(February 6, 2019 at 9:10 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 6, 2019 at 9:04 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Any attempt at a genetic rationalization of souls puts it front and center.  I appreciate that it may not fly under your radar, but it does fly under the catholic radar, the op radar, and it certainly flies under drichs radar..etc.

But no genetic rationalization was actually given. It was more of a genetic analogy. The Divine soul is passed on like genes.

Hello!

Uhm... Okay....

Uhm... how...?

Like, where does one soul 'Rub up' against another soul to help make a new soul?

Heck... how would such a 'Soul biology' even work? 

Not at work.

(February 6, 2019 at 9:10 am)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 6, 2019 at 9:04 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Any attempt at a genetic rationalization of souls puts it front and center.  I appreciate that it may not fly under your radar, but it does fly under the catholic radar, the op radar, and it certainly flies under drichs radar..etc.

But no genetic rationalization was actually given. It was more of a genetic analogy. The Divine soul is passed on like genes.

You must be unfamiliar with drichs pet "theory"....or the rccs official line, lol. It's not exactly surprising to you and I that the christians have diverged from their source material, obvs - though if you ask them, the source material just got it all balls out wrong in so many words. Yet another reason I can't fathom the need to avoid that same conclusion in light of more recent facts.

(February 3, 2019 at 10:02 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 3, 2019 at 9:29 pm)wyzas Wrote: gods spark, is that what they're calling it now?

More literally it would be 'the breath of G-d'.  This discussion interested me because it appears that the Catholics reconciled their beliefs with evolution by lifting from the Jewish tradition. Long, long before Charles Darwin came along, the Sages of the Talmud discussed the generations before Adam. Adam was the first man to have the Breath of G-d breathed into him.

Which god? Was it yhwh, asherah, el, moloch, anat, ba'al, or my favourite dagon?

(February 6, 2019 at 9:20 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(February 6, 2019 at 9:10 am)Yonadav Wrote: But no genetic rationalization was actually given. It was more of a genetic analogy. The Divine soul is passed on like genes.

Hello!

Uhm... Okay....

Uhm... how...?

Like, where does one soul 'Rub up' against another soul to help make a new soul?

Heck... how would such a 'Soul biology' even work? 

Not at work.

Maybe they split down the middle, like amoebas.

(February 5, 2019 at 12:31 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(February 5, 2019 at 12:04 pm)Drich Wrote: yes by ADDING TO Cannon.

You say that like your "resolution" doesn't.  I don't see the point, personally.  Why add something that doesn't resolve the paradox when you can simply and truthfully say "fuckers had no idea what they were talking about"?  The answer is always right there, it's just a book.  Gods, even if they did exist, don't give a shit about magic books.  They didn't write them, they don't vouch for their accuracy.  They don't descend from on high with a highlighter and whiteout.

To the extent that a magic book is wrong, or bigoted, or just simply outdated...is a thoroughly human problem.  Treating the peculiar psyche of the author as though it were a god is the height of heretical inanity.

-but you do you...right?  You can make your god as small and ignorant as you need it to be in order to justify your own dickish myopia, lol.  I'll keep on mentioning how hilarious it is when a person does this and then insists that it's those filthy godless atheists who aren't taking the idea seriously.

ironically that's kinda the whole amazing thing i am pointing out. the bible can be small and easy to understand and things made simple and it jives well enough to remain accurate, or like in this case the simple small understand can give way to a much more inclusive understand that incorporates real world verified knowledge without changing anything beside the archaic perception that the bible has to be this small easy to understand. As I pointed out in my reading nothing changes in the bible itself only our understanding of how to read the story. once we do this then everything else that once was opposed to scripture can now fit in with scripture.

Allowing room from faith in God and in whatever science has to offer.

The trouble is the distance between what you imagine yourself to be doing , and what you actually are doing.

If you're going to go through the trouble of making magic book right, then make magic book right. Half assing that is pointless. Or, and I know this is just a radical idea..you could simply stop worshiping a book and pretending that it was magic? Sav that devotion and expense for a god, instead.

The people who wrote it possessed no insight into the origins of man, to be blunt..they didn't even remember who they were or where they came from...which is understandable given the circumstances they found themselves in at the time of it's compilation. They nevertheless possessed great insight into the human condition..because they were human beings, lol. The voice speaking to you in that book is a human voice, not a divine one. Not all of it has aged well, but again this is to be expected because we do not find ourselves in the same world the narrators found themselves. None of magic books problems are a god's problems except in your own insistence of them as such.

(February 6, 2019 at 11:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 5, 2019 at 12:31 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: You say that like your "resolution" doesn't.  I don't see the point, personally.  Why add something that doesn't resolve the paradox when you can simply and truthfully say "fuckers had no idea what they were talking about"?  The answer is always right there, it's just a book.  Gods, even if they did exist, don't give a shit about magic books.  They didn't write them, they don't vouch for their accuracy.  They don't descend from on high with a highlighter and whiteout.

To the extent that a magic book is wrong, or bigoted, or just simply outdated...is a thoroughly human problem.  Treating the peculiar psyche of the author as though it were a god is the height of heretical inanity.

-but you do you...right?  You can make your god as small and ignorant as you need it to be in order to justify your own dickish myopia, lol.  I'll keep on mentioning how hilarious it is when a person does this and then insists that it's those filthy godless atheists who aren't taking the idea seriously.

ironically that's kinda the whole amazing thing i am pointing out. the bible can be small and easy to understand and things made simple and it jives well enough to remain accurate, or like in this case the simple small understand can give way to a much more inclusive understand that incorporates real world verified knowledge without changing anything beside the archaic perception that the bible has to be this small easy to understand. As I pointed out in my reading nothing changes in the bible itself only our understanding of how to read the story. once we do this then everything else that once was opposed to scripture can now fit in with scripture.

Allowing room from faith in God and in whatever science has to offer.

The bible can be "small"..... Um no, depending on version it is still around a little over 1,000 pages. And a "book" that took over 1,000 years to complete with over 40 authors and books left out. 

"Easy to understand"....... <--- "Easy to cherry pick to suit ones own desires".

No, easy to swallow sure, but most humans of every religion in our species history get sold their mythology at birth, prior to formulating adult critical thinking skills. So, no, it is not just you, and not just your religion.

And the argument that science matches a religion, is one made by apologists of EVERY religion. If you stupidly think Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus don't try to square modern science with old mythology, you have not debated very many people of varies backgrounds of the world. I have.

(February 6, 2019 at 9:10 am)Yonadav Wrote: But no genetic rationalization was actually given. It was more of a genetic analogy. The Divine soul is passed on like genes.

But then, you have no evidence of it being there. Business as usual.

(February 6, 2019 at 1:21 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(February 6, 2019 at 9:10 am)Yonadav Wrote: But no genetic rationalization was actually given. It was more of a genetic analogy. The Divine soul is passed on like genes.

But then, you have no evidence of it being there. Business as usual.

No evidence necessary. I wasn't trying to prove anything or convince anyone that what I said is true.

(February 6, 2019 at 1:48 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(February 6, 2019 at 1:21 pm)LastPoet Wrote: But then, you have no evidence of it being there. Business as usual.

No evidence necessary. I wasn't trying to prove anything or convince anyone that what I said is true.

Oh man, if you are going to take  a position, own it. 

From a human rights standpoint, nobody is forcing you to prove anything. Nobody is going to have you arrested or murdered for having a position we don't find is credible.

But what you don't see, that I do, with theists of every label, having been online debating since 2001 almost every day since, that everyone pulls this.

The issue is not your human rights. The issue is your position, your logic, your evidence.

If you hold a position, and truly believe it, DEFEND IT, don't back off it. Don't use this doge.

Nobody is going to kill you if you cant prove it. But please do not insult us by pretending you don't have a position you wish more would hold.

If for example, I had a new invention, I knew would help the world, why hide from it, why hold it back, why not defend it? 

If you take a position, OWN IT. I have more value for those who disagree with me, even if I think they are full of crap, than I do for those who try to doge their positions.

After that, if you find yourself keep hitting walls, not getting your point across, not convincing others, then the next thing is to consider, that maybe you got it wrong, and maybe those objecting to your logic have a better way for you to see things.