(November 30, 2008 at 2:00 pm)Daystar Wrote: We were not discussing the level of truth in the Bible itself, but rather the level of truth of interpretation. You seemed to me to have been addressing the interpretation as being somewhat dishonest as if it was being interpreted to disguise the immorality of the Bible. That is the way I understood it.

But I obviously must start from the premise that the literal interpretation of the bible is a load of nonsense in the sense that God and the supernatural don't exist. All I am saying then is that, if you are two interpret the bible metaphorically instead of literally you must cherry-pick. And how do you decide which metaphorical interpretation(s) to choose?

Quote:It depends upon the context. There is really only two ways to interpret anything, right or wrong. When Jesus talks about haides and Gehenna as a fiery torment Xians think of them as the same because over time they adopted the pagan meaning of hell, but in fact haides and Gehenna are two different places. How do I know? By researching what the original meanings of these words are. How they were used metaphorically or literally.

As far as immorality, like I said, that is subjective. The ancient Israelites had a play of words for Satan, calling him the Lord of Shit (Dung) by turning Baalzebub into Beelzebub. To some Xians that is immoral, but the Israelites and early Christians didn't think it was. It was common for a young maiden such as Mary, being 14 or 15 years old to marry a man like Joseph who was probably about 32. Modern day Xians would think that is immoral.

Like I said I am talking about all the supernatural claims. And the proclaiming of miracles and the existence of God without any evidence.

Quote:The Bible is full of examples of immorality as an example of what is immoral and also examples of what today we might think of as immoral that they didn't think of as immoral back then.

Yeah but if you look at the OT doesn't Yahweh appear to approve, of what we consider to be very immoral indeed today?

Quote:I don't know if there are as many interpretations as you might think. How you know which one is right and which one is wrong is by first removing the pagan influence and then looking at the original language. It is really hard for some Xians as well as skeptics to accept that the 6 days of creation were not 6 literal days, but a study of the original Hebrew word yohm and the removal of the insistence that 'days' doesn't mean literal days - even when in fact the way the ancient Hebrew usage is not that different from our own, we still buy into that simple literal translation because that is what we have seen it as meaning.

Like I said, I am talking about all the supernatural claiming and proclaiming in the OT. Of the existence of God, or miracles etc. If a lot of the usual natural interpretations you can prove to be incorrect and give other natural interpretations instead. Thats fine if its correct. And if you do not believe in some supernatural claims like the trinity or Jesus being the son of God thats great also. But why believe in God or anything supernatural at all since there is no evidence of them either? Or do you disbelieve things for your own reasons rather than actual lack of evidence?
Why believe in the God of the bible? Because the book of God (the bible) itself says that the "God" of the bible is the one and true God. There's no evidence of God but God himself says in his very own holy book that he exists. So he MUST exist!
If you indeed see that there is NO evidence of God whatsoever; basically your reason for believing in God is something like this right? Or you simply crave and or fear him. Or both. Or something like this right?
Since there is NO evidence of God.
OR are you one of those types who say "well you can't DISprove God"? You can't DISprove anything supernatural! There is no evidence against God. Other than the fact there is also NO evidence FOR God! Its called the burden of proof.
Two words: Russell's Teapot.

Quote:It may seem like cherry-picking to you but that is only because 1. You don't want to believe the Bible is anything but bullshit and 2. You are unfamiliar with the original language. You don't have to be a scholar in Hebrew and Greek you just have to explore the possibilities.

That's bullshit because the only reason I don't want to believe in the bible is because its untrue and would be a delusional to believe in such a drastic untruth. There is no evidence of "God" or anything supernatural at all. And the supernatural goes against natural law. That makes the supernatural highly complex and extremely improbable.

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: The only really consistent interpretation is a literal one.

A literal interpretation of the Bible is only consistent, that doesn't mean it is correct. If the Bible is figurative and literal just as we too express ourselves, then a literal interpretation may be a consistent but it would be wrong a great deal of the time as well. Its a cop out. You are dismissing the Bible out of ignorance and saying that it isn't worth your time to really bother with a correct interpretation. [/quote] By consistent I mean that the literal interpretation contradicts itself. When you muck about with metaphors to make it fit how you want it to fit. And suit you, you can make anything in the bible seem true. You can't use the bible as proof of the truth of the bible.
If you interpret the bible literally there is no reason to believe God exists. Because of the zero evidence and the contradictions in it. If you interpret it non-literally you can't take it seriously anyway.
Its stupid to use metaphorical interpretations as mask to cover up the literal contradictions and lack of evidence. To mix and switch between the interpretations when it suits you. Either the supernatural exists in reality or its just a metaphor. You can't have it both ways. There is no evidence of the supernatural literally existing. So why on earth do you believe it? Stop using metaphors as proof of literal proclaims and understand that because of the burden of proof, since you have no literal evidence, you need proof FOR the existence of God NOT AGAINST the existence of God

(November 30, 2008 at 9:58 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Anyone CAN indeed interpret the bible or any book or anything in any way they want. But that doesn't mean they should. If they indeed want to be rational and logical and actually make any sense.

You said:

Quote:Exactly! Now you are getting it.

Yes indeed. The bible should be interpreted rationally.
So surely you should also realize that it is rational to understand that there needs to be evidence FOR God's existence. Not against it.
If there is one evidence against God's existence its the fact that there is no evidence for God's existence.

Quote:What reason do I have to do otherwise? And anyway who am I to judge morality? Least of all the morality of the Creator. Would I judge him as bad for making war on ancient people of Bible times in order to produce a nation from which the Messiah would come? Did the Israelites not always give the opportunity for those people to safely step aside? (Deuteronomy 20:10 - 15)

But there is no evidence of a creator in the first place. And if there was do you really think God has a good reason for allowing such horrible shit to go on in world? Really? Seriously? What's the point in having an all loving all powerful God if he never actually helps people and stops the horrible suffering that goes on in the world. How can you be all loving and have the power to help everyone and stop the suffering and not help? Sounds like he's either lazy, incompetent, demented, stuck-up and cruel, evil or all of those things.
OR the most likely option by far: He doesn't exist.

Quote:Of course not! Your trouble is you are judging Jehovah from hearsay, without knowing him.

This part is the funny bit. Lol. Of course I don't know him! But OBVIOUSLY you don't know him either! No one does! How can you?! There's no evidence of his existence let alone his word! That was funny. Good one.

Quote:No, that is nonsense. They are the same. It was a different time so to the uninformed it may seem that way but that isn't accurate.

Good well I'm glad we agree here. I don't think God had a moral makeover either because of course I don't believe there was ever any God to have a makeover in the first place! Its just the writers!

Quote:I keep asking for you to give me examples and you never do. I can't do this if I don't have any idea of what you are talking about. Like I have said here a few times, if science could explain some of the supernatural or spiritual aspects of the Bible then you could buy into them? C'mon, be realistic. Because some man of science says it is true it is true as opposed to some preacher man saying it? And don't tell me that you would have evidence to see and that would make a big difference because you wouldn't. You would take it on hearsay of science which you think, even though you wouldn't admit it, is infallible. The same as the religious do the preacher man. Figure out the science of it on your own. Do the impossible.

You see what you keep getting at? That you don't believe the Bible. That you don't want to believe it. You don't have to argue that with me. Doest thou protest too much?

Lol. You completely and utterly miss or ignore what *I* keep getting at. As I have to you already because of the burden of proof I don't need to have reasons to DISbelieve. That's absurd. I need reasons to actually BELIEVE. And there aren't any.
I am asking for evidence of the supernatural and you refuse to give me any and reply with "Well you can't DISprove the supernatural" Of course I can't because there's no evidence of the very thing that you are asking me to disprove, with evidence!
The only evidence I have and need AGAINST the existence of the supernatural is that there is ZERO evidence FOR the existence of the supernatural. I don't need any evidence for something's non-existence. Just as you don't need to collect evidence that disproves that there is an invisible intangible rose-coloured goblin that tastes of spearmint in the room with you right now staring at you with a perplexed expression on its face. There is no evidence OF such a Goblin so that is all you need to disbelieve its existence.
Its the same with everything supernatural.

Quote:I consider my mission to discuss and if possible teach anyone who wishes to learn about the Bible. That doesn't imply belief or conversion, just knowledge. A step in the right direction.

I am also here to learn about what others think who may not see things the way I do. If you want to dismiss the Bible because you can't wrap your mind around what you call 'the supernatural,' hey - that is your thing.

So you, a theist are coming on an atheist forum but only to talk about the natural stuff in the bible? You don't particularly wish to talk about the supernatural? Fine by me. But that doesn't seem to be what you are doing.
If you ever mention God, miracles, the holy spirit, Satan or anything supernatural that you indeed "BELIEVE in" I am going to give my opinion on that. I will reply to your posts you know. Don't you want me to? Am I not supposed to? Aren't I part of this discussion?

Quote:I have been talking to people like you for 15 years. I used to be like you and I have NEVER seen one shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, against God or the Bible. Evidence is subjective and I would be surprised that if science ever did provide you with the evidence you ask for it would do anything to change your mind. It certainly isn't my responsibility to show it to you.

I do know that if I had been provided with scientific evidence I would question and distrust it before I would God's word because it has proven itself to me and I have more faith in God than I do men. Even men of science.

But truthfully . . . honestly . . . I don't think you actually know the difference between Evidence and Faith. I think that you confuse them and keep your own opinion with more of the latter and less of the former than you might think. I think that as you grow older that will either piss you off or wake you up.

Actually you are the one who doesn't seem to know the difference between evidence and faith. And what evidence is. Why? Because as you said right here and keep saying, there is no evidence AGAINST God's existence. You said it right above: "I used to be like you and I have NEVER seen one shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise, against God or the Bible."
And yet you don't address me when I mention the burden of proof. I will say again. The thing about evidence is that you need evidence OF something before you can have anything AGAINST it. The only evidence AGAINST the existence of something that is ever needed is when there is ZERO evidence OF the existence of that very thing. There is no evidence of God or the supernatural in or outside the bible in the first place. That's the only evidence you need. There is no evidence of the non-existence of God because there is no evidence of the existence of God in the first place! How can you disprove what there is already NO proof of?! You can't and you shouldn't have to. The burden of proof is on belief not disbelief.
Go on, disprove that there is an invisible intangible rose-coloured Goblin that tastes of spearmint in the room right now.
You can't can you? Well I guess that means he probably exists! Wait! He must exist actually! There is no reason to disbelieve him because you can't disprove him!
Nah I must be being unrealistic maybe its 50/50?

OR maybe he almost certainly doesn't exist because there is ZERO evidence of him and he is supernatural so he goes against natural law and is highly complex and improbable?
Just like with God.

(November 30, 2008 at 6:28 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Go on, disprove that there is an invisible intangible rose-coloured Goblin that tastes of spearmint in the room right now.

Mmmmmmm, intangible gobliney goodness all covered in oozing spearmint.

Bozo- you said 'CR, sorry but I don't buy what you're attempting to sell. So life as we know it is not really worth it? It's all a preparation for the hereafter? Sorry, no. Anyway, I don't want an eternal life...can I opt out please? The proposition of being an immortal " child " of god is too awful to contemplate. Plus, think of the company you'd have to kep. Eternal verbals with Daystar!!! Beam me up Scottie!


I'm certainly not attempting to sell anything. You saying you don't want an eternal life reminds me of a child saying 'I never asked to be born'. If and it's probably a big 'if', I am right, then the life that awaits us would not be like anything we have experienced and I don't think 'bored' would 'exist' anymore. Imagine nothing to piss you off, make you mad or sad, but rather loving, joyful exhilirating mind blowing experiences- life wtihout pain but full of purpose that won't end. Me, you and Daystar can meet up and carry on our discussions....

What purpose?

(December 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm)lukec Wrote: What purpose?

Being with your family - being able to continue to love them- probably the most important one for me.

(December 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Imagine nothing to piss you off, make you mad or sad, but rather loving, joyful exhilirating mind blowing experiences- life wtihout pain but full of purpose that won't end. Me, you and Daystar can meet up and carry on our discussions....

How can you imagine an afterlife with joy and love and without pain, sadness etc ? Those concepts are linked to your human senses and to your body's needs. How can you conceive happiness without the concept of pain, sorrow ? I think that if there is no pain, there is also no joy.
You only appreciate being with your family because you can lose it.
IF the afterlife exists, the human mind can't conceive it imo.

Ok, I understand what you mean, CoxRox. Now we'll assume you go to heaven. But let's be frank- entrance requirements are rather tough to meet. With that in mind, it's hard to imagine that everyone you know and love is going to heaven as well. Could you truly be happy knowing that some of the people you care about are either in hell, or barring that, just not in heaven?

(December 1, 2008 at 5:55 pm)AtheistPhil Wrote: How can you imagine an afterlife with joy and love and without pain, sadness etc ? Those concepts are linked to your human senses and to your body's needs. How can you conceive happiness without the concept of pain, sorrow ? I think that if there is no pain, there is also no joy.
You only appreciate being with your family because you can lose it.
IF the afterlife exists, the human mind can't conceive it imo.

I think that we were made to be perfect and life forever and that is a part of us. Since the cells in the body just keep rejuvenating science can't really explain why we die. It seems that we shouldn't.

Perhaps the reason people seem drawn to some sort of afterlife is due to some of this.

Some cells can keep dividing (gamete-producing cells, epithelial cells, cancer, etc) but the majority of cells do not divide forever. I was talking about this somewhere with CoxRox, and the accompanying theory is quite interesting, and makes sense. The idea is that cells which do not have telomerase (a reverse transcriptase enzyme which rebuilds the chopped off bits of DNA after replication) can, once they've gone through replication enough times, run out of telomere DNA. Then, replication starts to cause actual coding DNA to be lopped off at the end, which would obviously lead to problems coding for whatever that bit codes for. Of course, in humans, this is happening to each end of each chromosome, so we lose a bit off each end of 23 chromosomes every single time we replicate. This is one idea as to why we get old/die.

There are also two reasons can think of off the top of my head, both from evolutionary biology.

First, there is the idea that any lethal genes are more likely to survive the later in the life cycle they are expressed. That is, if there is a lethal allele which kills at 10 years of age, it is not very likely to be passed on to any descendants. However, if a particular lethal gene expressed itself only at (specific for the point of simplicity) 35 years of age. At 35, and individual would have had ample opportunities to reproduce, and so this gene would be passed on. Of course, there can be many such genes, which may not be lethal, but can lead to some kind of deterioration individually. As an individual ages, more of these can "sum up," finally leading to death.

Second, there is the point that death is simply a necessary part of life. It is important in this case not to think of survival in the terms of an individual organism, but instead of the survival (more specifically, reproduction and passing on) of the organisms genetic material. Once the organism has reproduced, is there much selection pressure for the organism to keep living? Not really, since the genes involved are already passed on to the next generation. So, there would really be no reason for an animal to evolve a body which does not deteriorate with age? Evidently not, since its progeny are more numerous and younger, more able to get to resources, it would seem that the torch is passed to them in terms of passing on the genetic material.

(December 1, 2008 at 8:18 pm)lukec Wrote: Ok, I understand what you mean, CoxRox. Now we'll assume you go to heaven. But let's be frank- entrance requirements are rather tough to meet. With that in mind, it's hard to imagine that everyone you know and love is going to heaven as well. Could you truly be happy knowing that some of the people you care about are either in hell, or barring that, just not in heaven?

Hi Luke, the Bible says we will be brought back to life here on the earth and yes the entry requirements are high but if God is going to save 'all men' (1Tim 4:10) then He will help us 'shape up'. This also answers your last point, of course we would not be happy if one of our loved ones 'didnt make it', but I think we will ALL make it. I know Daystar does not believe this. Universal reconciliation is held by a small minority.