Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

Of course. Just because people 3,000 years ago didn't have our command of science doesn't make them stupid.
Who said they were stupid? Without the command of science we have today, they would be considered ignorant, not stupid, and simply ill-equipped to answer the questions they were attempting to at the time. Also, don’t go assuming that I’m suggesting we know everything, even with our current understanding of science we are still ignorant of many things, which is why science continuously moves forward building on each discovery made to further reduce our ignorance. It is a continuous effort and I don’t suspect there will ever be an end.
 
Of course. Just because people 3,000 years ago didn't have our command of science doesn't make them stupid.

In fact, they appear more wise than many today.



I don't argue for the existence of a sky-fairy. I point out my belief in God.

I don't believe I even implied they were stupid. Ignorance and stupidity are quite different, and the prognosis for ignorance is quite good for those willing to learn. Your belief in a sky-fairy/god is a different issue. I asked about using Genesis as a source of facts.
 
So it is possible that President John F. Kennedy is alive?

(Do you really want to continue this line?)
Sure, just extremely unlikely. So unlikely that it would be irrational to believe he is still alive, but not impossible. I can go just as long as you.

I'm just trying to show you why many scientists eschew the word "proof".
 
...I asked about using Genesis as a source of facts.

I use Genesis as a historical foundation for the understanding of God and Creation of that time.

Today we have a better understanding of the physical sciences, and our writings reflect that.

But today we don't have a much better grasp on the mysteries of spirituality and God that our ancestors had, and it doesn't appear to be coming soon.

I integrate the understandings of our ancestors with discoveries made over the past 3,000 years. I'm learning.

Those who reject God or the mere concept of God aren't progressing in that area. They are free to do so, as I am free to pursue it as I wish.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
So it is possible that President John F. Kennedy is alive?

(Do you really want to continue this line?)
Sure, just extremely unlikely. So unlikely that it would be irrational to believe he is still alive, but not impossible.

So, if his body is exhumed, DNA is examined on his bones and decomposed body to confirm it is him, you would continue to assert that it is not impossible that he is dead?

I can go just as long as you.

I hope you do. You will not fare well.

I'm just trying to show you why many scientists eschew the word "proof".

And I'm showing that such a dogma is foolish.
 
But today we don't have a much better grasp on the mysteries of spirituality and God that our ancestors had, and it doesn't appear to be coming soon.
Why do you think that is? Do you think perhaps it could be because there has been no additional evidence for the "mysteries of spirituality" during that time? How can you learn when there is no new information?

I integrate the understandings of our ancestors with discoveries made over the past 3,000 years. I'm learning.
Which ancestors? Are you integrating in all the understandings of pagans, Confucians, Hindi and all the other religions of the world? Or are you perhaps trying to fit our new libraries of knowledge into a little temple that was never designed to accommodate it?

Those who reject God or the mere concept of God aren't progressing in that area.
You aren't progressing in that area either. You are wandering. Religion has wandered quite a bit over the years, but I fail to see how it has progressed. Unless you want to say that the emergence of religions like Scientology is progress.

They are free to do so, as I am free to pursue it as I wish.
Yes you are free to do so. But how do you pursue something when the trail leads only into the past?
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
I use Genesis as a historical foundation for the understanding of God and Creation of that time.

Who wrote the parts about what happened before man was created? How did they find out?Who wrote the parts about what happened before man was created? How did they find out?

Footnotes to Chapter 1, Genesis, in the New American Bible (authorized Catholic Bible for the English speaking New World countries):

Footnotes
1 [1:1-2:4a] This section introduces the whole Pentateuch. It shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos.

2 [2] The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.

3 [5] In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. According to the highly artificial literary structure of Genesis 1:1-2:4a, God's creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion (Genesis 2:2-3).

4 [26] Man is here presented as the climax of God's creative activity; he resembles God primarily because of the dominion God gives him over the rest of creation.

Most biblical books in the NAB have introductory chapters which gives the history of that book, including authors, dates, etc. For some reason, this online NAB doesn't include the introduction to Genesis that I have seen in written versions. I'll try to find it electronically to cite and link to.
 
So, if his body is exhumed, DNA is examined on his bones and decomposed body to confirm it is him, you would continue to assert that it is not impossible that he is dead?
Can you prove to me that given technologies far beyond our current knowledge, it would be impossible to reconstruct him? You cannot. There is no "proof". There is only evidence.

I hope you do. You will not fare well.
LOL. I ain't gonna lose no sleep over it.
And I'm showing that such a dogma is foolish.
Exactly how did saying "we cannot know anything for certain" become a "dogma"? Perhaps you should look up the word.
 
Who wrote the parts about what happened before man was created? How did they find out?

Sorry. I found it:

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the "Law," or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the "discourses" of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is an over-simplification , for it is not always possible to distinguish with certainty among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the LORD said to Moses." One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel's age-old relationship with God.

Obviously, we don't know the names of the authors. These are the compilation of oral and written revelations from thousands of years, finally established six centuries before Christ as the Pentateuch, which serves both as a historical and legal foundation.

Like Canadian Malcontent has pointed out, for a document finally "published" some 2,600 years ago, it meshes remarkably well with what has been learned since.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
But today we don't have a much better grasp on the mysteries of spirituality and God that our ancestors had, and it doesn't appear to be coming soon.

Why do you think that is? Do you think perhaps it could be because there has been no additional evidence for the "mysteries of spirituality" during that time?

Yup. Additionally, our acquired grasp of physical sciences aren't even scratching the surface of spirituality, if they even can.

How can you learn when there is no new information?

By studying the works of those who study spirituality. I include the sages of all religions. I happen to be Roman Catholic, and so the bulk of my interest has been along those lines, but I've also studied some Taoism, Native American religions, and have some basic understanding (of course) of the religions closely related to Christianity (Judaism and Islam).

Originally Posted by Huntster
I integrate the understandings of our ancestors with discoveries made over the past 3,000 years. I'm learning.

Which ancestors? Are you integrating in all the understandings of pagans, Confucians, Hindi and all the other religions of the world?


As many as I can. I've only got so much time.

Or are you perhaps trying to fit our new libraries of knowledge into a little temple that was never designed to accommodate it?

Actually, you're speaking along the lines of Christ's famous statement:

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God's.

I have only so much need to mesh the physical with the spiritual, but there is some need. I have been taught that the three main enemies of the spirit are 1) The World, 2) The Flesh, and 3) The Evil One. So, obviously, the physical is part of the whole. Other religions recognize that as well.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Those who reject God or the mere concept of God aren't progressing in that area.

You aren't progressing in that area either. You are wandering.

It is a huge region. With only so much roadmap, it's easy to find oneself "wandering." As long as I don't get "lost", I'm happy.

Of course, I could just stay home, watch TV, and repeat the worldly mantra regarding "sky fairies", "sky chieftains", etc.

Religion has wandered quite a bit over the years, but I fail to see how it has progressed.

You fail to see much.

Have you "knocked"?

Unless you want to say that the emergence of religions like Scientology is progress.

Just more difference in human interpretations, in my opinion. I don't know anything about "Scientology", and have no inclination to check it out, either. I'll stick with the eons-old basic faiths, and try to get as much as I can from them. As far as modernity is concerned, the physical sciences appear to be progressing well. I'll rely on "science" for them, thanks.

Originally Posted by Huntster
They are free to do so, as I am free to pursue it as I wish.

Yes you are free to do so. But how do you pursue something when the trail leads only into the past?

Learning from the past is the foundation of learning.
 
Originally Posted by Huntster
So, if his body is exhumed, DNA is examined on his bones and decomposed body to confirm it is him, you would continue to assert that it is not impossible that he is dead?

Can you prove to me that given technologies far beyond our current knowledge, it would be impossible to reconstruct him? You cannot. There is no "proof". There is only evidence.

Reconstructing him makes him alive again. Today he is dead. The evidence is overwhelming. It cannot be denied by any sane individual. It can be proven today that President Kennedy is dead.

Proof. It exists in some cases. To deny it is a faith; a religion; a dogma.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I hope you do. You will not fare well.

LOL. I ain't gonna lose no sleep over it.

No need to.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And I'm showing that such a dogma is foolish.

Exactly how did saying "we cannot know anything for certain" become a "dogma"? Perhaps you should look up the word.

Dogma:

1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

To say that science rejects the principle of "proof" is dogma. Religion. Doctrine. A settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

"Proof" exists.
 
The more I read your posts, the more I am impressed with your arguing.

Correct. Full knowledge of God escapes us all, even those who spend a lifetime in study and prayer, and with the reflections of four millenium of humans before us.

No argument here.

If he has a woefully inadequate concept and understanding of God, and yet propounds with ferver that God cannot exist, he is in a position of ignorance, or very close to that end of the scale.

I see what you're saying, but the basic concept of it is that a supernatural being is the creator of life, watches over us, and also dictates which souls will be saved from hell and which won't, which all depends on faith. I agree that "full" understanding of "god" is not nearly as simple, regardless of wether or not you believe or have faith, but if he is aware of this basic concept, yet chooses to embrace (again, excuse my word choice) "fact" rather than "faith", this is not ignorance. Nor is the opposite (believing in god).

It is not an insult. It is a statement of fact.

I am different than many here. With regard to the word "proof", I consider it the ultimate in evidence, and it establishes something "beyond the shadow of doubt." I have challenged several on this forum who have exchanged the words "evidence" and "proof", sometimes in the same post.

Yes and no. There are different kinds of "truth", and "proof", while based in fact, can be interpreted in different ways. Literal, universal fact can be and often is seprate from individual truth (what you hold to be true). That's the basis of opinion.

This is much fun! :)
 
Back to bumper stickers.

WWRDNT: Use Screws.



I made it up and I like it.

I like these:

Are you as close to Jesus as you are to my bumper?

Amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

Aren't you glad your mother was pro-life?

Be ye fishers of men - You catch 'em, He'll clean 'em.

Lead me not into temptation; I know my way.

My God is alive - Sorry about yours

Not all who wander are lost

The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and - BANG - it happened

Those who refuse to fight evil always condemn those who do

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
 
Yup. Additionally, our acquired grasp of physical sciences aren't even scratching the surface of spirituality, if they even can.
They can't. Physical science does not address the metaphysical. Since there is no good evidence for anything metaphysical, I don't see this as a serious drawback.

By studying the works of those who study spirituality. I include the sages of all religions. I happen to be Roman Catholic, and so the bulk of my interest has been along those lines, but I've also studied some Taoism, Native American religions, and have some basic understanding (of course) of the religions closely related to Christianity (Judaism and Islam).
I'm not saying you can't learn more about religion, just that there is no new knowledge of God being added to help you move forward. Of course, there are people who claim that God has given them direct instructions. Lots of them. Which to believe? How do you tell the real prophets from the charlatans? I'm guessing you believe the ones who align most closely with what you already believe.

As many as I can. I've only got so much time.
So, like the Yahwist you cite, you cobble together stories from a variety of places, "reorienting" them, adapting them, including the bits you like and discarding the bits you don't.

Actually, you're speaking along the lines of Christ's famous statement:
Jesus said:
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar, and unto God that which is God's.
Which would seem to say that we should let science answer scientific questions and not try to force-fit them into ancient mythology.

I have only so much need to mesh the physical with the spiritual, but there is some need. I have been taught that the three main enemies of the spirit are 1) The World, 2) The Flesh, and 3) The Evil One. So, obviously, the physical is part of the whole. Other religions recognize that as well.
Some say similar things, some don't. Many religions aren't that big on The Flesh being such an enemy, and indeed, even parts of the Bible seem to be a celebration of The Flesh (Songs of Solomon in particular). So once again, you are "cherry-picking" the parts that agree with what you already believed.
It is a huge region. With only so much road map, it's easy to find oneself "wandering." As long as I don't get "lost", I'm happy.
I'm dubious. You certainly sound angry a lot.

Of course, I could just stay home, watch TV, and repeat the worldly mantra regarding "sky fairies", "sky chieftains", etc.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be a straw man of skeptics. People compare your God to those things because He seems to share lots of characteristics with them, primarily that their existence is based on faith rather than evidence. For the record, I haven't said any of those things to you. I even capitalize God as a mark of respect for your beliefs.

You fail to see much.
Yes, that is true. I've only got so much time.

Have you "knocked"?
Often. I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I still would welcome evidence of a loving God.

Just more difference in human interpretations, in my opinion. I don't know anything about "Scientology", and have no inclination to check it out, either. I'll stick with the eons-old basic faiths, and try to get as much as I can from them.
Well, so much for including the sages of all religions. :D

As far as modernity is concerned, the physical sciences appear to be progressing well. I'll rely on "science" for them, thanks.
I see you do, as regards computers and the like. But when the physical science conflict with your mythology, you abandon your reliance on them.

Learning from the past is the foundation of learning.
Yes, but a building must have more than a foundation. You must build on top of it.
 
Obviously, we don't know the names of the authors.

Well, then what was the source of their information prior to Genesis 1:27?

Like Canadian Malcontent has pointed out, for a document finally "published" some 2,600 years ago, it meshes remarkably well with what has been learned since.

Meshes well with what new learning? Science? Geography? Astronomy? Archeology? Can you give an example of something we learned recently that was disclosed in the bible? 400 years ago, Galileo discovered many things that don't mesh well with what the bible tells us.

The more we learn, the more errors we find in the bible. These are clearly because of ignorance on the part of all of humanity at the time, and become apparent because of our continual pursuit of knowledge since then. If these writings were divinely inspired or the words of god, one would assume he would understand the orbital relationship of the sun and its planets.

Back to the Harry Potter example. 2600 years from now, one could learn a great deal about our culture from reading those books. King's Cross Station is a real place. If archeologists 2600 years in the future dig up the ruins of King's Cross Station, would that be grounds to assume the Potter books are factual accounts of the lives of wizards and witches? Fiction is often filled with references to things which are factual. Identifying something in a book that is historically or scientifically accurate in no way gives credence to the other parts about which we have no data outside that book. This is especially true when we find things in the same book which we know are not true.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom