Why don't christians know more?

[Kimpatsu]

Regardless of the "blinded by the light" epiphany that led Paul to change his Faith and begin his evangelizing...

The "blinded by the light", voice from Heaven ("Why do you persecute me"?), coupled with physical descriptions of Paul as short, buck-toothed, rat-faced, and ugly, imply that he was an epileptic, and that the light and voice on the road to Damascus were in fact a grand mal epileptic fit. This is bourne out by more recent research that hsa established that the same malfunction of the temporal lobe, when artificially induced, leads to the same feelings of religious awe as nuns, monks, and other religious devotees describe. To this end, a so-called "god helmet" was devised io stimulate that part of the temporal lobe. Interestingly, when I tried it, there was no effect, and nor was there any such effect on Richard Dawkins. We really are too dense to be religious.
Put another way, religious devotion is the product of a defective brain...

 

[Kimpatsu]

There are other "restrictions" placed on the Abrahamic God's omnipotence. For example, most who believe in God agree that God cannot go against his own nature (for example, some would not agree that God can sin). It probably wouldn't be logically impossible for him to do so, but to insist that he must be able to do so might not fit within the definition of "omnipotence" used by some theists.

Concerning the chariots thing, can you provide a reference to the scripture you're referring to? Of course, whenever scripture is referenced, interpretation and translation issues always come into play.

-Bri

If god CAN'T sin, then he isn't omnipotent. That god exercises free will in choosing nOT to sin is perfectly tenable (IOW, the divine will is the servant ofthe divine reason). If god is in capable of sinning, however, then there is something god can't do that humans can. (If you accept the hypothesis of sin, that is.)
Anyhow, the chariots of iron thing is as follows:
Judges 1:19: "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Guess iron is god's Kryptonite...

 

[Darth Rotor]

The "blinded by the light", voice from Heaven ("Why do you persecute me"?), coupled with physical descriptions of Paul as short, buck-toothed, rat-faced, and ugly, imply that he was an epileptic, and that the light and voice on the road to Damascus were in fact a grand mal epileptic fit. This is bourne out by more recent research that hsa established that the same malfunction of the temporal lobe, when artificially induced, leads to the same feelings of religious awe as nuns, monks, and other religious devotees describe. To this end, a so-called "god helmet" was devised io stimulate that part of the temporal lobe. Interestingly, when I tried it, there was no effect, and nor was there any such effect on Richard Dawkins. We really are too dense to be religious.
Put another way, religious devotion is the product of a defective brain...

Right. 2000 years ex post facto diagnosis of epilepsy is "the only possible explanation: (gee, there is a line right from the ICR!). It is a hypothesis, rather than a fact (opinions on Paul differ among scholars). That this diagnosis conveniently fits your stereotype of religious activity as defective mental capacity makes it true how?

Is it written in some Book of Atheism thusly: "Seekest ye whatever tid bit ye can find to support your PoV, for though art truly blessed with tunnel vision."

I don't think so. Many, many atheists do not resort to this sort of "blinders on" discussion.

So, one explanation of "blinded by the light" is this temporal lobe thing. Fine. Does that make it "the only answer?" No.

Thought: Is the experience you are referring to similar to the one depicted in the John Travolta movie "Phenomenon?" We enjoyed that film.

DR

 

[Bri]

Anyhow, the chariots of iron thing is as follows:
Judges 1:19: "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Guess iron is god's Kryptonite...

Or maybe "he" refers to Judah and not to God, which would render the passage to indicate that God didn't allow Judah to drive out the inhabitants of the valley.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

If god CAN'T sin, then he isn't omnipotent. That god exercises free will in choosing nOT to sin is perfectly tenable (IOW, the divine will is the servant ofthe divine reason). If god is in capable of sinning, however, then there is something god can't do that humans can. (If you accept the hypothesis of sin, that is.)

Perhaps. It's probably a minor point in reality, but I think the basis of rejecting a definition of "omnipotence" as including the ability to sin is the notion of God as a perfect being (which would imply that God is incapable of sin -- or at least that sin only applies to humans). If one felt that omnibenevolence meant that one couldn't sin, and that omnipotence meant that one could do anything that is logically possible, then an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being would be impossible (by those definitions).

My point is that you probably have to use whatever definition is used by an individual believer. To imply that "the Abrahamic God" must be able to do anything that is logically possible probably isn't an accurate statement.

-Bri

 

[bruto]

The "blinded by the light", voice from Heaven ("Why do you persecute me"?), coupled with physical descriptions of Paul as short, buck-toothed, rat-faced, and ugly, imply that he was an epileptic, and that the light and voice on the road to Damascus were in fact a grand mal epileptic fit. This is bourne out by more recent research that hsa established that the same malfunction of the temporal lobe, when artificially induced, leads to the same feelings of religious awe as nuns, monks, and other religious devotees describe. To this end, a so-called "god helmet" was devised io stimulate that part of the temporal lobe. Interestingly, when I tried it, there was no effect, and nor was there any such effect on Richard Dawkins. We really are too dense to be religious.
Put another way, religious devotion is the product of a defective brain...

That's a pretty juicy cherry you've just plucked. Are you willing to give that close a credence to other descriptions in the bible?

 

[Kimpatsu]

So, one explanation of "blinded by the light" is this temporal lobe thing. Fine. Does that make it "the only answer?" No.

Never said it did. But it's the most likely answer.
The problem with you theists is you want everything to be absolutes. Like Saizai, who thinks that because it's impossible to disprove faeries at the botrtom ofthe garden, they just might be there.

 

[Kimpatsu]

That's a pretty juicy cherry you've just plucked. Are you willing to give that close a credence to other descriptions in the bible?

What do you mean "close credence"?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Or maybe "he" refers to Judah and not to God, which would render the passage to indicate that God didn't allow Judah to drive out the inhabitants of the valley.

-Bri

Only in the English wording, with its ambiguity; apparently not in the original Aramaic. Know any good Aramaic scholars to check that one?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Perhaps. It's probably a minor point in reality, but I think the basis of rejecting a definition of "omnipotence" as including the ability to sin is the notion of God as a perfect being (which would imply that God is incapable of sin -- or at least that sin only applies to humans). If one felt that omnibenevolence meant that one couldn't sin, and that omnipotence meant that one could do anything that is logically possible, then an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being would be impossible (by those definitions).

But that's what the words "omnipotent" and omnibenevolent" mean; once you start saying, "God is omnipotent, except for...", then he's no longer omnipotent. It's like the question of unbelievers going to Hell. If god is omnibenevolent, he would never condemn people to an eternity of being doused in gasoline and set alight. But I've been told by apologists that, although god is indeed omnibenevolent, unbelievers are in a state of sin, and so cannot come before god's holiness. IOW, god can't prevent our damnation. So he isn't omnipotent, then, is he, if there's something he can't do...?
And round we go again...

My point is that you probably have to use whatever definition is used by an individual believer. To imply that "the Abrahamic God" must be able to do anything that is logically possible probably isn't an accurate statement.

I was working fromthe definition given me by theists, but if you know of any others, please do share.

 

[bruto]

What do you mean "close credence"?

I mean you seem to feel that the description is sufficiently truthful, complete and accurate that you can base a medical opinion on it. I'm not all that disinclined to agree that Paul might have been epileptic, as well as an ugly, snaggletoothed wanker and a few other things (no love lost there). I just find it amusing that you would find a bible story about a bible character so usefully credible.

 

[Bri]

Only in the English wording, with its ambiguity; apparently not in the original Aramaic. Know any good Aramaic scholars to check that one?

Where did your information concerning the original Aramaic come from? I found several sites claiming that that "he" in the passage refers to Judah, but none suggesting that the original Aramaic implies that "he" refers to God rather than to Judah.

-Bri

 

[Kimpatsu]

I mean you seem to feel that the description is sufficiently truthful, complete and accurate that you can base a medical opinion on it. I'm not all that disinclined to agree that Paul might have been epileptic, as well as an ugly, snaggletoothed wanker and a few other things (no love lost there). I just find it amusing that you would find a bible story about a bible character so usefully credible.

Then you have completely misunderstood. ASSUMING THAT THE BIBLICAL DESCRIPTIONS ARE REASONABLY ACCURATE, then that Paul was an epileptic in the rgip of a grand mal delusion that he (necessarily) interpreted as religious is the most likely explanation for what happened. Certainly mroe so than "god spoke thus".

 

[Kimpatsu]

Where did your information concerning the original Aramaic come from? I found several sites claiming that that "he" in the passage refers to Judah, but none suggesting that the original Aramaic implies that "he" refers to God rather than to Judah.

-Bri

A book I read. You may be right; until I learn classical Aramaic, I can't be certain.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The problem with you theists is you want everything to be absolutes.

Really? What sort of telepathy do you have to be able to read my mind and make that statement? Randi has $1,000,000 waiting for you, except for one small problem: in my case, you are wrong. Trying to pigeonhole another into your personally stereotyped, two dimensional, paper doll image of a Christian is a mental trap many atheists (in my experience) don't fall into. Why do you choose to do so?

Consider your opening clause: "The trouble with you ______________s is . . . "
Gross generalization for 50, Alex. Now, do I have to drink at a separate water fountain, or sit in the back of the bus?

Why the emotional need to pigeonhole someone with whom you disagree? Where does this come from? Ever heard Rush Limbaugh excoriate "those leftists" or "those liberals" or other imaginary and stereotyped caricatures of people?

On this forum, you are talking to actual people, not caricatures of them.

DR

 

[Kimpatsu]

Then why did you make an absolutist statement if you're not demanding an absolute?!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then why did you make an absolutist statement if you're not demanding an absolute?!

Please cut and paste, or otherwise identify, the absolutist statement in question, and we can proceed with our conversation. OK?

DR

 

[CP489]

Right. 2000 years ex post facto diagnosis of epilepsy is "the only possible explanation: (gee, there is a line right from the ICR!). It is a hypothesis, rather than a fact (opinions on Paul differ among scholars). That this diagnosis conveniently fits your stereotype of religious activity as defective mental capacity makes it true how?


DR

I don't see where he claimed it was the "only possible explanation".

Though, to an atheist, it certainly does seem to be a plausible one.

 

[Riddick]

#1 is typical of the young crowd here at jref. posting their observations of "christian atrocities" and patting eachother on the back, looking woefully into each other's eyes, searching for a mutual agreement on the subject at hand.

rofl

 

[Tricky]

#1 is typical of the young crowd here at jref. posting their observations of "christian atrocities" and patting eachother on the back, looking woefully into each other's eyes, searching for a mutual agreement on the subject at hand.

Yeah, it's just one big party all the time here.