(February 19, 2014 at 12:49 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 17, 2014 at 9:56 am)Tonus Wrote: Do you think that the Bible is the best work he could come up with?

If it were who would it speak to?

The bible is the remedial course in God/salvation 101

And still we have trouble with it.

We have trouble with it because it's so poorly written, particularly in the way it allows for so many different interpretations. At the very least I would expect it to be clear enough for anyone to understand regardless of language or intellect. We're talking about a creature of such advanced knowledge and intelligence that we can't even fathom how smart he is, yet he allowed his guidebook --the most important document humanity could possibly be given-- to be a horribly sloppy mess.

The Bible isn't remedial god/salvation 101. It's barely even remedial reading/writing.

---

(February 19, 2014 at 9:25 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: It's also worth bearing in mind that Galileo was a devout Catholic when he demonstrated the heliocentric solar system through his telescopic investigation. So this isn't a "science vs religion" kind of thing where science won. That's the way atheists like to portray it but it isn't how it happened at all. Religion did not hold science back.

Errr... what????

The issue I tend to run into with these discussions is that...

Verses like the foundations of the earth, the pillars of the earth, the earth doesn't move = poetic literature.

God hangs the earth upon nothing = evidence of scientific knowledge the earth was floating in space.

Which is it?

(February 19, 2014 at 9:29 am)Tonus Wrote: Errr... what????[/url]

The issue was regarding questioning the religious authority of the Pope at a time when the Protestant reformation was underway. Galileo was still a devoutly Catholic and not in any sense an atheist. Most of the great scientists up until the 20th century were all theists including Issac Newton.

(February 17, 2014 at 9:13 am)Drich Wrote: Do you think if God had the bible written from His perspective we'd be able to understand it?

When teaching or explaining to a large group (let alone all of humanity) one must teach to the 'slowest' person in the group. Otherwise you'd loose all but a hand ful. This way only a handful is lost.

Except that this doesn't work, because writing it for their comprehension means you lose a lot more students in the current time period, perhaps all. The population then was much less than it is now, and since Christianity is based on belief, then endangering the belief of present day Christians is more dangerous than endangering the belief of less skeptical earlier men. And an omniscient god would know this. If this god is interested in our salvation, he would aim for scientific accuracy rather than simplicity, as the early believers wouldn't be as likely to judge negatively based on the presence of scientific accuracy. Current believers will judge negatively for the lack of scientific accuracy. The early believers were less critical, and there were fewer of them. Logic says you aim to please the last rather than the first.

See how easy it is to spin an ad hoc explanation? I don't even know if it's a better ad hoc explanation than yours. What I do know is you are responding with ad hoc explanations, basically "making it up as you go along." And that's no way to proceed if you want to arrive at the truth, as there will always be such ad hoc explanations. They don't test the original question; only your ability to make shit up. The original question remains unproved. But thanks for so clearly demonstrating the hollowness of your apologetic.

Quote:Do you think if God had the bible written from His perspective we'd be able to understand it?

We? Yes. You? Not a chance.

---

Quote:"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
(Robert Cardinal Bellarmine / 1542-1621 / at the trial of Galileo in 1615)

(February 19, 2014 at 12:27 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Except that this doesn't work, because writing it for their comprehension means you lose a lot more students in the current time period, perhaps all. The population then was much less than it is now, and since Christianity is based on belief, then endangering the belief of present day Christians is more dangerous than endangering the belief of less skeptical earlier men. And an omniscient god would know this. If this god is interested in our salvation, he would aim for scientific accuracy rather than simplicity, as the early believers wouldn't be as likely to judge negatively based on lack of scientific accuracy. Current believers will.

This is a really excellent point, but it also raises another one: what's to stop an omnipotent god who has a message for all mankind to write two bibles, one that fits the limited knowledge of the people in the past, and another with a little message at the beginning that just says "trust me, to your descendant's descendants, this stuff will make a lot more sense..." and fill that book with stuff applicable to the present and beyond?

How much more credibility would that bible have, over the cheapo one we have now?

Ah but Esq., you simply do not undertand "faith." Let the great shithead, Martin Luther, explain it for himself.

Quote:“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

― Martin Luther

At the end of the day, religion likes them stupid and wants them to stay stupid.

(February 19, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This is a really excellent point, but it also raises another one: what's to stop an omnipotent god who has a message for all mankind to write two bibles, one that fits the limited knowledge of the people in the past, and another with a little message at the beginning that just says "trust me, to your descendant's descendants, this stuff will make a lot more sense..." and fill that book with stuff applicable to the present and beyond?

How much more credibility would that bible have, over the cheapo one we have now?

Or how about a bible that changes according to the needs of the time. Funny how this omnipotent god was limited to the authorial techniques of the time. It's almost as if men wrote the bible, and not God.

(February 19, 2014 at 12:49 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 17, 2014 at 9:17 am)Esquilax Wrote: So what you're saying is that the concept of a sphere would be baffling to those bronze age peeps, but the concept of an all knowing, miraculous god would not be?

The concept of a sphere before the ability to explain it would have baffled anyone.

Yes, never mind the Greeks.