Hoarders" ?    That is how people want to live when their spiritual life is messed up. They want to gather as much STUFF as they can get.   Some rich people are "Hoarders" as well.

According to the scriptures, you don't need some book to explain that this ball of dirt is not really living as we are craving to live. 

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 14, 2013, 08:43:43 PM
Excellent point.
According to the scripture, the scripture is not required.
Not even the retelling by man is required.

http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm (http://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm)

Do you just believe everything you read? This selective cherry picking of which claimed 'holy' books to accept, and which to reject, is quite arbitrary and hypocritical (not to mention question begging). Just because you were raised one way, and were taught to just believe these passages written by Paul (i.e. - being gullible), doesn't make them true. The world as we know it doesn't tell you how it got here until you investigate. The trees and rabbits don't say "Made by Jesus" or "Hecho in Heaven" on them. I don't care what some old dusty book says (and fact is neither do you - when it comes to all the other ancient religious texts that disagree with the one you assumed was true). So just because some old dude named Paul wrote a letter making claims about a God, doesn't mean it's true. Why would you just believe this nonsense wholesale without investigating it's claims? Starting with your conclusion is backwards and unreliable for discovering what is true.

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 15, 2013, 06:14:04 PM
^^^What appears to be obvious is not necessarily true. Or else there would only be one religion, and everyone in the world would accept it. Nobody would have to preach or proselytize or be missioned to. It would not even be a religion; it would just be reality.

In other words, science.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: neopagan on June 15, 2013, 06:25:17 PM

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations.

I "believed" for over 30 years and as a closted atheist... I still say a generic prayer (a thankful prayer never directed to any deity) at mealtimes with my family family and attend church whenever I cannot get out of it.  So by your definition... I am a xian.  Only th  truth isn't so obvious... although anyone operating outside the god delusion would ask me what I was up to...  it is fairly obvious I am a non participant xian
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Graybeard on June 15, 2013, 06:50:56 PM

What is "true" has always been obvious.

Obvious to whom?

Quote
Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.

Do you know how many gods have been credited with creating the earth?

Quote
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.

Am I right in thinking that your critical thinking skills are not the best? I ask as you seem to have accepted a fairytale, even though there are lots of other fairytales that are very similar.

It makes you think, doesn't it?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 10:30:40 PM

What is "true" has always been obvious.

Obvious to whom?

Quote
Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
Do you know how many gods have been credited with creating the earth?
Quote
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
Am I right in thinking that your critical thinking skills are not the best? I ask as you seem to have accepted a fairytale, even though there are lots of other fairytales that are very similar.
It makes you think, doesn't it?

This particular story fit the facts the best.  I considered others over my first 30 years.
Did you really think your assumptions through first?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 10:34:15 PM

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations.

I "believed" for over 30 years and as a closted atheist... I still say a generic prayer (a thankful prayer never directed to any deity) at mealtimes with my family family and attend church whenever I cannot get out of it.  So by your definition... I am a xian.  Only th  truth isn't so obvious... although anyone operating outside the god delusion would ask me what I was up to...  it is fairly obvious I am a non participant xian

Reality is obvious.  Nothing in our reality appears out of nothing
without a directing force.  Newtons law.   So a super-natural
force is needed to create reality.   It's obvious.   Many people do
avoid the obvious. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 10:37:42 PM
^^^What appears to be obvious is not necessarily true. Or else there would only be one religion, and everyone in the world would accept it. Nobody would have to preach or proselytize or be missioned to. It would not even be a religion; it would just be reality.In other words, science.

If you study "Science Theory" you learn that reality is a theory.  And there is more than than one theory about reality.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 10:54:43 PM

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations.

Huh? Your "observations"? What observations in the natural world say "made by Jesus" or "Yahweh's property" on the trees or on DNA? Muslims can make your same argument. Will you accept it if they do? Merely observing the world doesn't tell you anything about how it got here. For that you need to investigate, instead of just jumping to a conclusion that you just so happened to have been raised with (and influenced by early on when you were at an impressionable stage).

You've missed a key step in fact finding - it's called TESTING. You've jumped from step one (observation) to the conclusion (likely b/c that's the conclusion you assumed anyways). So again, please demonstrate how you think you know that this alleged "Yahweh" deity is 1) actually real, 2) "huge and intelligent", and 3) created everything we observe. Merely making an assertion doesn't make your hypothesis the correct one - especially since you seem to have a bias toward confirmation given your presupposition.

If a "huge and intelligent" creator was obvious we wouldn't be having this discussion (namely b/c it would be obvious to all). But assuming your interpretation of the bible, as the "word of God" (and namely Romans 1, etc), only displays (even more) your bias toward confirmation and your lack of care as to whether or not your beliefs are actually true.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 11:00:34 PM

Reality is obvious.  Nothing in our reality appears out of nothing
without a directing force.  Newtons law.   So a super-natural
force is needed to create reality.   It's obvious.   Many people do
avoid the obvious.

Yes, many people (including you) avoid the obvious fact that no deities needed to "create" anything and that no deities are checking in on us.

Btw, who said "something appeared out of nothing"? Certainly not us, and certainly not science. This sounds like the ever so common misunderstanding of cosmology/physics by those religionists who don't really care whether their beliefs are true. Besides, even if I agreed that "a supernatural force" needed to create the things we observe that wouldn't make it a God, and it certainly wouldn't make it intelligent. The term "supernatural" is merely a term synonymous with that which we do not understand yet. So it is one big argument from ignorance fallacy.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 11:12:10 PM

The book is only about the condition of man in that we are not beings from this material world.  If we were we would be happy as pigs in slop.  Every watch "Hoarders" ?    That is how people want to live when their spiritual life is messed up. They want to gather as much STUFF as they can get.   Some rich people are "Hoarders" as well.

According to the scriptures, you don't need some book to explain that this ball of dirt is not really living as we are craving to live.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Hoarders? Really? So, your explanation of people who hoard things is some "spiritual" mumbo jumbo? Trying to explain a mystery by another mystery does nothing. You do know that many hoarders have received psychotherapy for their condition (not religion) and have recovered, don't you? This is the same for many alcoholics, drug addicts, people who suffer from depression, and many others. No religion or "spiritual" talk required, and they recovered from their ailments. But of course, you wouldn't accept those cases as such, would you, b/c you have a precommitment toward your interpretation of the bible to defend, right? I know b/c I used to sound just like you 10 years ago. So instead of actually looking for a real explanation for things, you just insert nonsense terms like "spiritual" or "God" or "Satan" to fill the gap where you don't understand or haven't done your homework or investigation. What hubris.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 11:18:03 PM

If you study "Science Theory" you learn that reality is a theory.  And there is more than than one theory about reality.

Science theory? So you are making up your own terms now? How much science have you actually studied? Just because there is more than one philosophical position on the nature of reality doesn't make your assertion true - nor does it mean we should follow your absolutist claims which derive from your being uncomfortable with the unknown. When you don't know something, you should admit it (this is what well practiced science does), not jump to a conclusion like "God did it" to fill a gap in your knowledge.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 11:31:06 PM

If you study "Science Theory" you learn that reality is a theory.  And there is more than than one theory about reality.

Science theory? So you are making up your own terms now? How much science have you actually studied? Just because there is more than one philosophical position on the nature of reality doesn't make your assertion true - nor does it mean we should follow your absolutist claims which derive from your being uncomfortable with the unknown. When you don't know something, you should admit it (this is what well practiced science does), not jump to a conclusion like "God did it" to fill a gap in your knowledge.

Sorry.  I meant theory of science.

God doesn't fit what I don't know. 
As I explained, it fits what I do know.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 15, 2013, 11:32:56 PM

The book is only about the condition of man in that we are not beings from this material world.  If we were we would be happy as pigs in slop.  Every watch "Hoarders" ?    That is how people want to live when their spiritual life is messed up. They want to gather as much STUFF as they can get.   Some rich people are "Hoarders" as well.

According to the scriptures, you don't need some book to explain that this ball of dirt is not really living as we are craving to live.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Hoarders? Really? So, your explanation of people who hoard things is some "spiritual" mumbo jumbo? <snip>

Quote
Well, if you watch the show, you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 11:42:13 PM

Sorry.  I meant theory of science.

God doesn't fit what I don't know. 
As I explained, it fits what I do know.

"Theory of science"? I'm still not following these terms you seem to be inventing. How is this term "God" an explanation for anything? What exactly is it that you think you "know" that supposedly this mysterious Yahweh somehow explains? You do know that attempting to answer a mystery by an even bigger mystery doesn't work, don't you?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 15, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
Well, if you watch the show [Hoarders], you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.

So you are basing your assertions purely upon a fricking TV show? WOW. Why would you do this? Even more, what do you know about whether these people are "clueless"? Have you actually done any research or investigation in this area of psychology? Have you done some homework, talked to some professionals working in the field, or talked to some people who have recovered from hoarding? Have you attempted to educate yourself in these areas, or are you just talking out of your ass?

What it sounds like is you just want to believe what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Sadly, that isn't a very reliable method for separating fact from fiction.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 16, 2013, 10:22:41 AM
Well, if you watch the show [Hoarders], you can see that the people they bring in to help are nearly clueless.

So you are basing your assertions purely upon a fricking TV show? WOW.<snip>

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 16, 2013, 10:25:55 AM

Sorry.  I meant theory of science.

God doesn't fit what I don't know. 
As I explained, it fits what I do know.

"Theory of science"? I'm still not following these terms you seem to be inventing. How is this term "God" an explanation for anything? What exactly is it that you think you "know" that supposedly this mysterious Yahweh somehow explains? You do know that attempting to answer a mystery by an even bigger mystery doesn't work, don't you?

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 16, 2013, 10:31:24 AM

Reality is obvious.  Nothing in our reality appears out of nothing
without a directing force.  Newtons law.   So a super-natural
force is needed to create reality.   It's obvious.   Many people do
avoid the obvious.

Yes, many people (including you) avoid the obvious fact that no deities needed to "create" anything and that no deities are checking in on us.

Btw, who said "something appeared out of nothing"? Certainly not us, and certainly not science. This sounds like the ever so common misunderstanding of cosmology/physics by those religionists who don't really care whether their beliefs are true. Besides, even if I agreed that "a supernatural force" needed to create the things we observe that wouldn't make it a God, and it certainly wouldn't make it intelligent. The term "supernatural" is merely a term synonymous with that which we do not understand yet. So it is one big argument from ignorance fallacy.

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 16, 2013, 10:35:12 AM

What is "true" has always been obvious.  Creation is the work of something huge and intelligent.
I discovered that Christianity agreed with what I already observed during my first 30 years.
The truth came first, I became a Christian because it agrees with my observations.

Huh? Your "observations"? What observations in the natural world say "made by Jesus" or "Yahweh's property" on the trees or on DNA?<snip>

That would be the bias toward intelligent design.
I know people with low processing power.
They don't design things well.
For example, my coworker often burns his hand on things that are hot.
The same things time after time.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 16, 2013, 10:39:47 AM

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.

Why would you attempt to use such a terrible example which fails miserably at demonstrating your point? Are you willing to retract this example? B/c it doesn't, in any way, prove what you are attempting to say it does. There is simply no reason for thinking that hoarders (or alcoholics, or depressed people, or drug addicts) are such b/c of some "spiritual" deficiency. Such can be demonstrated quite easily by the fact that psychotherapy has helped people (including tons of non-Christians) to recover (without religion). "Spiritual" is not an explanation. It is a non-answer.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 16, 2013, 10:47:40 AM

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.

God revealed it to you...but just not in any way you can demonstrate, right? So you are claiming to have some special access to this alleged Yahweh deity thing which you claim exists and secretly communicates with you? And why should anyone believe you again? You do know that nearly every other religion makes similar claims, don't you? The Mormons claim that God the holy spirit secretly tells them that the Book of Mormon is true. Do you accept this?

Self-diagnosing an alleged "personal experience" with an alleged deity is unreliable. It opens the door for personal prejudice, confirmation bias, and egregious error. And it does this regardless of the religion (Muslims, Mormons, New Agers, Christians, etc). Have you ever thought to question this claim you are making? More importantly, do you even care whether or not your beliefs are actually true?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 16, 2013, 10:54:52 AM

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 16, 2013, 11:03:57 AM

That would be the bias toward intelligent design.
I know people with low processing power.
They don't design things well.
For example, my coworker often burns his hand on things that are hot.
The same things time after time.

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago (see here: www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)) but thank you for admitting that you are practicing bias. Why would you do that? Why would you just ASSUME your position in advance of actually doing your homework, researching what scientists have to say, and actually studying the evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html)

http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/taxonomy_menu/2 (http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/taxonomy_menu/2)


We contrast what has been designed by what has NOT been designed (i.e. - by nature). Claiming the universe, or what we call 'life' was "intelligently designed" requires evidence. Yet ID proponents like William Dembski and Phillip Johnson don't have evidence. They have claims. That is all - claims to "complexity" - but just b/c something is complex doesn't mean it is designed by a mind.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 17, 2013, 07:28:21 AM

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago <snip>

Theories must be tested constantly.  Online rag magazines are for entertainment only.

The "Stupid, Ignorant, Mindless Design Theory" is falsified for me daily.
I don't need a online rag magazine to suggest that my co-worker can cook a pizza.  He can't.
That he can learn not to pick up hot molten plastic, he does. That he could loose the end of his finger if he reaches under things at the wrong time, he did. That he could learn not to reach into the cutting blades where he could loose his hand, he still does. That he could read his own name or write it without daily practice, nope. See, reduced processing power can't tell the difference between thick or thin crust pizza and adjust cooking time. What about when he runs to the lunchroom on the hour or half hour because those are the ONLY positions on the clock where he can determine when 30 minutes is up?   

Stupidity cannot cook a pizza, much less, produce you.

Because 40% of scientists believe in God, you should consider actual journals.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451211/
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 17, 2013, 07:46:59 AM

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.

Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?

My background (B.S. degree) has no influence on any data.

(http://www.hawking.org.uk/uploads/8/3/0/0/8300824/1322285.jpg)

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 17, 2013, 07:53:48 AM
Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 17, 2013, 07:55:09 AM

There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.

God revealed it to you...but just not in any way you can demonstrate, right? So you are claiming to have some special access to this alleged Yahweh deity thing which you claim exists and secretly communicates with you? And why should anyone believe you again?

You have the brain power to determine if I am insane or liar.
You received that brain power by accident because as mud
you laid in the sun a lot, or it came from intelligent source.

Either way, I think you are bright enough to come to a conclusion.
Hopefully, you'll decide I'm lying or self deceived and weak minded.
The insane direction is possible, but my wife would be offended by that.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 17, 2013, 07:57:58 AM

Nope.  That is an example, or illustration.

Why would you attempt to use such a terrible example which fails miserably at demonstrating your point? Are you willing to retract this example? B/c it doesn't, in any way, prove what you are attempting to say it does. There is simply no reason for thinking that hoarders (or alcoholics, or depressed people, or drug addicts) are such b/c of some "spiritual" deficiency. Such can be demonstrated quite easily by the fact that psychotherapy has helped people (including tons of non-Christians) to recover (without religion). "Spiritual" is not an explanation. It is a non-answer.

Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem. 
They are just one example of people with
spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

They are people with a deficiency in their lives
attempting to fill the void in their spirit.
Or mask the empty feeling with drugs.
 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 17, 2013, 09:25:32 AM
Skywriting

I really need you to answer my question.  At least acknowledge I'm talking to you.  You are being so rude.  I don't think Christ would approve. :(

Run, run, run, run, run away baby before I put my spell on you. Bruno Mars
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 17, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem.  They are just one example of people with spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

So, SkyWriting, can you explain the actual neurology and neuropsychology of a "spiritual" problem?  What diagnostic tests do you use to eliminate other possibilities such as OCD, depression and/or PTSD in the differential diagnosis?  Which brain centres does a "spiritual" pathology affect, and how do you distinguish such from demyelination, ischemia, hemorrhage or other brain lesion?  How does it respond to pharmacological treatment such as antipsychotics, anxiolytics and SSRIs?  What signs would one expect to see on brain MRI or CT scan?

And most importantly, what peer-reviewed studies can you cite in support of this hypothesis?  I was unable to find Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum in the medical library at work.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 17, 2013, 12:45:47 PM
Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem.  They are just one example of people with spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

So, SkyWriting, can you explain the actual neurology and neuropsychology of a "spiritual" problem?  What diagnostic tests do you use to eliminate other possibilities such as OCD, depression and/or PTSD in the differential diagnosis?  Which brain centres does a "spiritual" pathology affect, and how do you distinguish such from demyelination, ischemia, hemorrhage or other brain lesion?  How does it respond to pharmacological treatment such as antipsychotics, anxiolytics and SSRIs?  What signs would one expect to see on brain MRI or CT scan?

And most importantly, what peer-reviewed studies can you cite in support of this hypothesis?  I was unable to find Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum in the medical library at work.


All of those are spiritual problems. 
If man had chosen to remain with God, such physical problems would not exist.
But we chose a different path, and physical problems are common.
We live in a version of Hell.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 17, 2013, 02:32:22 PM
All of those are spiritual problems.

Nonsense!  It's vastly easier to ameliorate them with physical solutions such as surgery and medicine than with "spiritual" methods.  Belief and prayer only seem to fix illnesses with a somatic basis, and I think we can attribute that to the placebo effect rather than to divine intervention.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on June 17, 2013, 02:36:07 PM
All of those are spiritual problems. 
If man had chosen to remain with God, such physical problems would not exist.
But we chose a different path, and physical problems are common.
We live in a version of Hell.


SkyWriting,

You've been making a lot of claims without any evidence.  Please provide evidence that what you say above is a true and accurate description of reality.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 17, 2013, 05:04:39 PM

The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis has been falsified a long time ago <snip>

Theories must be tested constantly.  Online rag magazines are for entertainment only.

The "Stupid, Ignorant, Mindless Design Theory" is falsified for me daily.
I don't need a online rag magazine to suggest that my co-worker can cook a pizza.  He can't.
That he can learn not to pick up hot molten plastic, he does. That he could loose the end of his finger if he reaches under things at the wrong time, he did. That he could learn not to reach into the cutting blades where he could loose his hand, he still does. That he could read his own name or write it without daily practice, nope. See, reduced processing power can't tell the difference between thick or thin crust pizza and adjust cooking time. What about when he runs to the lunchroom on the hour or half hour because those are the ONLY positions on the clock where he can determine when 30 minutes is up?   

Stupidity cannot cook a pizza, much less, produce you.

Because 40% of scientists believe in God, you should consider actual journals.
 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451211/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1451211/)

"Stupidity" is a red herring (another logical fallacy). No one said "stupidity" caused life, or the universe. An "I don't know and neither do you" is a perfectly acceptable answer (one which for some reason you can't tolerate). You are, once again, committing yourself to logically fallacious arguments (in this case, the argument from authority and the genetic fallacy) in order to substantiate these absurd objections which stem from yet another fallacy (the argument from incredulity). Did you study the logical fallacies in your "persuasion" education? Calling a reference of mine "rag" doesn't make the arguments any less true. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

Now, the number of people who believe a certain proposition X is irrelevant to whether a proposition is true (ever heard of the Nazis, or early American slave owners?). So too, where an argument came from is also irrelevant to it's truth value. Third, just because you personally cannot understand how a certain scientific phenomena works or may have occurred doesn't make it false - nor does it give you license to claim it "impossible". For that, you need evidence. Not just SAYING SO.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 17, 2013, 05:20:57 PM

Exactly what data set have you collected, or done research upon, in order to determine a "small" probability?? Have you even taken an introductory Statistics course? If you have no data set, then how can you claim any probability...at all? Secondly, where did you get this idea of "atoms coming into being"?? You seem to have the all too common Christian misconception ("something from nothing") of what science has NOT stated regarding cosmology. What have you read regarding this? How much research or study have you actually done in this area?

My background (B.S. degree) has no influence on any data.


"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. [Hawking]"

You are committing more logical fallacies. In this case, an equivocation on the term "nothing". A physicist talking about 'nothing' is different from a metaphysics professor. Did you know that? You also just completely avoided the question I asked you. Why are you so dishonest? Again, please provide the data set that you used to come up with this low probability you are claiming. If you don't have it, then you are simply lying or making shit up. Secondly, a mere assumption that I agree with a particular person's statement (Hawking, etc) is also absurd. Should I just assume your position?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 17, 2013, 05:38:04 PM

You have the brain power to determine if I am insane or liar.
You received that brain power by accident because as mud
you laid in the sun a lot, or it came from intelligent source.

This is the logical fallacy called a False Dilemma. You are assuming there are only two possibilities when there isn't. Furthermore, it demonstrates that you don't know shit from shinola about the anthropological sciences, evolutionary biology, or origin studies. You think I believe we came from mud? Really? WOW. That degree didn't do you very much good in the intelligence dept. (nor the logic dept), did it? It sounds like you've been listening to your pastor, reading creationists, and avoiding reading any real science on the subject. No evolutionary biologist claims we came from mud! Besides that, lots of Christians accept evolution! Ever hear of Ken Miller at Brown University? You really need to do your homework. Whether or not evolution is true has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a God. Lots of Christians accept evolution as do many others. Your ignorance doesn't change the facts.

Finally, I may have the "brain power" for determining if you are insane but that doesn't mean I have the data, research, or study. Determining if you're a liar, that's another story altogether.



Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 17, 2013, 05:41:20 PM
Yes, hoarders have a spiritual problem. 
They are just one example of people with
spiritual problems.  Drug abusers are another.

They are people with a deficiency in their lives
attempting to fill the void in their spirit.
Or mask the empty feeling with drugs.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate...

Again, merely claiming they have a "spiritual" problem (whatever that nonsense word means) doesn't mean they do. It just means you've assumed your theological position in advance. But anyone can just assume anything, and it doesn't make it true. What you've demonstrated is nothing more than wishful thinking. "Because I want it to be a spiritual problem, therefore it is."

No, it's not. To demonstrate that you need a little something called...evidence.

HINT: Credulity and gullibility are not sufficient tools to do the job.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 17, 2013, 05:57:47 PM
SW, you don't have to be a liar or insane to be wrong. You could just be jerking us around because you think your god requires it, or it could be you are truly ignorant of things like the scientific method. That's kinda expected, many theists like to come here and jerk us atheists around, so we are used to it and have pretty thick skins. And many people, not just theists, are ignorant of science.

But if you refuse to acknowledge that you don't know something, and refuse to investigate what it is you don't know when given the opportunity, then we can add the adjective willfully to ignorant. And we can continue to try to inform you, for the benefit of lurkers if nothing else. Or we can just write you off as another theist jerk and treat you accordingly.

How do you want to represent your god and your faith? It's up to you.  :D
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on June 18, 2013, 06:06:27 AM
Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.

These seem like fair questions/issues to raise. What say you Skywriting?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 08:37:01 AM
Hey Skywriter,

You have questions in the 2 threads you abandoned.  What do you say about a loving God killing children by way of drowning them.  I said the God I believe in would not do such a thing.  I thought you could handle our questions with one hand behind your back.  Now I see why.  You don't answer them.  So far you failed at validating Noah and the ark and does God love people in hell.  Fail, Fail, Fail.  It is very important to answer questions here as a representative of belief.   I have been smited for answering questions with stories instead of direct answers.  You won't convince any body here of God with your bible. 

Would you still believe in God if there was no bible? I do, the bible is a disgrace to God.

If you keep on dropping out the mods will take action.  Keep this up and you only fuel their non belief.

These seem like fair questions/issues to raise. What say you Skywriting?

I work 12 hour days and am a full time student.   So I answer in my free time.
You may tumble your mind imagining my motives all day.  If that's what you want to do with your day. 
The most important part of conversation is learning that you have full control

of your half.

I don't recall either of those questions.   Likely because I'm busy with another train of thought.
Humans cannot multitask. 

God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

Children are much more adaptable to new environments than cranky old people so if God takes children
out of this world, it's better for them than us adults.

Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?


Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 18, 2013, 08:51:11 AM

God is interested in all humans being with Him. 

...

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

Interesting that your God, though interested in our salvation, is powerless to convert us. For an omnipotent being, he is somewhat lacking.

Were there actually a deity, at least the issue wouldn't be one of belief. But it is. The deity we dislike is the one invented by humans. The one that is ridiculous in every aspect and non-existent. So when we are attacking your god, what we are really attacking is the ridiculous concept and the inhumanity built into him by his creators: i.e., humans.

Omnipotent powers don't require, let alone bother with, being fickle, angry, impatient, cruel or missing.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 08:58:37 AM

God is interested in all humans being with Him. 

...

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

Interesting that your God, though interested in our salvation, is powerless to convert us. For an omnipotent being, he is somewhat lacking.

Were there actually a deity, at least the issue wouldn't be one of belief. But it is. The deity we dislike is the one invented by humans. The one that is ridiculous in every aspect and non-existent. So when we are attacking your god, what we are really attacking is the ridiculous concept and the inhumanity built into him by his creators: i.e., humans.

Omnipotent powers don't require, let alone bother with, being fickle, angry, impatient, cruel or missing.


If you read it closely, over time you learn that many of those attributes are not actually divine revelation about what God is like, but are documented reactions by people.

On youtube there are vidios, and there are reaction vidieos, occasionally videos of people's reactions as they watch the original video.

The Bible is like that.  ALL of the descriptions are human reactions to God.   We never get to see Him directly.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 09:03:06 AM
Interesting that your God, though interested in our salvation, is powerless to convert us. For an omnipotent being, he is somewhat lacking.

He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: screwtape on June 18, 2013, 09:18:46 AM
He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.

Yeah, sure he is.  Says you.  You're talking out your ass. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 18, 2013, 09:34:57 AM
If you read it closely, over time you learn that many of those attributes are not actually divine revelation about what God is like, but are documented reactions by people.

On youtube there are vidios, and there are reaction vidieos, occasionally videos of people's reactions as they watch the original video.

The Bible is like that.  ALL of the descriptions are human reactions to God.   We never get to see Him directly.

So: Garden of Eden? Actual, or a human reaction? The flood story? Actual, or a human reaction to a wet weekend? Jesus? Actual or a human reaction to someone who happened to be charismatic but otherwise normal?

What value is there in reading closely (something you've asked me to do) the far from inerrant tales told by people as they reacted inaccurately/wrongly/incompently to your god?

How do you know he wants to be worshipped? The only source for that claim is written by humans. How do you  know he wants our love and adoration? The only source for that claim is from humans. How do you know he really sent his kid to save us if the only source for that story is from humans?

Of course, you used the word "many", which means that you get to leaf through the pages of the bible and say "yep, nope, nope, yep, nope, yep" to the various passages, because your electrons orbits touched by god just a little bit better than anyone else's. He loves us all, but you a bit better, apparently. Because you've got it right. You know. Insight is your middle name.

Your time might be better served by going to christian sites and straightening them out first. Then, once you've consolidated all religious thought into one coherent mass (which should be easy, given the power of your insights, etc.), you could come back here and tell us what you've done to change religion to make is both workable and believable, and hell, I'm pretty sure you'd be much more effective, because you'd have impressive bona fides and everything.

Or you can stay here and continue the biblical tradition of misinterpreting everything, the tradition of assuming that you, and only you, know the truth, the tradition of picking the stuff you like on a whim, and hope that somehow you can somehow manage to change people who think into people who don't.

Not much of a goal, but hey, have at it.

P.S. Notice how nice I was not asking you to clarify what you meant by "(cloud)" in your electron comment. So that's one less thing you'll have to make up today. Thank me later.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 18, 2013, 12:37:37 PM

God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

Children are much more adaptable to new environments than cranky old people so if God takes children
out of this world, it's better for them than us adults.

Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

SPAG
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 18, 2013, 12:41:22 PM

If you read it closely, over time you learn that many of those attributes are not actually divine revelation about what God is like, but are documented reactions by people.

On youtube there are vidios, and there are reaction vidieos, occasionally videos of people's reactions as they watch the original video.

The Bible is like that.  ALL of the descriptions are human reactions to God.   We never get to see Him directly.

And how exactly do you know this? You do know that the majority of professing Christians disagree with you on your interpretation here, right? So too with the early Christians. So from our seats, it's quite funny.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 18, 2013, 12:43:00 PM

He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.

You mean like the magic Unicorns that created everything 5 seconds ago and control your thoughts? How is your claim any different from pure superstition?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 18, 2013, 02:29:43 PM
He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.

Yeah, sure he is.  Says you.  You're talking out your ass.

We really have to get WWGHA its own subscription to Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum.

And why am I getting a vision of Biblegod swearing up a blue streak and sucking on a scorched thumb after the Large Hadron Collider splattered a few of those atoms?   ;D
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 04:45:14 PM
He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.

Yeah, sure he is.  Says you.  You're talking out your ass.

We really have to get WWGHA its own subscription to Journal of Argumenta Ex Rectum.

And why am I getting a vision of Biblegod swearing up a blue streak and sucking on a scorched thumb after the Large Hadron Collider splattered a few of those atoms?   ;D


Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 04:47:58 PM

He's holding each electron in it's orbit (cloud) for your benefit.   
While you decide.

You mean like the magic Unicorns that created everything 5 seconds ago and control your thoughts? How is your claim any different from pure superstition?

It is guided theory.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 05:06:18 PM

God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

Children are much more adaptable to new environments than cranky old people so if God takes children
out of this world, it's better for them than us adults.

Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse? 

Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

SPAG

My spell check says I should have separated heath and care.
Grammar check turns up nothing.
Perhaps you didn't like the content.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 05:13:48 PM
If you read it closely, over time you learn that many of those attributes are not actually divine revelation about what God is like, but are documented reactions by people.

On youtube there are vidios, and there are reaction vidieos, occasionally videos of people's reactions as they watch the original video.

The Bible is like that.  ALL of the descriptions are human reactions to God.   We never get to see Him directly.

So: Garden of Eden? Actual, or a human reaction? The flood story? Actual, or a human reaction to a wet weekend? Jesus? Actual or a human reaction to someone who happened to be charismatic but otherwise normal?

What value is there in reading closely (something you've asked me to do) the far from inerrant tales told by people as they reacted inaccurately/wrongly/incompently to your god?

How do you know he wants to be worshipped? The only source for that claim is written by humans. How do you  know he wants our love and adoration? The only source for that claim is from humans. How do you know he really sent his kid to save us if the only source for that story is from humans?

Of course, you used the word "many", which means that you get to leaf through the pages of the bible and say "yep, nope, nope, yep, nope, yep" to the various passages, because your electrons orbits touched by god just a little bit better than anyone else's. He loves us all, but you a bit better, apparently. Because you've got it right. You know. Insight is your middle name.

Your time might be better served by going to christian sites and straightening them out first. Then, once you've consolidated all religious thought into one coherent mass (which should be easy, given the power of your insights, etc.), you could come back here and tell us what you've done to change religion to make is both workable and believable, and hell, I'm pretty sure you'd be much more effective, because you'd have impressive bona fides and everything.

Or you can stay here and continue the biblical tradition of misinterpreting everything, the tradition of assuming that you, and only you, know the truth, the tradition of picking the stuff you like on a whim, and hope that somehow you can somehow manage to change people who think into people who don't.

Not much of a goal, but hey, have at it.

P.S. Notice how nice I was not asking you to clarify what you meant by "(cloud)" in your electron comment. So that's one less thing you'll have to make up today. Thank me later.

Election "Cloud" is the common terminology because it's location is not observed until one chooses to look. 
The observer changes reality.

The rest of the stories are intended to be understood as real events.
Jesus turned water to wine and there is no human scientific process known to explain how it happened.
Same with the rest.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 18, 2013, 06:18:05 PM
Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

No, not all known laws of science dictate that. The Second Law of Thermodynamics mentions it, but the Theory of Gravity doesn't, the Theory of Plate Techtonics doesn't. You're trying to grandstand here.

Secondly, you don't understand the theory behind energy dissipating anyway, so you're agog that anything exists because we're all supposed to be gone now. You don't seem to understand that the time frame for large amounts of energy dissipating away is measured in billions of years, not your lifetime. Nor are you taking into consideration that energy can get turned into mass (most of the mass of any given tree or other plant came from the conversion of sunlight into matter), or that mass and energy trade places all the time. One of the reasons we cannot create a perfect vacuum is because inside the space we are trying to vacate energy passing through the vessel is turning into matter all the time. There is no such thing as empty space. Once there is a difference in potential between any two points, energy exists. And where there is energy, there is soon matter as well.

The earth does indeed have energy dissipating, but we also have a nearby star that floods our planet with energy every single day. One single square mile of land gets hit with 12 trillion watt hours of energy every year. And our sweet little planet has lots of square miles of land. And square miles of water, which get hit the same way. So the earth gets a net gain off energy and will for as long as life can exist on it. Granted, at some point the sun is going to get ugly on us and all these nice things will go away, but in the meantime, those of us who have not yet had the pleasure of drowning will get a constant supply with which to maintain our energy levels, natural and otherwise.

Science is indeed incredible. But it's not your job to read one fact and extrapolate it to mean everything else is impossible without a god.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 18, 2013, 06:52:09 PM
Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

No, not all known laws of science dictate that. The Second Law of Thermodynamics mentions it, but the Theory of Gravity doesn't, the Theory of Plate Techtonics doesn't. You're trying to grandstand here.

Secondly, you don't understand the theory behind energy dissipating anyway, so you're agog that anything exists because we're all supposed to be gone now. You don't seem to understand that the time frame for large amounts of energy dissipating away is measured in billions of years, not your lifetime. Nor are you taking into consideration that energy can get turned into mass (most of the mass of any given tree or other plant came from the conversion of sunlight into matter), or that mass and energy trade places all the time. One of the reasons we cannot create a perfect vacuum is because inside the space we are trying to vacate energy passing through the vessel is turning into matter all the time. There is no such thing as empty space. Once there is a difference in potential between any two points, energy exists. And where there is energy, there is soon matter as well.

The earth does indeed have energy dissipating, but we also have a nearby star that floods our planet with energy every single day. One single square mile of land gets hit with 12 trillion watt hours of energy every year. And our sweet little planet has lots of square miles of land. And square miles of water, which get hit the same way. So the earth gets a net gain off energy and will for as long as life can exist on it. Granted, at some point the sun is going to get ugly on us and all these nice things will go away, but in the meantime, those of us who have not yet had the pleasure of drowning will get a constant supply with which to maintain our energy levels, natural and otherwise.

Science is indeed incredible. But it's not your job to read one fact and extrapolate it to mean everything else is impossible without a god.

I did mean "Laws" of science.  Theories are not considered laws.
Gravity is a mystery as to what it even is.
And yes, the continental drift uses up available energy.
Energy dissipates and all mater is headed toward dust, then nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 18, 2013, 07:17:46 PM
I did mean "Laws" of science.  Theories are not considered laws.
Gravity is a mystery as to what it even is.
And yes, the continental drift uses up available energy.
Energy dissipates and all mater is headed toward dust, then nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Yep, there is a big difference between a theory and a law:

Law: A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979)

My bold.

Yep, gravity is a mystery, plate techtonics does indeed demonstrate, among other things, the dissipation of energy, but it isn't mentioned in the theory. Doesn't have to be. It has one of its own.

But you successfully avoided a direct and useful response the body of my post. I told you it would take time, and you woefully said that we are all going to turn to dust then disappear. Next week, sometime, if your guess is right.

In human terms, the ultimate fate of the universe if totally irrelevant. We won't live that long. Seems like we have a bunch of science-hating fundy's who think JC is coming back (probably like, you know, Monday, if the universe is only going to last until Wednesday or Thursday). And none of those people want a thing to do with science. So they won't be contributing to efforts to discover ways to leave our planet before it gets toasted. With fewer people looking for answers, we might not find any.

Of course, the sun will actually fry the planet in about 4 billion years when it becomes a red giant. But it will give off more energy in around 600,000 years and ruin our atmosphere and make it impossible for things to survive much longer and though I'm sure christians will still be waiting patiently for the promised return, the rest of us will just roll over and die because we won't have a choice.

But guess what. It doesn't affect you or me right now. It will never affect either of us. Never ever ever. So stop worrying about it.

Edit: a few spelling errors. My keyboard seems to be turning to dust and is slightly dysfunctional.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 18, 2013, 09:01:53 PM
Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

That's actually a very interesting question, and although I knew what an atomic explosion was I didn't know how it did it.    There's a Wikipedia article on it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion).

Short answer:  The strong nuclear force that holds an atom together is substantially more powerful (especially at very short distances) than most other forces that would be in its environment.  This is why an atom doesn't usually break apart apart at random times. (Radioactivity, with loose neutrons darting about, is a notable exception.)

Normally a neutron doesn't have sufficient energy to do much of anything, and just gets absorbed by the nucleus. If, however, you ram the nucleus of an atom with a higher-energy neutron (e.g. by using a conventional explosive to force wedges of fissionable material together at high velocity[1]), you can disrupt the nucleus such that it deforms.  As it stretches out of shape, apparently this changes the distance relationship among the subatomic particles such that the strong nuclear force can no longer hold the atom together.  At that point the electrical force dominates over the strong nuclear force, and because the protons are of the same positive charge and like charges repel, this drives them apart even further.

This releases a lot of energy, along with more high-energy particles which in turn hit other nuclei, resulting in the proverbial chain reaction.  An atomic explosion is essentially a very fast and energetic breakdown of a highly fissionable material such as Uranium235.  (A hydrogen bomb, on the other hand, is based on fusion rather than fission and requires even more energy to get it started... Hence the use of small atomic devices as triggers to generate energy sufficient to smash two nuclei together.)
 1. Thank you, Time-Life Science Encyclopedia! I have very fond childhood memories of those books.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 18, 2013, 10:56:33 PM

It is guided theory.

More of just making shit up as you go along I see. "Guided theory"? Where do you get this fiction?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 18, 2013, 11:30:09 PM

Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

This is actually a great question! Now instead of assuming your claimed holy book in advance, why not actually go out and, ya know, study? Do some research? Talk to some scientists? Take some courses at a community college? You know, actually do some work for knowledge - instead of taking the all too common and intellectually lazy road of assuming, "It's just impossible any other way!"

The Argument from Incredulity fallacy is never a sufficient answer.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 18, 2013, 11:44:28 PM
SPAG

My spell check says I should have separated heath and care.
Grammar check turns up nothing.
Perhaps you didn't like the content.
From that response, it is quite clear that you do not know what the term SPAG means.  There is no harm or shame in that; it is not an acronym that appears often so it is very understandable why someone would be unaware of what it means.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for you to ask median for clarification (something like asking 'What does SPAG mean?').  Instead you opted to assume that you know the correct definition and just roll with it.  Or perhaps you 'just had faith' that you knew what it meant.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 19, 2013, 07:29:50 AM
Quote
Junebug-Would you still believe in God if there was no bible?

Are you contemplating the answer to this question?

I work 12 hour days and am a full time student.   So I answer in my free time.
You may tumble your mind imagining my motives all day.  If that's what you want to do with your day. 
The most important part of conversation is learning that you have full control of your half.
I don't recall either of those questions.   Likely because I'm busy with another train of thought.
Humans cannot multitask. 

Excuses, excuses.  Dropping out of a debate is the same thing as saying, I"m wrong.  You are encouraging the non belief when you do this.




God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

First sentence I can relate to.  The rest is really                                                                                                                        out there.




Children are much more adaptable to new environments than cranky old people so if God takes children
out of this world, it's better for them than us adults.


What in the world does this respond to?  You should really,really, really be a lot more careful about what you say about God.



Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?


Not according to the bible.  Drowning the world, Sodom and Gomorrah, animal sacrifice, etc.
It's not rejection of the Holy Spirit it is blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.  There's a big difference.  Mark 3:29




Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse?

 
God visits the non believer through us and so far you have not shown anybody here God.  They would not hate it but appreciate it. 

 :o Really?  It would be like heaven.  Heaven can not be hell.



Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

What I want for non believers is for people like you to quit telling them they're going to hell.  The way I see it they haven't rejected God.  They reject your religion.  They reject the old testament bible and so do I. 

Luke 11:11-13
11.If a son ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? 
Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12.Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13.If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
how much shall your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?

If you wouldn't do it to your child God will not, being better than you, do it to the human race.

I couldn't even punish Hitler like that for an eternity.  If I wouldn't, God wouldn't.  I wouldn't drown the world.  I am not better than God, God is better than me.  I most certainly would not populate the world through incest, as the genesis story suggests.  I would not create several races and declare 1 my favorite.  I would love them all the same.  Oh yea, genesis doesn't address different races.  I would not give a commandment; thou shalt not kill, then turn around and say go kill people for sinning, contradicting myself. 

If Christians would stick to being like the person Jesus taught perhaps their religion wouldn't be under constant scrutiny and they certainly would not be disgracing God.

When I think of Love I think of the first time I held my baby boy in my arms and I swore I would never let any body hurt him.  Love pulsed through my veins, my nervous system, my soul.  God's Love is greater than this, IMO.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:25:52 AM
Quote
Junebug-Would you still believe in God if there was no bible?

Are you contemplating the answer to this question?

I work 12 hour days and am a full time student.   So I answer in my free time.
You may tumble your mind imagining my motives all day.  If that's what you want to do with your day. 
The most important part of conversation is learning that you have full control of your half.
I don't recall either of those questions.   Likely because I'm busy with another train of thought.
Humans cannot multitask. 

Excuses, excuses.  Dropping out of a debate is the same thing as saying, I"m wrong. 

There was another poster very active in debate.  I choose not to dominate
that thread and to allow the other poster conversation and focus on other
threads that had many questions for me.

What you make of my decisions process, is none of my concern.


Quote
You are encouraging the non belief when you do this.

What you make of my decisions process, is none of my concern.




God is interested in all humans being with Him.  Keeping all humans alive
for eternity on earth is the priority of healthcare workers alone.  God does not keep the same priorities.

Quote
First sentence I can relate to.  The rest is really                                                                                                                        out there.

Super.




]You should really,really, really be a lot more careful about what you say about God.

He's very forgiving. 



Yes, God loves his children no matter what they do.  God forgives every sin except for rejection of the Holy Spirit.
Those who reject the Holy Spirit end up without.   Being without God on earth is one thing.  Being without God
AND not having "the world" is Hell.   How would God provide a good situation for non-believers?


Quote
Not according to the bible.  Drowning the world, Sodom and Gomorrah, animal sacrifice, etc.
It's not rejection of the Holy Spirit it is blaspheme of the Holy Spirit.  There's a big difference.  Mark 3:29

No difference.

Should God visit with those who reject him?   How would that benefit them?  They would hate it.
For God to bring those who reject Him into heaven.....well.....would that be like Hell ...or worse?

 
Quote
God visits the non believer through us and so far you have not shown anybody here God.  They would not hate it but appreciate it. 

That's the Fathers job, not mine.   I am opposed to evangelism.




Worse than Hell......Is that what you want for those who reject God?  Isn't Hell lonely enough without
a deity you don't trust hanging around?

Quote
What I want for non believers is for people like you to quit telling them they're going to hell.  The way I see it they haven't rejected God.  They reject your religion.  They reject the old testament bible and so do I.


We are already in Hell.  Heaven is an option to choose to get out of our current state. 

Quote
Luke 11:11-13
11.If a son ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? 
Or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12.Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13.If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
how much shall your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him?
If you wouldn't do it to your child God will not, being better than you, do it to the human race.

They have to ask God.  That would be different than cursing God.
Do you know what happens when my adult son curses me?
I give him the gift of freedom from my tyranny.  As does God.



Quote
I couldn't even punish Hitler like that for an eternity.

There is no need.  Those who reject God experience internal TORMENT.  Thirst, flames, all that.
Have you ever been "tormented"?   It is a self inflicted condition.  Not to be confused with torture.


Quote
I would not create several races and declare 1 my favorite.

He did have a chosen people.   They produced His son and they carried out the task of conveying the message
of salvation.  Open the book and read it again.  The jews did not get fluffy pillows to sit on and eat figs back then, and they don't now either.

Quote
I would love them all the same.  Oh yea, genesis doesn't address different races.  I would not give a commandment; thou shalt not kill, then turn around and say go kill people for sinning, contradicting myself.


It's "do not murder".   I've had neighbors who were killed and eaten.  Some people who commit lethal crimes just need to be put to death.  It's not revenge.  We just can't live with such people alive in our midst.

Quote
If Christians would stick to being like the person Jesus taught perhaps their religion wouldn't be under constant scrutiny and they certainly would not be disgracing God.

All are sinners. God is not harmed at any time.

Quote
When I think of Love I think of the first time I held my baby boy in my arms and I swore I would never let any body hurt him.  Love pulsed through my veins, my nervous system, my soul.  God's Love is greater than this, IMO.

You would show this same love if your boyfriend murdered your baby?
http://badbreeders.net/2013/05/14/bad-boyfriend-sodomizes-and-strangles-baby/
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:32:13 AM
SPAG

My spell check says I should have separated heath and care.
Grammar check turns up nothing.
Perhaps you didn't like the content.
From that response, it is quite clear that you do not know what the term SPAG means.  There is no harm or shame in that; it is not an acronym that appears often so it is very understandable why someone would be unaware of what it means.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for you to ask median for clarification (something like asking 'What does SPAG mean?').  Instead you opted to assume that you know the correct definition and just roll with it.  Or perhaps you 'just had faith' that you knew what it meant.

Or I looked it up in 2 or 3 places.   What's your point again?

http://www.internetslang.com/SPAG-meaning-definition.asp
http://www.acronymfinder.com/SPAG.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spag
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:37:59 AM

Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

This is actually a great question! Now instead of assuming your claimed holy book in advance, why not actually go out and, ya know, study? Do some research? Talk to some scientists? Take some courses at a community college? You know, actually do some work for knowledge - instead of taking the all too common and intellectually lazy road of assuming, "It's just impossible any other way!" The Argument from Incredulity fallacy is never a sufficient answer.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity)

So you have no idea, and attacking conversations going on in your mind helps to avoid the reality.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:41:20 AM
Given that all known laws of science dictate that energy dissipates, and my dinner confirms it, how does an atomic explosion get bottled into a few grass of mass in the first place?

That's actually a very interesting question, and although I knew what an atomic explosion was I didn't know how it did it.    There's a Wikipedia article on it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion).

Short answer:  The strong nuclear force that holds an atom together is substantially more powerful (especially at very short distances) than most other forces that would be in its environment.  This is why an atom doesn't usually break apart apart at random times. (Radioactivity, with loose neutrons darting about, is a notable exception.)

Normally a neutron doesn't have sufficient energy to do much of anything, and just gets absorbed by the nucleus. If, however, you ram the nucleus of an atom with a higher-energy neutron (e.g. by using a conventional explosive to force wedges of fissionable material together at high velocity[1]), you can disrupt the nucleus such that it deforms.  As it stretches out of shape, apparently this changes the distance relationship among the subatomic particles such that the strong nuclear force can no longer hold the atom together.  At that point the electrical force dominates over the strong nuclear force, and because the protons are of the same positive charge and like charges repel, this drives them apart even further.

This releases a lot of energy, along with more high-energy particles which in turn hit other nuclei, resulting in the proverbial chain reaction.  An atomic explosion is essentially a very fast and energetic breakdown of a highly fissionable material such as Uranium235.  (A hydrogen bomb, on the other hand, is based on fusion rather than fission and requires even more energy to get it started... Hence the use of small atomic devices as triggers to generate energy sufficient to smash two nuclei together.)
 1. Thank you, Time-Life Science Encyclopedia! I have very fond childhood memories of those books.

We do know a little about how it all comes apart.  How it got there in the first place is the problem.
Especially given that Dark energy is pushing everything apart at increasing speeds.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 08:44:40 AM
I did mean "Laws" of science.  Theories are not considered laws.
Gravity is a mystery as to what it even is.
And yes, the continental drift uses up available energy.
Energy dissipates and all mater is headed toward dust, then nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Yep, there is a big difference between a theory and a law:

Law: A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979)

My bold.

Yep, gravity is a mystery, plate techtonics does indeed demonstrate, among other things, the dissipation of energy, but it isn't mentioned in the theory. Doesn't have to be. It has one of its own.

But you successfully avoided a direct and useful response the body of my post. I told you it would take time, and you woefully said that we are all going to turn to dust then disappear. Next week, sometime, if your guess is right.

In human terms, the ultimate fate of the universe if totally irrelevant. We won't live that long. Seems like we have a bunch of science-hating fundy's who think JC is coming back (probably like, you know, Monday, if the universe is only going to last until Wednesday or Thursday). And none of those people want a thing to do with science. So they won't be contributing to efforts to discover ways to leave our planet before it gets toasted. With fewer people looking for answers, we might not find any.

Of course, the sun will actually fry the planet in about 4 billion years when it becomes a red giant. But it will give off more energy in around 600,000 years and ruin our atmosphere and make it impossible for things to survive much longer and though I'm sure christians will still be waiting patiently for the promised return, the rest of us will just roll over and die because we won't have a choice.

But guess what. It doesn't affect you or me right now. It will never affect either of us. Never ever ever. So stop worrying about it.

Edit: a few spelling errors. My keyboard seems to be turning to dust and is slightly dysfunctional.

The you can agree with me that looking for life is futile, because finding another planet with life on it....well, the human race just doesn't have the time to go looking for slime molds in space.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Mrjason on June 19, 2013, 10:06:17 AM
The you can agree with me that looking for life is futile, because finding another planet with life on it....well, the human race just doesn't have the time to go looking for slime molds in space.
What should we be doing instead? Looking for something that, in all probability, isn't real?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 19, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
From that response, it is quite clear that you do not know what the term SPAG means.  There is no harm or shame in that; it is not an acronym that appears often so it is very understandable why someone would be unaware of what it means.

This would have been a perfect opportunity for you to ask median for clarification (something like asking 'What does SPAG mean?').  Instead you opted to assume that you know the correct definition and just roll with it.  Or perhaps you 'just had faith' that you knew what it meant.

Or I looked it up in 2 or 3 places.   What's your point again?

http://www.internetslang.com/SPAG-meaning-definition.asp
http://www.acronymfinder.com/SPAG.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spag
Based on all of the responses and questions you've received from median, you're telling me you honestly assumed he was slamming your grammar?

The point is just because you think you know something doesn't mean you actually do.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 19, 2013, 10:37:15 AM
The you can agree with me that looking for life is futile, because finding another planet with life on it....well, the human race just doesn't have the time to go looking for slime molds in space.
I'm quite certain that, according to your criteria, the human race didn't really have time to explore and understand the wave-particle nature of light.  And if the human race dedicated all of its efforts towards that goal, I'd be inclined to agree with you.  But the general principle of trying to understand our reality in hopes of making better decisions when faced with reality seems like a good use of time.  No, certainly not all of it, but some.

When looking to solve the problems here and now, one needs to look in their toolbox to see what can be brought to bear in solving that problem.  Part of that toolbox is our knowledge base - and, frankly, the more s**t we know, the more potential solutions we can bring to the table to solve problems.  I would hate to wait until a problem slaps us in the face before we try to tackle it.  Who knows?  Maybe someone 200 years ago could have been curious about the ramifications of carbon and methane in the atmosphere.  If people had been curious about that 200 years ago, maybe we would have had that knowledge in our toolbox before we had the industrial revolution and we could have at least minimized our negative impact on the environment.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 19, 2013, 11:01:02 AM

So you have no idea, and attacking conversations going on in your mind helps to avoid the reality.

Having "an idea" is exactly your problem, you are desperate. You feel that you MUST have the answer right now otherwise you're uncomfortable. So you take your first "idea" (religious assumption) and just go with it. Congratulations! Welcome to every religion on the planet. But that is the opposite of science and honest investigation.

Yes, I have an "an idea" regarding the origins of the beginning of the universe (that given the 1st Law, energy has always been in one form or another) . But it isn't dogmatic and can easily change with the evidence. I no longer allow a fear of death, fear of the unknown, or fear of loneliness to push me toward gullibility, credulity, or the acceptance of irrational argument "on faith" (b/c faith is not a pathway to truth. It is just gullibility dressed up).

Contrary to your claim, I'm not avoiding reality. I'm glad to admit when I don't know something, are you?


Here's a real scientist talking on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 19, 2013, 11:06:31 AM
The you can agree with me that looking for life is futile, because finding another planet with life on it....well, the human race just doesn't have the time to go looking for slime molds in space.

You really know nothing about modern cosmology, do you?

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2013, 02:50:09 PM
There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.

God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.
I think I'll start here, as this illustrates the point I want to make very well.

You say that your observations are in line with what you have read in Christian scripture.  I'll bet that you made those observations only after reading those scriptures - meaning that you are illustrating the pitfall of confirmation bias.  You're making observations solely to prove that what you already believe is true, not to discover what is actually true.

I agree that the force need not be intelligent.
But as I have rejected the mindless force theory
on scientific principals as I've never seen
stupidity produce any workable systems.
Mindlessness is not the same as stupidity.  Stupidity is the lack of reason where reason should exist.  We do not call a rock stupid because rocks do not possess the ability to reason or think.

Quote from: SkyWriting
Engineers work long hours just to design a bridge
that won't collapse.  Yet an Atom seem to be
fairly stable in most cases.  The odds of Atoms
coming into being without intelligent design
are small.
I sincerely doubt that.  First off, the situations of a bridge vs an atom are not analogous.  I can point to examples of natural bridges (logs that get wedged in place across rivers, or rock bridges that are left in place due to erosion) which completely negate the point you're attempting to make - that such things have to be "intelligently designed" in order to work.  Second, I doubt you could actually formulate these 'odds' in such a way that would be even slightly convincing, since you can only calculate odds accurately when you have sufficient knowledge of the conditions.

That would be the bias toward intelligent design.
I know people with low processing power.
They don't design things well.
For example, my coworker often burns his hand on things that are hot.
The same things time after time.
Your coworker being stupid has nothing to do with the formation of atoms, or any other natural process for that matter.

The problem with your chain of reasoning (illustrated by these three posts) is that it's based on a fatally-flawed premise to begin with.  You're basically comparing things made by smart people (which work well) and things made by stupid people (which don't), and then comparing that to natural things like atoms.  Because there are no atoms which don't work well, you then come to the conclusion that atoms must have been made by something intelligent.

That isn't even like comparing apples and oranges - it's like comparing vacuum to the Earth's core.  The fatal flaw of your premise is that you presume atoms were all made to begin with - implying a maker.  This is not a reasonable presumption because you have never actually seen an atom being made by this "intelligent designer" to begin with.  You're just assuming that it had to have been constructed, without anything to back it up besides circular reasoning.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 02:54:49 PM

So you have no idea, and attacking conversations going on in your mind helps to avoid the reality.

Having "an idea" is exactly your problem, you are desperate. You feel that you MUST have the answer right now otherwise you're uncomfortable. So you take your first "idea" (religious assumption) and just go with it.

It was the conclusion after decades of investigation.  I have read that some go through a period of trial though.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2013, 02:55:17 PM
Or I looked it up in 2 or 3 places.   What's your point again?

http://www.internetslang.com/SPAG-meaning-definition.asp
http://www.acronymfinder.com/SPAG.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spag
I'm pretty sure acronyms aren't required to have unique meanings.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Self_projection_as_god (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Self_projection_as_god)
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 02:58:37 PM
There are a variety of theories on what exactly "reality" is.
My observations are in line with what I have read in the
Christian scripture.  The other versions don't match as well.
God gets the credit for revealing this to me, it is not of my doing.
I think I'll start here, as this illustrates the point I want to make very well.

You say that your observations are in line with what you have read in Christian scripture.  I'll bet that you made those observations only after reading those scriptures.

No, I was well out of college at the time.  There is nothing about historical science theories that separate it from the religion of Secular Humanism.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 03:10:10 PM
The you can agree with me that looking for life is futile, because finding another planet with life on it....well, the human race just doesn't have the time to go looking for slime molds in space.

You really know nothing about modern cosmology, do you?

It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 19, 2013, 03:12:59 PM
Or I looked it up in 2 or 3 places.   What's your point again?

http://www.internetslang.com/SPAG-meaning-definition.asp
http://www.acronymfinder.com/SPAG.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spag
I'm pretty sure acronyms aren't required to have unique meanings.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Self_projection_as_god (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Self_projection_as_god)

So you were not aware that SPAG is a reply to a poster with poor grammar and spelling?  Neither was I, so I looked it up.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2013, 03:27:52 PM
I think I'll start here, as this illustrates the point I want to make very well.

You say that your observations are in line with what you have read in Christian scripture.  I'll bet that you made those observations only after reading those scriptures.

No, I was well out of college at the time.  There is nothing about historical science theories that separate it from the religion of Secular Humanism.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.  Kindly respond to what I actually write.

So you were not aware that SPAG is a reply to a poster with poor grammar and spelling?  Neither was I, so I looked it up.
I don't care that it's also used to refer to spelling and grammar problems.  In this case, median meant it as Self-Projection As God.  How do I know this?  Because that particular meaning was coined here at WWGHA.  Check the link I provided.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 19, 2013, 04:02:55 PM
It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.

Hey, Sky, you just have to get over this "earth to dust" hangup of yours. The timeline for such things is so beyond human scales that there is no need to worry about it. None whatsoever. You keep talking like it is in our immediate future. We've got lots of crap to deal with in the near-term, but the planet turning to dust is not one of them.

Find some less irksome personal flaw to amplify.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 19, 2013, 04:07:27 PM
Oh yea, and Sky, I know you hate the crap out of Secular Humanists. Which makes your insistence in calling that philosophical stance a religion all the more perplexing. I would think you would want to distance your clearly religious point of view from a clearly non-religious stance, rather than trying to meld the two under one label.

The world will be dust before Secular Humanism is a religion. See, when I use your language, it makes sense to you, right?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 19, 2013, 05:12:16 PM
It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.
That's not how relativistic travel would work.

A person in a spaceship moving at relativistic speeds (let's say .99c for the sake of argument) will have time move much slower for them.  As far as the rest of the universe is concerned, a round trip to a destination 13 LY distant would take them just over 26 years.  As far as the passenger is concerned, it would (probably) take them a few days.

So no, Earth would not be dust by the time they returned.  They'd have been gone for just a bit over a quarter-century.  Even if they spent a while there, it would still probably be less than three decades.  That's not even a particularly long time, relatively speaking.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 19, 2013, 07:55:05 PM

It was the conclusion after decades of investigation.  I have read that some go through a period of trial though.

Oh? Please enlighten us on this "investigation" you did. What part, exactly, demonstrated your assertions?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 19, 2013, 08:05:59 PM

It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.

And this is relevant...how? All I see, thus far, is one big argument from ignorance fallacy coming. So instead of admitting that you simply don't know the answers, you feel OK to just leap to the one particular religion you grew up around?

If your answer is that you think our universe 'coming into being' is "impossible" without a 'divine mind' deity thing then you'll need to present evidence for that claim (a supernatural deity etc) and not just arguments from ignorance. "I just can't imagine it any other way" is an epic fail b/c it doesn't explain anything or lead anywhere. It is a non-explanation - trying to explain a mystery by another mystery.

When you attempt to use arguments like these it really calls into question the "investigation" which you claim to have done.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 19, 2013, 09:35:04 PM
Oh yea, and Sky, I know you hate the crap out of Secular Humanists. Which makes your insistence in calling that philosophical stance a religion all the more perplexing.

Já, I'm a secular Humanist -- Paid-up dues and everything.  Haven't heard a single prayer at the meetings, but we do get some great guest speakers -- Richard Carrier, PZ Myers, local scientists and politicians and sociologists.

No tax exemptions, though.  Unlike churches, we pay our fair share.

And I really can't see Myself ringing someone's doorbell at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning and screeching "Don't believe or buuuurn!"
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 07:38:52 AM
Oh yea, and Sky, I know you hate the crap out of Secular Humanists. Which makes your insistence in calling that philosophical stance a religion all the more perplexing.

Já, I'm a secular Humanist -- Paid-up dues and everything.  Haven't heard a single prayer at the meetings, but we do get some great guest speakers -- Richard Carrier, PZ Myers, local scientists and politicians and sociologists.
No tax exemptions, though.  Unlike churches, we pay our fair share.
And I really can't see Myself ringing someone's doorbell at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning and screeching "Don't believe or buuuurn!"

Every group of adherents uses different means to spread the good word. 

Don't Believe In Global Warming? You Must Wear a Tin Foil Hat
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/10/dont-believe-in-global-warming-you-must-wear-a-tin-foil-hat-n1592406
New Research: Global Warming is Burning Up Forests and Coral
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-research-global-warming-0470.html
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 07:46:09 AM

It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.

And this is relevant...how? All I see, thus far, is one big argument from ignorance fallacy coming. So instead of admitting that you simply don't know the answers, you feel OK to just leap to the one particular religion you grew up around?
<snip>

I always stop reading the moment people start making assumptions about my background. 
None of my family attended church.  Did we say prayers at Christmas dinner when family came? 
Yes.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 07:49:51 AM

It was the conclusion after decades of investigation.  I have read that some go through a period of trial though.

Oh? Please enlighten us on this "investigation" you did. What part, exactly, demonstrated your assertions?

I never had any prayers answered until after I was a believer, if that's what you mean. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 08:14:00 AM
It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.
That's not how relativistic travel would work.

A person in a spaceship moving at relativistic speeds (let's say .99c for the sake of argument) will have time move much slower for them.  As far as the rest of the universe is concerned, a round trip to a destination 13 LY distant would take them just over 26 years.  As far as the passenger is concerned, it would (probably) take them a few days.

So no, Earth would not be dust by the time they returned.  They'd have been gone for just a bit over a quarter-century.  Even if they spent a while there, it would still probably be less than three decades.  That's not even a particularly long time, relatively speaking.

I was wrong on my numbers.   We should think in real terms.
You’d need about 10,000 shuttle main engines in sequence just to build up a decent speed (say, 1/100th light speed).
http://earthsky.org/space/alpha-centauri-travel-time
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
Oh yea, and Sky, I know you hate the crap out of Secular Humanists.<snip>


You'll have to cite your reference on that before we can continue.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 08:20:03 AM
It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.

Hey, Sky, you just have to get over this "earth to dust" hangup of yours. The timeline for such things is so beyond human scales that there is no need to worry about it. None whatsoever. You keep talking like it is in our immediate future. We've got lots of crap to deal with in the near-term, but the planet turning to dust is not one of them.

Find some less irksome personal flaw to amplify.

No, I talk about it as science does, as the predicted future.   
As a result, it points to a Creation event where all matter came into being.
And science has added additional news that it was a one time event, not to be repeated.


 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 20, 2013, 08:22:57 AM
Because that particular meaning was coined here at WWGHA.  Check the link I provided.

So you thought that was a clever communication.   Typical.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Dante on June 20, 2013, 08:24:31 AM

As a result, it points to a Creation event where all matter came into being.
And science has added additional news that it was a one time event, not to be repeated.

Citation please.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Mrjason on June 20, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
As a result, it points to a Creation event where all matter came into being.
And science has added additional news that it was a one time event, not to be repeated.

That's not certain though is it? http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cosmic-cold-spots-hint-at-other-universes/story-fnb64oi6-1226646122822 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cosmic-cold-spots-hint-at-other-universes/story-fnb64oi6-1226646122822)
Other universes would suggest more than 1 creation event
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2013, 09:24:56 AM
I was wrong on my numbers.   We should think in real terms.
You’d need about 10,000 shuttle main engines in sequence just to build up a decent speed (say, 1/100th light speed).
I don't consider it at all coincidental that as soon as you realized just how badly wrong you were about how long it would take to get to another star system at near-lightspeed, you decided to focus instead on what is currently possible.  The problem is, you're so narrow-minded that you think you know something and have to have the fact that you're wrong shoved in your face pretty hard to accept it.  Except then you just fixate on something else that supports what you already believe.  And you act like that false certainty means something and cop a 'superior' attitude to everyone else.

Yes, it's true that with existing space flight technology, other stars are out of our reach.  But so what?  Since you apparently haven't realized it, technology improves over time.  We went from a computer that filled an entire room, ran at 100 kHz[1], and could only run one operation at a time, to computers that you can carry inside a briefcase, run at speeds in excess of 2 GHz[2], and can run dozens of programs at the same time, in less than 70 years.

More to the point, we went from basic rocket propulsion technology to a spacecraft that could take people to the moon and return in about two decades.  After that, we basically let it sit and stopped seriously pushing space flight technology, aside from incremental improvements, so for all practical purposes, we're using stuff that's only slightly better than we were using during the heyday of the space program.  If we started seriously pushing it again, I think we'd start seeing significant improvements in the technology again.

That page you linked actually acknowledges this very issue not long after that quote you made, probably without reading most of the page.

"But all of those propulsion issues are really trivial. Here is the real problem with traveling to Alpha Centauri. Suppose we chose a method of travel, and set out for a trip among the stars. Suppose that, generations from now, our descendants arrived at a planet in the Alpha Centauri system. They might be greeted by brass bands and crowds of earthlings – who left later, but traveled via a more efficient process – and so made the trip in a shorter time."

So you thought that was a clever communication.   Typical.
I'll grant that he should have told you what the acronym meant instead of leaving you to guess.  That's why I simply told you what it meant.  You might think about that before you make any more snippy comments.
 1. 100,000 cycles per second
 2. 2,000,000,000 cycles per second
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 20, 2013, 10:12:37 AM
Every group of adherents uses different means to spread the good word.

So, SW, should '57 Chevy Restoration Associations get tax exemptions?  What about the knitting group at the local seniors' residence?  Star Trek fan clubs?  Pilates studios?

If you classify humanism as a religion but exclude any of the above, then you're being inconsistent.  All of the above have adherents and regular meetings.  None of them has as its raison d'être the worship of a supernatural entity. None of them are exclusivist -- A '57 Chevy fan can own a motorcycle, a bike or even a Ford F150 without receiving anonymous death threats or pity-prayers from other members of the club; a knitter can also crochet or do woodworking; a Star Trek fan can watch Harry Potter movies; and a Pilates practitioner can go to yoga or t'ai chi classes or Big Fat Sweaty Iron Muscle Gym without fear of ostracism or of being fired by a Pilates-practicing supervisor at work.

In fact, a Humanist who attends church with his grandmother, goes to a Wiccan solstice ceremony with a friend or participates in an aboriginal drumming group is generally not going to be publicly humiliated at a meeting or tossed out of the group.  Try standing up in your church and telling them that you spent Saturday evening at a Norse blót and drank a toast to Thor, and be prepared for a harsh reaction.  Humanists are more likely to say "Hey, kewl!"  "What does mead taste like?" "Y'know, the Nine Noble Virtues sound pretty okay.  We should invite them to our next meeting to talk about what they do."

So no, Humanism is not a religion... Unless your definition of 'religion' is so wide and vague as to make the word meaningless.  We have more in common with a political party, or with a volunteer service association such as the Lions Club or Rotary Club, than with a church.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 20, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

I always stop reading the moment people start making assumptions about my background. 
None of my family attended church.  Did we say prayers at Christmas dinner when family came? 
Yes.

Do you also always ignore the words people use when attempting to converse with you? It seems so. I said grew up with (aka - the Judeo Christian society). Did I say family? NO. Perhaps next time you should ask for clarification instead of just assuming.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 20, 2013, 10:44:30 AM

I never had any prayers answered until after I was a believer, if that's what you mean.

WTF? I asked you to provide the details of this alleged "investigation" you claimed you did "for many years" before becoming a believer of Christianity. What studies did you do? What information did you find that lead you to believe the supernatural claims of the bible? As another person put it...citation please.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2013, 11:27:31 AM
I'll bet he didn't actually investigate anything before he became a Christian.  By that, I mean what most people consider the definition of investigate, "to observe and study by close examination and systematic inquiry".  I won't venture to guess what he actually did do, but I strongly doubt anyone else would call it an investigation.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 20, 2013, 11:49:02 AM
Oh yea, and Sky, I know you hate the crap out of Secular Humanists.<snip>


You'll have to cite your reference on that before we can continue.

By referring to it as a religion, you were dissing it. It isn't.

But too, I was having a little fun. Forgive me if that is not a good combination for you.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 20, 2013, 11:56:08 AM
It is believed that the closest planets similar to earth might be 13 light years away.
So, choose your "odds of life developing" and consider the first point is 13 LY from earth.
If one does travel at light speed, earth will dust before they return.
"Relativity" speaking.

Hey, Sky, you just have to get over this "earth to dust" hangup of yours. The timeline for such things is so beyond human scales that there is no need to worry about it. None whatsoever. You keep talking like it is in our immediate future. We've got lots of crap to deal with in the near-term, but the planet turning to dust is not one of them.

Find some less irksome personal flaw to amplify.

No, I talk about it as science does, as the predicted future.   
As a result, it points to a Creation event where all matter came into being.
And science has added additional news that it was a one time event, not to be repeated.

But you keep taking it personally, like it is a horrid and upcoming event.

You're a little simplistic in your science in the above. Yes, there apparently was a "big bang" event, from which the matter in our universe sprang. And yes it will decay over time. A process that will take many more billions of years longer than humans can possibly survive. And you are being simplistic calling the results "dust", because stuff will simply decay back to basic elements and energy. And yes, it is a one time event for this universe, but there is reason to believe that are multiple universes, and the Big Bang we experienced may be a common event, if one looks at all of reality. We don't know that for sure, but that is one of several possibilities.

You and I have less than 100 years each to live on this planet. I'm down to my last ten or twenty. The long term stuff is of course interesting, but I see no need to use woes that far in the future to sadden my life now.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Jag on June 20, 2013, 12:51:14 PM

I always stop reading the moment people start making assumptions about my background. 

Oh my Darwin, this is f'ing priceless.

What a hypocrite you are. And like the "best" hypocrites, you don't even see it. Suddenly I feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 20, 2013, 04:41:56 PM

I always stop reading the moment people start making assumptions about my background. 

Oh my Darwin, this is f'ing priceless.

What a hypocrite you are. And like the "best" hypocrites, you don't even see it. Suddenly I feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for anyone over the age of 12 who thinks Noah's Ark was real. Kinda like a grown man believing that Santa will give him presents if he asks nicely. Oh, wait. :o
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Nam on June 21, 2013, 02:19:51 AM
[sorry old post]
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 21, 2013, 05:26:37 AM

That's the Fathers job, not mine.   I am opposed to evangelism.

We are already in Hell.  Heaven is an option to choose to get out of our current state. 

They have to ask God.  That would be different than cursing God.
Do you know what happens when my adult son curses me?
I give him the gift of freedom from my tyranny.  As does God.

There is no need.  Those who reject God experience internal TORMENT.  Thirst, flames, all that.
Have you ever been "tormented"?   It is a self inflicted condition.  Not to be confused with torture.

He did have a chosen people.   They produced His son and they carried out the task of conveying the message
of salvation.  Open the book and read it again.  The jews did not get fluffy pillows to sit on and eat figs back then, and they don't now either.

It's "do not murder".   I've had neighbors who were killed and eaten.  Some people who commit lethal crimes just need to be put to death.  It's not revenge.  We just can't live with such people alive in our midst.

All are sinners. God is not harmed at any time.

You would show this same love if your boyfriend murdered your baby?
http://badbreeders.net/2013/05/14/bad-boyfriend-sodomizes-and-strangles-baby/

Then why are you here?  You are a contradiction to yourself.

So now we're punished for just being born? :o  My life can sometimes be difficult but it's not hell.  Thanks to the trust I have in God.  Many atheist enjoy and embrace life.  They find peace and joy too.  So if they have some hell coming it would be a God inflicted punishment for not believing.  That is not love.

I would not torment my child for rejecting me.  Children only reject bad parents.

They also murdered Jesus on a cross!!! :o

The commands were not limited to murder.  You could get stoned for committing adultery or being homosexual.

When you push someone away from God  you hurt God and the person you have pushed away.

I would try to forgive.  It would be my guess that this boyfriend was abused as well.

These people are asking God to reveal God to them.  They are asking and not getting an answer, especially not from you.  Anyway you totally missed the moral to that example from Jesus.  So if I ask God right now to spare all humans from hell, whether they believe or not, what do you think God's answer will be?

Take care Sky and may God open your eyes and your heart.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 08:26:00 AM

That's the Fathers job, not mine.   I am opposed to evangelism. We are already in Hell.  Heaven is an option to choose to get out of our current state.  They have to ask God.  That would be different than cursing God. Do you know what happens when my adult son curses me? I give him the gift of freedom from my tyranny.  As does God. There is no need.  Those who reject God experience internal TORMENT.  Thirst, flames, all that. Have you ever been "tormented"?   It is a self inflicted condition.  Not to be confused with torture. He did have a chosen people.   They produced His son and they carried out the task of conveying the message
of salvation.  Open the book and read it again.  The jews did not get fluffy pillows to sit on and eat figs back then, and they don't now either. It's "do not murder".   I've had neighbors who were killed and eaten.  Some people who commit lethal crimes just need to be put to death.  It's not revenge.  We just can't live with such people alive in our midst. All are sinners. God is not harmed at any time. You would show this same love if your boyfriend murdered your baby?
http://badbreeders.net/2013/05/14/bad-boyfriend-sodomizes-and-strangles-baby/

Then why are you here?  You are a contradiction to yourself.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  People don't all have
the same motives for their actions. 

Quote
So now we're punished for just being born?

Being born into Fallen world feels exactly like that. 
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/161918_137062803013570_3229721_n.jpg)


Quote
My life can sometimes be difficult but it's not hell.  Thanks to the trust I have in God.  Many atheist enjoy and embrace life.  They find peace and joy too.  So if they have some hell coming it would be a God inflicted punishment for not believing.  That is not love.I would not torment my child for rejecting me.

As I said, torment is not torture.  Torment is when you screw up your own life.

 
Quote
Children only reject bad parents.
All children disobey their parents.


Quote
The commands were not limited to murder.  You could get stoned for committing adultery or being homosexual.When you push someone away from God  you hurt God and the person you have pushed away.

I don't take credit for the actions of others.

Quote
I would try to forgive.  It would be my guess that this boyfriend was abused as well.
  But you'd still have him locked up from society and not continue to live with you.

Quote
These people are asking God to reveal God to them.  They are asking and not getting an answer, especially not from you.  Anyway you totally missed the moral to that example from Jesus.  So if I ask God right now to spare all humans from hell, whether they believe or not, what do you think God's answer will be?
They would not be happy in a place they reject.  It would be like living inside insanity.
It would still be hell for them either way.

God only promised to answer all prayers "In his name".  Like a credit card with God's name on it.  He has to approve all purchases or he closes the account.


Quote
Take care Sky and may God open your eyes and your heart.

Thanks June.  Your kindness is appreciated.
 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jdawg70 on June 21, 2013, 09:20:23 AM
Then why are you here?  You are a contradiction to yourself.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  People don't all have
the same motives for their actions. 
And this would have been a great opportunity to answer junebug72's question of why you are here.  I'm sure junebug72 realizes that people all don't have the same motives for their actions.  You want her to just guess what yours are or would you like to clarify what those motivations are?  If you don't care to disclose your motivations, you are always free to just say so.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 21, 2013, 10:20:32 PM
Then why are you here?  You are a contradiction to yourself.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  People don't all have
the same motives for their actions. 
And this would have been a great opportunity to answer junebug72's question of why you are here.  I'm sure junebug72 realizes that people all don't have the same motives for their actions.  You want her to just guess what yours are or would you like to clarify what those motivations are?  If you don't care to disclose your motivations, you are always free to just say so.
I enjoy good conversation even with people I don't agree with.
It is very difficult to respond politely to an insult like
Quote
"You are a contradiction to yourself."
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 21, 2013, 11:45:18 PM
God only promised to answer all prayers "In his name".  Like a credit card with God's name on it.  He has to approve all purchases or he closes the account.

You're a bit off track here. Christ (allegedly) said if you ask anything in his name he would do it, among many things regarding doing magical things for those who "believe" (see Mark 16, John 14, etc). Did you not know this? In fact, that is the main premise of this site. It is precisely because we don't see these things happening that we have good reason to doubt the claims of your religion (just as we have good reason to doubt the claims of other religions as well).

So far, all we hear are excuses - rationalization after rationalization - spin, spin, and more spin. Why is that? Is it really that hard? Why can't you just demonstrate the claims you believe Christ said? Could it be because you know you can't, and it makes you uncomfortable, so you just make up excuses?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 22, 2013, 05:39:46 AM
Then why are you here?  You are a contradiction to yourself.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  People don't all have
the same motives for their actions. 
And this would have been a great opportunity to answer junebug72's question of why you are here.  I'm sure junebug72 realizes that people all don't have the same motives for their actions.  You want her to just guess what yours are or would you like to clarify what those motivations are?  If you don't care to disclose your motivations, you are always free to just say so.
I enjoy good conversation even with people I don't agree with.
It is very difficult to respond politely to an insult like
Quote
"You are a contradiction to yourself."

I'm sorry you feel insulted but how else can I tell you that you are making contradictions in your words.  You said you don't approve of evangelism but yet you're here making claims about God.  The last thing I want to do is be insulting to you.  I should have been more loving in the way I spoke to you.  I am truly sorry.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 22, 2013, 06:39:36 AM

I am not here to convince anyone of anything.  People don't all have
the same motives for their actions.

Then why are you here?

Quote
So now we're punished for just being born?

Being born into Fallen world feels exactly like that. 
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash3/161918_137062803013570_3229721_n.jpg)

As I said, torment is not torture.  Torment is when you screw up your own life.

Definition of TORMENT

1
: the infliction of torture (as by rack or wheel)   -or eternal fire-
2
: extreme pain or anguish of body or mind : agony
3
: a source of vexation or pain

Now that we have an accurate def. of torment we can get back to defining Love. 


 
Quote
Children only reject bad parents.

All children disobey their parents.

I don't take credit for the actions of others.

All children do not reject their parents.  Only bad parents get rejected. 

I am not asking you to accept responsibility for others actions.  I am merely trying to get you to correctly define the actions as unloving!!!  I hold you responsible for what you say. 


Quote
I would try to forgive.  It would be my guess that this boyfriend was abused as well.
 

But you'd still have him locked up from society and not continue to live with you.
 

I would also try to rehabilitate the man.  This is still a lot less cruel than stoning him would be. His crime is way worse than not believing in the mysteries of God.  God is better than me, IMO.

Quote
These people are asking God to reveal God to them.  They are asking and not getting an answer, especially not from you.  Anyway you totally missed the moral to that example from Jesus.  So if I ask God right now to spare all humans from hell, whether they believe or not, what do you think God's answer will be?

They would not be happy in a place they reject.  It would be like living inside insanity.
It would still be hell for them either way.

God only promised to answer all prayers "In his name".  Like a credit card with God's name on it.  He has to approve all purchases or he closes the account.

Thanks June.  Your kindness is appreciated.

See this is what I'm trying to get you to realize.  You say these things about God and you hurt.  Your words are nuclear.  Why would Loving God not want to answer my prayer?  What gives you the right to say Loving God would close the account?  That is not LOVE.

Love:The English word "love" can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from pleasure ("I loved that meal") to interpersonal attraction ("I love my partner"). It can refer to an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment.[1] It can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection—"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".[2] And it may describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals.[3]-wikipedia

Skywriting your religion does not define a Loving God.  It's not God's fault, it's not Jesus's fault, it's the people on the ground saying things like you just said that is to blame.  For six thousand years people have been making God look cruel.  Don't you think it's high time to start making God look like LOVE?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 22, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
See this is what I'm trying to get you to realize.  You say these things about God and you hurt.  Your words are nuclear.  Why would Loving God not want to answer my prayer?  What gives you the right to say Loving God would close the account?  That is not LOVE.

I have been warned by the forum staff not to preach.
So the only examples I can give are illustrations
or paraphrases of scripture. 

By forum rules, I can only post my poor restatements
of what scripture says.

Jesus said he was giving His life for our salvation. 
Love has no greater definition than that. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 22, 2013, 01:54:42 PM
I'm sorry you feel insulted but how else can I tell you that you are making contradictions in your words.  You said you don't approve of evangelism but yet you're here making claims about God. 

I am here because the URL of the forum asks questions about God.
I have a relationship with God, so I have a few answers on some
questions. 

Often, i don't respond to questions where I don't have an answer.

For example, a forum moderator insisted in green font that I answer a question about what a bug
under the flooring should believe about the people walking overhead if they don't kill him.

I'm going to assume this is critical from now on and will bring up the bug under the floorboard
topic as often as I can apply it.  Just because I want to fit in here.

God is like the person walking above and we are like bugs.   For bugs to gain forgiveness from the
"big shoes" we need to dialoge with the being first.  Once we are on speaking terms with the "big"
we can ask for forgivness for eating the floorboards.  But until we get on speaking terms, there is
no forgiveness because there is no dialog.  We may get stepped on, we may live another day.
 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 22, 2013, 02:29:35 PM
SW

So in other words, god uses a whistle and only dogs can hear it, but us non-dogs, if we close our eyes and believe real hard and click our heels together three times, then we can hear it too. Right?

Why didn't your god, back when I was 8 and 9 and 10 and going to Sunday school, etc. whistle for me and let me know he was there, even in just some tiny little way. Enough of a way to cause me to doubt when I started thinking that maybe he doesn't exist? If he is real and if he has superpowers he would have known way back in 1961 that I was starting to look at the world differently and that I was headed towards non-believing and all he had to do was one little tweet on his god whistle to make me reconsider.

Probably couldn't be bothered.

Of course you're going to answer that you don't know why god does the things he does, or in this case, doesn't do, because, you know, he had his street cred to worry about. Operating in mysterious ways and all that crap.

Other than warm fuzzy feelings and the illusion that you get to live forever in heaven because you've been a good boy, what do you get out of being a believer? What are the real-world benefits for you. Are you earthquake/tornado/hurricane proof? Can you leap tall steeples in a single bound? Do you suffer fewer diseases, milder leg cramps, less hair loss, sneeze to higher quality pollen, drown more beautifully?

I don't need your god to be good, to be happy or to be optimistic. And the only thing less appealing that living forever is shacking up with Honey Boo-Boo's mom.

So I guess the big question is this. Why is the idea of a god so important to you and so irrelevant to me?

And too, why would I want to be a pet for all of eternity.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 22, 2013, 06:10:22 PM
For example, a forum moderator insisted in green font that I answer a question about what a bug
under the flooring should believe about the people walking overhead if they don't kill him.

I'm going to assume this is critical from now on and will bring up the bug under the floorboard
topic as often as I can apply it.  Just because I want to fit in here.
I think you need to not take stuff like this so literally.

Quote from: SkyWriting
God is like the person walking above and we are like bugs.   For bugs to gain forgiveness from the
"big shoes" we need to dialoge with the being first.  Once we are on speaking terms with the "big"
we can ask for forgivness for eating the floorboards.  But until we get on speaking terms, there is
no forgiveness because there is no dialog.  We may get stepped on, we may live another day.
Actually, why should bugs seek forgiveness in the first place?  It seems to me that if they were smart (which, thankfully, bugs are not), they would seek to kill the thing that was killing them, rather than begging forgiveness and leaving themselves at its mercy.  Indeed, this is how humans tend to operate - when we run into something that's killing or harming us, we try to stop it through any means necessary.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 22, 2013, 08:57:45 PM


By forum rules, I can only post my poor restatements
of what scripture says.

Jesus said he was giving His life for our salvation. 
Love has no greater definition than that.

What a beautifully underhanded way of attempting to make your belief system immune from evidence.

Btw, you're wrong. THE BIBLE says that Jesus said (blah blah blah), and not only do you believe it but you assumed it from the outset. Why would you do that?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 22, 2013, 09:10:16 PM

I'm going to assume this is critical from now on and will bring up the bug under the floorboard
topic as often as I can apply it.  Just because I want to fit in here.

God is like the person walking above and we are like bugs.   For bugs to gain forgiveness from the
"big shoes" we need to dialoge with the being first.  Once we are on speaking terms with the "big"
we can ask for forgivness for eating the floorboards.  But until we get on speaking terms, there is
no forgiveness because there is no dialog.  We may get stepped on, we may live another day.

Except, the problem with your analogy of God being "the big shoes" here is that you can't demonstrate that you actually have dialogue with this big Ronald McDonald in the sky. Claiming you have dialogue with a supernatural being doesn't mean you actually do. You could easily be practicing self-deception and confirmation bias to suit your presuppositions (as is so common in religious belief). In fact, your description sounds nearly identical with that of an 8 year old who claims to have an invisible friend named Fred - and when anyone tries to question the 8 year old as to why he thinks Fred exists he either 1) has no answers, 2) gets defensive and uses irrational arguments, or 3) gets angry and refuses to provide demonstrable evidence (or all three).

In other words, this is a false analogy and doesn't properly represent your belief scenario.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 23, 2013, 03:59:40 AM
SW

So in other words, god uses a whistle and only dogs can hear it, but us non-dogs, if we close our eyes and believe real hard and click our heels together three times, then we can hear it too. Right? Why didn't your god, back when I was 8 and 9 and 10 and going to Sunday school, etc. whistle for me and let me know he was there, even in just some tiny little way. Enough of a way to cause me to doubt when I started thinking that maybe he doesn't exist? If he is real and if he has superpowers he would have known way back in 1961 that I was starting to look at the world differently and that I was headed towards non-believing and all he had to do was one little tweet on his god whistle to make me reconsider. Probably couldn't be bothered.
Of course you're going to answer that you don't know why god does the things he does, or in this case, doesn't do, because, you know, he had his street cred to worry about. Operating in mysterious ways and all that crap. Other than warm fuzzy feelings and the illusion that you get to live forever in heaven because you've been a good boy, what do you get out of being a believer? What are the real-world benefits for you. Are you earthquake/tornado/hurricane proof? Can you leap tall steeples in a single bound? Do you suffer fewer diseases, milder leg cramps, less hair loss, sneeze to higher quality pollen, drown more beautifully?  I don't need your god to be good, to be happy or to be optimistic. And the only thing less appealing that living forever is shacking up with Honey Boo-Boo's mom. So I guess the big question is this. Why is the idea of a god so important to you and so irrelevant to me? And too, why would I want to be a pet for all of eternity.

It's always good to have a relationship with your parents.  Even when you don't appreciate
the guidance they give or the help they can provide.  Keeping the lines of communication
open will always help.  God is like that too. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 23, 2013, 04:09:35 AM


By forum rules, I can only post my poor restatements
of what scripture says.

Jesus said he was giving His life for our salvation. 
Love has no greater definition than that.
What a beautifully underhanded way of attempting to make your belief system immune from evidence.
Btw, you're wrong. THE BIBLE says that Jesus said (blah blah blah), and not only do you believe it but you assumed it from the outset. Why would you do that?

Thanks for your interest.  I kept open the possibility that the Christians I knew were not insane for 20 years.
Some of then were a little off balance but eventually I came to respect a handful of Christians a lot.  Thats'
a few out of 100's.  But those few were really the kind of people I wanted to be like.  After taking up my own
study of the beliefs, I got the idea that there may be something to this "relationship" they had.   Then
I found there was.

Why is my life not like your life?   Because this is not heaven and God is not here.  God cannot physically heal
amputees.  At this distance, he can only heal the Spirit of those interested in healing.
The world is independent.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 23, 2013, 04:13:47 AM

I'm going to assume this is critical from now on and will bring up the bug under the floorboard
topic as often as I can apply it.  Just because I want to fit in here.

God is like the person walking above and we are like bugs.   For bugs to gain forgiveness from the
"big shoes" we need to dialoge with the being first.  Once we are on speaking terms with the "big"
we can ask for forgivness for eating the floorboards.  But until we get on speaking terms, there is
no forgiveness because there is no dialog.  We may get stepped on, we may live another day.

Except, the problem with your analogy of God being "the big shoes" here is that you can't demonstrate that you actually have dialogue with this big Ronald McDonald in the sky. Claiming you have dialogue with a supernatural being doesn't mean you actually do. You could easily be practicing self-deception and confirmation bias to suit your presuppositions (as is so common in religious belief). In fact, your description sounds nearly identical with that of an 8 year old who claims to have an invisible friend named Fred - and when anyone tries to question the 8 year old as to why he thinks Fred exists he either 1) has no answers, 2) gets defensive and uses irrational arguments, or 3) gets angry and refuses to provide demonstrable evidence (or all three).

In other words, this is a false analogy and doesn't properly represent your belief scenario.

Your moderator insisted it was critical that I use the analogy.  He's god around here.  So I need to worship the analogy.
Your moderator is the big shoe and I'm the bug.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 23, 2013, 04:28:07 AM

As a result, it points to a Creation event where all matter came into being.
And science has added additional news that it was a one time event, not to be repeated.

Citation please.

The gravity cycling theory required the expansion of space to slow.
It was found to be accelerating.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/12/nobel-prize-in-physics-2011/

This continues until heat death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 23, 2013, 04:33:34 AM

Definition of TORMENT

1
: the infliction of torture (as by rack or wheel)   -or eternal fire-
2
: extreme pain or anguish of body or mind : agony
3
: a source of vexation or pain

Now that we have an accurate def. of torment we can get back to defining Love. 


Not accurate if you exclude my point, torment is intended to be internal in this case.

Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 23, 2013, 06:57:58 AM
See this is what I'm trying to get you to realize.  You say these things about God and you hurt.  Your words are nuclear.  Why would Loving God not want to answer my prayer?  What gives you the right to say Loving God would close the account?  That is not LOVE.

I have been warned by the forum staff not to preach.
So the only examples I can give are illustrations
or paraphrases of scripture. 

By forum rules, I can only post my poor restatements
of what scripture says.

Jesus said he was giving His life for our salvation. 
Love has no greater definition than that.

Jesus's act of love has been mooted by his so called followers that insist on using the old testament to condone their hate.  If Moses hadn't gotten things so wrong there would not have been a need for Christ's death.  It was Moses's laws that hung Jesus on the cross!!!

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I believe God does.  I just don't believe the biblical authors correctly define God.  I also don't believe Christ's followers portray the Love of Jesus accurately and the result is fewer people subscribing to Christianity becoming atheist or spiritual but not religious.


Are you afraid of hell?  There should be no need to fear a Loving God.  God must love better than me for God created me, IMO.  If I was a mystery I would not punish my creation for not believing in me.  I would only punish those that hurt others and there is a long line of Christians on that list.  I wouldn't burn them for eternity though.  I'd send them back to live the life of the people they hated and condemned in my name like homosexuals.

By the way those 3 letters will keep you out of trouble, it stands for; In My Opinion.  This site requires proof of truth claims.  I learned my lesson the hard way, but it is one that is appreciated.  There is a difference in what you believe and what you can prove about your belief.

I say these things to you out of Love.  I would give my life to abolish religion.  That is how strongly I am against what hatetians/Christians have done to this world.

I am a lesbian going to heaven with my atheist friends, IMO.  Have a blessed day Skywriting.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: junebug72 on June 23, 2013, 08:02:46 AM
I'm sorry you feel insulted but how else can I tell you that you are making contradictions in your words.  You said you don't approve of evangelism but yet you're here making claims about God. 

I am here because the URL of the forum asks questions about God.
I have a relationship with God, so I have a few answers on some
questions. 

Often, i don't respond to questions where I don't have an answer.

For example, a forum moderator insisted in green font that I answer a question about what a bug
under the flooring should believe about the people walking overhead if they don't kill him.

I'm going to assume this is critical from now on and will bring up the bug under the floorboard
topic as often as I can apply it.  Just because I want to fit in here.

God is like the person walking above and we are like bugs.   For bugs to gain forgiveness from the
"big shoes" we need to dialoge with the being first.  Once we are on speaking terms with the "big"
we can ask for forgivness for eating the floorboards.  But until we get on speaking terms, there is
no forgiveness because there is no dialog.  We may get stepped on, we may live another day.

Sky I'm sorry you feel offended by the mods.  I have had my own differences with them.  Best way to handle it is cooperate and follow forum rules.

If I can ever be of any assistance to you PM me please.  I'd be more than happy to help you out.

If you want to fit in you have to quit ignoring questions and provide proof of truth claims.  If you don't have an answer just say so.  Don't just answer they like direct answers.  Where is this bug challenge?  I haven't seen it.  Okay found it.  Anfauglir is a hard one.  Watch out for John's magic socks.  He likes to use examples like this to prove God's non existence.  I for one don't see any similarities to his examples to our relationship with God.  God, IMO, is not us and we are not bugs.  When he fails to prove to you that God does not exist he will get nasty.

Will you please consider my advice and be careful what you assign to God.  I can not express how important this is to belief.

So far you have not answered anything but created more confusion and encouraged non belief.   You have also assigned more negative attributes to God than God had when you started sharing your beliefs. 

If you won't take my advice listen to your Savior.  Your words are the double edged sword that Jesus warned us about.

May the Love of God open your heart and your mind.

Love,
Junebug

PS,  Check out my first thread, believing in God is not a bad thing.  I think it will offer you some insight on how to fit in, the do's and don'ts.  It's under general religious, page 2.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 23, 2013, 02:32:12 PM

Thanks for your interest.  I kept open the possibility that the Christians I knew were not insane for 20 years.
Some of then were a little off balance but eventually I came to respect a handful of Christians a lot.  Thats'
a few out of 100's.  But those few were really the kind of people I wanted to be like.  After taking up my own
study of the beliefs, I got the idea that there may be something to this "relationship" they had.   Then
I found there was.

Why is my life not like your life?   Because this is not heaven and God is not here.  God cannot physically heal
amputees.  At this distance, he can only heal the Spirit of those interested in healing.
The world is independent.

Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Please demonstrate how you know these claims are true. So far, all I see is your big ASSUMPTION regarding your personal interpretation of the bible, and that is not a reliable pathway to separating fact from fiction.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 23, 2013, 02:40:48 PM

Your moderator insisted it was critical that I use the analogy.  He's god around here.  So I need to worship the analogy.
Your moderator is the big shoe and I'm the bug.

Now you are just equivocating on the term "God" to avoid being refuted. The moderator likely asked you to use the analogy in order to expose the fallacies in your reasoning process. Sometimes it is helpful to get it out so you (and we) can view your own error. In this case, you have attempted to use a false analogy in an effort to support one of your claims regarding (presumably) how god operates and how he/she/it interacts with us. Since this analogy fails, are you willing to admit it's failure and abandon it? That would be a demonstration of intellectual honesty.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 23, 2013, 03:17:06 PM
SW

So in other words, god uses a whistle and only dogs can hear it, but us non-dogs, if we close our eyes and believe real hard and click our heels together three times, then we can hear it too. Right? Why didn't your god, back when I was 8 and 9 and 10 and going to Sunday school, etc. whistle for me and let me know he was there, even in just some tiny little way. Enough of a way to cause me to doubt when I started thinking that maybe he doesn't exist? If he is real and if he has superpowers he would have known way back in 1961 that I was starting to look at the world differently and that I was headed towards non-believing and all he had to do was one little tweet on his god whistle to make me reconsider. Probably couldn't be bothered.
Of course you're going to answer that you don't know why god does the things he does, or in this case, doesn't do, because, you know, he had his street cred to worry about. Operating in mysterious ways and all that crap. Other than warm fuzzy feelings and the illusion that you get to live forever in heaven because you've been a good boy, what do you get out of being a believer? What are the real-world benefits for you. Are you earthquake/tornado/hurricane proof? Can you leap tall steeples in a single bound? Do you suffer fewer diseases, milder leg cramps, less hair loss, sneeze to higher quality pollen, drown more beautifully?  I don't need your god to be good, to be happy or to be optimistic. And the only thing less appealing that living forever is shacking up with Honey Boo-Boo's mom. So I guess the big question is this. Why is the idea of a god so important to you and so irrelevant to me? And too, why would I want to be a pet for all of eternity.

It's always good to have a relationship with your parents.  Even when you don't appreciate
the guidance they give or the help they can provide.  Keeping the lines of communication
open will always help.  God is like that too.

If that is your idea of a response, I suggest you find another hobby.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 23, 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Your moderator insisted it was critical that I use the analogy.  He's god around here.  So I need to worship the analogy.
Your moderator is the big shoe and I'm the bug.
No, the moderator was trying to keep you from dodging the point.  That does not make him a god.  Or the other moderators.  Or the admins.

They do have authority - you could say they're the bosses around here - but that is not even remotely close to the same thing as them being gods, so your inane attempt to 'worship' the analogy just fell flat.

By the way, I know a lot of Christians.  Some of them are pretty decent folk.  But that doesn't mean I'm interested in believing fantasies are true simply because they believe it.

I can respect them without trying to be them.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 23, 2013, 06:33:26 PM
The gravity cycling theory required the expansion of space to slow.
It was found to be accelerating.
This continues until heat death.
Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily bet on that if I were you.  For one thing, our knowledge is still rather incomplete with regards to the end of the universe.  To presume that the discovery in 2011 is the last word on the subject is...careless, to say the least.

And in any case, we're talking about something that's not going to happen for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years.  It's so far in the future that it has no real relevance to us except as a matter for contemplation.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 23, 2013, 07:18:13 PM
Why are we as bugs to god's big shoe, if we are so important to him? And if we are his most important creations, why is he "distant"? I am curious as to why "distance" would make any difference to god, time and space being his creations also.

Also, dying for a cause, ie being a martyr, is not necessarily a sign of love. Do suicide bombers act out of love? And even if being willing to die is a sign if love in a particular circumstance, so what? Lots of people do that (parents are often willing to die for their children, soldiers die for their comrades).

Why is it so special that Jesus was willing to die to save all of humanity, esp. when he was coming back to life anyway? I would do that--who wouldn't? What is worthy of worship there? I can understand being grateful, but why worship?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 23, 2013, 07:39:14 PM
^^^Yep, dude takes a three day vacation and gets applauded for the rest of eternity.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Samothec on June 24, 2013, 03:02:56 PM
I was wrong on my numbers.   We should think in real terms.
We have been. We've also been trying to get you to do the same. This post of yours was a (small) start.

...   Because this is not heaven and God is not here.  God cannot physically heal amputees.  At this distance, he can only heal the Spirit of those interested in healing.
The world is independent.
You have one wimpy God if he is unable to heal amputees. Heck, the Greek(/Roman) gods could do that – or Egyptian or Sumerian or Hindu or ...
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:01:13 AM
You have one wimpy God if he is unable to heal amputees. Heck, the Greek(/Roman) gods could do that – or Egyptian or Sumerian or Hindu or ...

I was not aware of that.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:08:44 AM
Why is it so special that Jesus was willing to die to save all of humanity, esp. when he was coming back to life anyway?

Two things in answer to your questions.  We are intended to be in God company, but we choose to go a different direction.

Originally, there was no death.  Leaving God's side results in death.  He's not there to stop things from going wrong.
The only solution was for God to pay the price for us so we could have our life back.  Jesus did that.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:11:48 AM
The gravity cycling theory required the expansion of space to slow.
It was found to be accelerating.
This continues until heat death.
Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily bet on that if I were you.  For one thing, our knowledge is still rather incomplete with regards to the end of the universe.  To presume that the discovery in 2011 is the last word on the subject is...careless, to say the least.

And in any case, we're talking about something that's not going to happen for trillions upon trillions upon trillions of years.  It's so far in the future that it has no real relevance to us except as a matter for contemplation.

The point is that the other direction is not possible.   Energy does not gather, turn to matter, become alive. 
It only goes the other way.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:14:46 AM
Your moderator insisted it was critical that I use the analogy.  He's god around here.  So I need to worship the analogy.
Your moderator is the big shoe and I'm the bug.
No, the moderator was trying to keep you from dodging the point.  That does not make him a god.  Or the other moderators.  Or the admins.
They do have authority - you could say they're the bosses around here - but that is not even remotely close to the same thing as them being gods, so your inane attempt to 'worship' the analogy just fell flat.
By the way, I know a lot of Christians.  Some of them are pretty decent folk.  But that doesn't mean I'm interested in believing fantasies are true simply because they believe it.
I can respect them without trying to be them.

Are you avoiding explaining the point, or is it lost on you as well?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:22:34 AM

Your moderator insisted it was critical that I use the analogy.  He's god around here.  So I need to worship the analogy.
Your moderator is the big shoe and I'm the bug.

Now you are just equivocating on the term "God" to avoid being refuted. The moderator likely asked you to use the analogy in order to expose the fallacies in your reasoning process. Sometimes it is helpful to get it out so you (and we) can view your own error. In this case, you have attempted to use a false analogy in an effort to support one of your claims regarding (presumably) how god operates and how he/she/it interacts with us. Since this analogy fails, are you willing to admit it's failure and abandon it? That would be a demonstration of intellectual honesty.

It wasn't my analogy.   Yes, I ignored the request to make an analogy between god above the floor, and me, a bug under the floorboards.  The bug thought that the person was being kind, because it hadn't been stepped on yet.  But that's silly.  That are are many reasons that a bug may be allowed to live other than the big shoe being kind.  The moderator must have thought this was a critical point.  He told me in Green that I had to answer it.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:26:01 AM
SW

So in other words, god uses a whistle and only dogs can hear it, but us non-dogs, if we close our eyes and believe real hard and click our heels together three times, then we can hear it too. Right? Why didn't your god, back when I was 8 and 9 and 10 and going to Sunday school, etc. whistle for me and let me know he was there, even in just some tiny little way. Enough of a way to cause me to doubt when I started thinking that maybe he doesn't exist? If he is real and if he has superpowers he would have known way back in 1961 that I was starting to look at the world differently and that I was headed towards non-believing and all he had to do was one little tweet on his god whistle to make me reconsider. Probably couldn't be bothered.
Of course you're going to answer that you don't know why god does the things he does, or in this case, doesn't do, because, you know, he had his street cred to worry about. Operating in mysterious ways and all that crap. Other than warm fuzzy feelings and the illusion that you get to live forever in heaven because you've been a good boy, what do you get out of being a believer? What are the real-world benefits for you. Are you earthquake/tornado/hurricane proof? Can you leap tall steeples in a single bound? Do you suffer fewer diseases, milder leg cramps, less hair loss, sneeze to higher quality pollen, drown more beautifully?  I don't need your god to be good, to be happy or to be optimistic. And the only thing less appealing that living forever is shacking up with Honey Boo-Boo's mom. So I guess the big question is this. Why is the idea of a god so important to you and so irrelevant to me? And too, why would I want to be a pet for all of eternity.

It's always good to have a relationship with your parents.  Even when you don't appreciate
the guidance they give or the help they can provide.  Keeping the lines of communication
open will always help.  God is like that too.

If that is your idea of a response, I suggest you find another hobby.

I was enjoying your conversation with yourself and didn't want to interfere with anything important.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:28:44 AM

Thanks for your interest.  I kept open the possibility that the Christians I knew were not insane for 20 years.
Some of then were a little off balance but eventually I came to respect a handful of Christians a lot.  Thats'
a few out of 100's.  But those few were really the kind of people I wanted to be like.  After taking up my own
study of the beliefs, I got the idea that there may be something to this "relationship" they had.   Then
I found there was.

Why is my life not like your life?   Because this is not heaven and God is not here.  God cannot physically heal
amputees.  At this distance, he can only heal the Spirit of those interested in healing.
The world is independent.

Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Please demonstrate how you know these claims are true. So far, all I see is your big ASSUMPTION regarding your personal interpretation of the bible, and that is not a reliable pathway to separating fact from fiction.

None of that comes from scripture.   Not directly anyway.
Bible believing Christians would not agree with me. 
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 25, 2013, 08:42:49 AM
See this is what I'm trying to get you to realize.  You say these things about God and you hurt.  Your words are nuclear.  Why would Loving God not want to answer my prayer?  What gives you the right to say Loving God would close the account?  That is not LOVE.

I have been warned by the forum staff not to preach.
So the only examples I can give are illustrations
or paraphrases of scripture. 

By forum rules, I can only post my poor restatements
of what scripture says.

Jesus said he was giving His life for our salvation. 
Love has no greater definition than that.

Jesus's act of love has been mooted by his so called followers that insist on using the old testament to condone their hate.  If Moses hadn't gotten things so wrong there would not have been a need for Christ's death.  It was Moses's laws that hung Jesus on the cross!!!

I'm not trying to convince you God doesn't exist, I believe God does.  I just don't believe the biblical authors correctly define God.  I also don't believe Christ's followers portray the Love of Jesus accurately and the result is fewer people subscribing to Christianity becoming atheist or spiritual but not religious.


Are you afraid of hell?  There should be no need to fear a Loving God.  God must love better than me for God created me, IMO.  If I was a mystery I would not punish my creation for not believing in me.  I would only punish those that hurt others and there is a long line of Christians on that list.  I wouldn't burn them for eternity though.  I'd send them back to live the life of the people they hated and condemned in my name like homosexuals.

By the way those 3 letters will keep you out of trouble, it stands for; In My Opinion.  This site requires proof of truth claims.  I learned my lesson the hard way, but it is one that is appreciated.  There is a difference in what you believe and what you can prove about your belief.

I say these things to you out of Love.  I would give my life to abolish religion.  That is how strongly I am against what hatetians/Christians have done to this world.

I am a lesbian going to heaven with my atheist friends, IMO.  Have a blessed day Skywriting.

You pay them too much mind.  See, "this world" has no effect on God.   Christians can start wars, persecute, and run to church every day of the week.  The can have potluck dinners and offer whiskey and Wine as door prises, and raffle off cars ti make money for the church.   None of that has any interference between a person and Jesus.  No effect at all.  All church people are is people born into a world where God does not reside.  Just exactly the same condition as everyone else.   And 'Church people" are absolutely no different.    When they look for god, they find a place that other people are looking too.  That's all a church is, a place where sinners gather.   So let's not expect then to act like angels.  Lets lower our expectations and keep an eye on them like everyone else. 
 Like priests for instance.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: ParkingPlaces on June 25, 2013, 09:07:50 AM
SW

So in other words, god uses a whistle and only dogs can hear it, but us non-dogs, if we close our eyes and believe real hard and click our heels together three times, then we can hear it too. Right? Why didn't your god, back when I was 8 and 9 and 10 and going to Sunday school, etc. whistle for me and let me know he was there, even in just some tiny little way. Enough of a way to cause me to doubt when I started thinking that maybe he doesn't exist? If he is real and if he has superpowers he would have known way back in 1961 that I was starting to look at the world differently and that I was headed towards non-believing and all he had to do was one little tweet on his god whistle to make me reconsider. Probably couldn't be bothered.
Of course you're going to answer that you don't know why god does the things he does, or in this case, doesn't do, because, you know, he had his street cred to worry about. Operating in mysterious ways and all that crap. Other than warm fuzzy feelings and the illusion that you get to live forever in heaven because you've been a good boy, what do you get out of being a believer? What are the real-world benefits for you. Are you earthquake/tornado/hurricane proof? Can you leap tall steeples in a single bound? Do you suffer fewer diseases, milder leg cramps, less hair loss, sneeze to higher quality pollen, drown more beautifully?  I don't need your god to be good, to be happy or to be optimistic. And the only thing less appealing that living forever is shacking up with Honey Boo-Boo's mom. So I guess the big question is this. Why is the idea of a god so important to you and so irrelevant to me? And too, why would I want to be a pet for all of eternity.

It's always good to have a relationship with your parents.  Even when you don't appreciate
the guidance they give or the help they can provide.  Keeping the lines of communication
open will always help.  God is like that too.

If that is your idea of a response, I suggest you find another hobby.

I was enjoying your conversation with yourself and didn't want to interfere with anything important.

I repeat. I suggest you find another hobby. Doing a copy and paste out of a Dear Abby column or wherever you got that drivel is a waste of everyones time.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 25, 2013, 12:13:01 PM
The point is that the other direction is not possible.   Energy does not gather, turn to matter, become alive. 
It only goes the other way.
I absolutely beg to differ.  This is a popular misconception by those who don't really understand the nature of entropy (which, at this point, clearly includes you).  You see, entropy simply refers to the amount of energy that is unavailable to do work.  It does not mean that "energy does not gather, turn to matter, become alive".  The only thing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics means is that the total, universal value of entropy cannot decrease.  Beyond that, anything goes - because all the rest of the energy in the universe is available for those sorts of things.

Indeed, we can see this happening in stellar fusion, where stars take hydrogen and fuse it into steadily more massive elements.  That's a reversal of entropy right there - you're taking hydrogen, the simplest element of all, and turning it into things like helium, carbon, oxygen, and iron.  If entropy worked the way you think it does, this would be impossible; stars could not reverse entropy by converting the least complex element of all into more complex elements.

So, how do you justify stellar fusion in your own mind, seeing that you think that it's impossible for anything to go the other way?

Are you avoiding explaining the point, or is it lost on you as well?
If you didn't understand the point, why didn't you ask someone to explain it in the first place?  First off, moderators use green text to signify that they are acting as a moderator.  That's because otherwise, it would be very difficult to tell when they were speaking as a moderator, and when they were speaking as a regular poster.  Second, in this case, the moderator felt that you explaining your own particular reasoning behind the bug analogy would be a good idea, since it can be difficult to understand what a person is thinking about something like that.

If you have further questions, why not ask the moderator in question?  I'm sure he could explain it better than I could.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Samothec on June 25, 2013, 05:09:59 PM
In addition to what jaimehlers said – my reply to this:
The point is that the other direction is not possible.   Energy does not gather, turn to matter, become alive. 
It only goes the other way.
That is not true. Too much energy in a single point does in fact turn into matter since matter is a very stable form of a great deal of energy. Atoms are made up of protons, electrons and sometimes neutrons. Protons, electrons and neutrons are made of quarks. Quarks are the smallest particles of matter. We are not be able to "view" individual quarks as it takes a great deal of energy to separate them, so much energy that the moment they separate other quarks are created from that energy and the quarks are still not 'alone'.[1] So, yes, energy does turn into matter - quite readily.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true.

And before you quote some religious person who doesn't understand science in the least and who makes false claims about the laws of thermodynamics, the people who made your computer were only able to make it because the people who designed it had a factual understanding of thermodynamics. The same facts we are trying to present to you. If we were wrong and the religious guy you got the crap about "Energy does not gather, turn to matter, become alive" from was right then your computer would not work at all. Nor would your phone or car or furnace.
 1. A quark-gluon plasma would need an estimated temperature of about 1.9×1012 Kelvin creating a plasma of freely moving quarks and gluons. These would still not be lone quarks. Yeah, this bit is way beyond SW's understanding but it's still cool info.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 01:28:56 AM

It wasn't my analogy.   Yes, I ignored the request to make an analogy between god above the floor, and me, a bug under the floorboards.  The bug thought that the person was being kind, because it hadn't been stepped on yet.  But that's silly.  That are are many reasons that a bug may be allowed to live other than the big shoe being kind.  The moderator must have thought this was a critical point.  He told me in Green that I had to answer it.

And regardless of which way you slice it, the analogy still fails. Bugs and humans are DEMONSTRABLE. And just like all the other man-made fake deities of history, your alleged deity Yahweh is NOT.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 01:37:24 AM
Why is it so special that Jesus was willing to die to save all of humanity, esp. when he was coming back to life anyway?

Two things in answer to your questions.  We are intended to be in God company, but we choose to go a different direction.

Originally, there was no death.  Leaving God's side results in death.  He's not there to stop things from going wrong.
The only solution was for God to pay the price for us so we could have our life back.  Jesus did that.

But he allegedly created and designed it all to happen that way, right? So it's your God's fault that it happened. He's the one who actually kicked us overboard only to want some kind of sick sadistic worship for "saving" us from a rule that he himself invented in the first place. Btw, you just contradicted yourself. He's not there to stop things from going wrong? Really? How about allegedly "paying the price for us so we could have our life back"? Somehow that wasn't an attempt to stop things from going wrong? There are so many holes in your story it's utterly surprising that you can't see them.

Originally there was no death? How do you know this? Again, you keep preaching (i.e. - regurgitating paraphrased bible passages) instead of actually demonstrating how you know these things to be true. Assuming your bible in advance doesn't cut it, sorry.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 01:42:50 AM

You pay them too much mind.  See, "this world" has no effect on God.   Christians can start wars, persecute, and run to church every day of the week.  The can have potluck dinners and offer whiskey and Wine as door prises, and raffle off cars ti make money for the church.   None of that has any interference between a person and Jesus.  No effect at all.  All church people are is people born into a world where God does not reside.  Just exactly the same condition as everyone else.   And 'Church people" are absolutely no different.    When they look for god, they find a place that other people are looking too.  That's all a church is, a place where sinners gather.   So let's not expect then to act like angels.  Lets lower our expectations and keep an eye on them like everyone else. 
 Like priests for instance.

I'll make you a deal. I will lower my expectations when it comes to the actions and habits of professing Christians if you lower your expectations/assumptions that the bible is divinely inspired. Deal?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 07:37:51 AM

You pay them too much mind.  See, "this world" has no effect on God.   Christians can start wars, persecute, and run to church every day of the week.  The can have potluck dinners and offer whiskey and Wine as door prises, and raffle off cars ti make money for the church.   None of that has any interference between a person and Jesus.  No effect at all.  All church people are is people born into a world where God does not reside.  Just exactly the same condition as everyone else.   And 'Church people" are absolutely no different.    When they look for god, they find a place that other people are looking too.  That's all a church is, a place where sinners gather.   So let's not expect then to act like angels.  Lets lower our expectations and keep an eye on them like everyone else. 
 Like priests for instance.

I'll make you a deal. I will lower my expectations when it comes to the actions and habits of professing Christians if you lower your expectations/assumptions that the bible is divinely inspired. Deal?

"Divinely inspired" is not very strong.    That covers most Christian music.

I took 20 years before I decided the scriptures were correct accounts of history.   
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 07:41:31 AM
Why is it so special that Jesus was willing to die to save all of humanity, esp. when he was coming back to life anyway?

Two things in answer to your questions.  We are intended to be in God company, but we choose to go a different direction.

Originally, there was no death.  Leaving God's side results in death.  He's not there to stop things from going wrong.
The only solution was for God to pay the price for us so we could have our life back.  Jesus did that.

But he allegedly created and designed it all to happen that way, right? So it's your God's fault that it happened. <snip>


God decided that freedom to choose to be with Him was better than not having any choice. 
God seems to be pro-choice on this matter.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 07:47:20 AM

It wasn't my analogy.   Yes, I ignored the request to make an analogy between god above the floor, and me, a bug under the floorboards.  The bug thought that the person was being kind, because it hadn't been stepped on yet.  But that's silly.  That are are many reasons that a bug may be allowed to live other than the big shoe being kind.  The moderator must have thought this was a critical point.  He told me in Green that I had to answer it.

And regardless of which way you slice it, the analogy still fails. Bugs and humans are DEMONSTRABLE. And just like all the other man-made fake deities of history, your alleged deity Yahweh is NOT.

He has demonstrated His existence.  Starting with all the Creation of matter you see around you.
You don't normally see matter appearing for no good reason.
Well there's a lot of space.   And for some reason, here we are looking at it.
Scientifically speaking, all life comes from life and all mass and energy from an even greater source.
You can't get something from nothing.  And our "something" is seemingly infinite in size.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: naemhni on June 26, 2013, 07:58:50 AM
He has demonstrated His existence.  Starting with all the Creation of matter you see around you.

That isn't even close to proving the existence of any deity at all, let alone the Abrahamic one.  Just for starters, you would have to demonstrate that the universe was created, which no one has ever done.

Quote
You don't normally see matter appearing for no good reason.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Quote
Well there's a lot of space.   And for some reason, here we are looking at it.

The reason we're looking at it is simply that we exist.  that's all.

Quote
Scientifically speaking, all life comes from life and all mass and energy from an even greater source.

Science does not say that.  In fact, quite the contrary.

Quote
You can't get something from nothing.

How do you know?

Quote
And our "something" is seemingly infinite in size.

False, but even if true, it would still be irrelevant.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 26, 2013, 08:48:15 AM
He has demonstrated His existence.  Starting with all the Creation of matter you see around you.

That isn't even close to proving the existence of any deity at all, let alone the Abrahamic one.

No, I didn't say prove.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: naemhni on June 26, 2013, 08:54:06 AM
He has demonstrated His existence.  Starting with all the Creation of matter you see around you.

That isn't even close to proving the existence of any deity at all, let alone the Abrahamic one.

No, I didn't say prove.

Fine, if you insist:
"That isn't even close to demonstrating the existence of any deity at all, let alone the Abrahamic one."
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 26, 2013, 09:43:46 AM
No comment on stellar fusion, SkyWriting?  Does that mean you're conceding the point that energy can "go the other way"?
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 26, 2013, 09:44:21 AM

He has demonstrated His existence.  Starting with all the Creation of matter you see around you.
You don't normally see matter appearing for no good reason.
Well there's a lot of space.   And for some reason, here we are looking at it.
Scientifically speaking, all life comes from life and all mass and energy from an even greater source.
You can't get something from nothing.  And our "something" is seemingly infinite in size.

How funny that you just contradicted yourself and can't even see it. You really need to study logic b/c your arguments are fallacious. What we see is infinite? Then no god is necessary!

1. Nature doesn't tell you how it got here until you investigate, and claiming "You can't get something from nothing" shows how ignorant you are of cosmological science. The Big Bang theory DOES NOT say something came from nothing. You are ignorant.

2. Just because "we are here" doesn't mean a God did it - anymore than it means a magic unicorn did it. You are trying to use the logical fallacy called The Argument from Incredulity (i.e. - the Argument from Ignorance). At best, you should admit ignorance - that you don't really know how we got here, not just ASSUME "It's impossible!" when you don't know that either.

3. "Scientifically speaking" you don't know WTF you're talking about. Science does NOT say that all life must come from life. There are multiple experiments that have been done which demonstrate that life common from none living organic material is not impossible.

Please visit the site www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org) to educate yourself. You need to stop reading biased creationists and start reading real science.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: The Gawd on June 27, 2013, 04:50:24 AM
this whole thread is getting more funny with each post.

SW, dont you see the fact that things dont just pop up as evidence against yahweh and any other diety? You see if these myths were real then you would EXPECT to see things just pop in to existence. You would expect another planet in the solar system out of the blue. You would expect sandwiches to appear in the hands of starving children... but of course we never see this happen. Its because there is no such thing as yahweh.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: SkyWriting on June 27, 2013, 08:34:28 AM
this whole thread is getting more funny with each post.

SW, dont you see the fact that things dont just pop up as evidence against yahweh and any other diety? You see if these myths were real then you would EXPECT to see things just pop in to existence. You would expect another planet in the solar system out of the blue. You would expect sandwiches to appear in the hands of starving children... but of course we never see this happen. Its because there is no such thing as yahweh.

That is the nature of our existence on earth.  This is not Heaven, or paradise.  This is a mild form of Hell.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Astreja on June 27, 2013, 10:11:09 AM
That is the nature of our existence on earth.  This is not Heaven, or paradise.  This is a mild form of Hell.
If this were so, SW,[1] why does your purported god allow such a place as an earthly hell even exist?  Why does it sit by and allow so many children to be born into a hellish place, only to die before they even have a chance of hearing what it supposedly wants of them?  If their lives are already fated to be short and painful, why not birth them into heaven instead?

My personal take on this, of course, is that neither heaven nor hell actually exist -- And if you see every square inch of this beautiful planet as hell, you're not doing this "life" thing right.  Better to make the world a kinder, safer place one action at a time than to just curse it and give up.
 1. But I really don't think so.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: jaimehlers on June 27, 2013, 10:28:16 AM
That is the nature of our existence on earth.  This is not Heaven, or paradise.  This is a mild form of Hell.
That undercuts your argument even more, seeing as you've never been to Hell in the first place and thus have no basis for comparison.

Frankly, that's the entire problem with beliefs about Heaven and Hell.  Nobody has ever actually been there, or come back from there.  Nobody has any idea what they're actually like, or if they even exist in the first place.  It's always been things that people have seen in visions.  Which could just as easily be produced by the human mind, and not have anything to do with any deities in the first place.  Therein lies the problem.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: nogodsforme on June 27, 2013, 04:12:53 PM
The more we hear from you, SW, the more you sound like a Muslim. You have known real suffering, and the way you make sense of it is to create a very severe, harsh god in charge of everything.

That, for you, makes more sense than life with no god at all, where human beings are completely alone in the uncaring universe. But you clearly realize that a kind, loving god would not let all the bad sh!t that you have been through happen. So god has to be this very powerful, distant, ruthless bastard dictator. It is a very Islamic perspective.

The Islamic version of the one true god is also pretty harsh. He judges and we submit. Everything he does, we have to just accept because "good" is whatever god wants.  No, he don't have to listen to any stupid human prayers or change anything bad that happens to us, although he could, because he can do anything. He just don't really give a good goddamn about humans because we are as ants to his greatness.

God alone decides (or actually, has already decided) who goes to paradise and who is destined for hell. The best we can do is try to figure out what he wants and to do it. Basically, life sucks and then you die. And chances are, it will then suck even more. Nice.

No wonder people who strongly believe this create regimes like in Saudi Arabia, where they publicly execute gays every Friday. No wonder the Taliban arose out of the wars in Afghanistan, and created a society where human rights don't matter. And no wonder desperately unhappy Palestinian youth blow themselves up in the hopes that they will get a free golden key to paradise..... :( :P
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: Jag on June 27, 2013, 04:22:08 PM
^^^There's some eloquently stated ugly truths.
Title: Re: 1 + 1 + 1 = 1
Post by: median on June 28, 2013, 11:55:59 AM

"Divinely inspired" is not very strong.    That covers most Christian music.

I took 20 years before I decided the scriptures were correct accounts of history.

20 years of doing what? As many of us have been asking, please demonstrate/display how you know these texts are "correct accounts of history" (and also please define exactly what you mean by that). Are you saying that you accept textual claims to the miraculous? If so, why?