Biblical Morality

[Edwardo Piet]

I made my point EvF, which padraic challenged without grounds. I simply asked padraic to prove his logic, which he has failed to do. I am not avoiding the issue. He is.

But your point that you made in the first place was groundless. Why should it need to be challenged with ground when the 'point' didn't really have any substance?

You merely said that you like to see the whole message of the book altogether, not cherry-pick different bits. But how can you possibly know that your interpretation of the 'whole' of the book is the correct one? You didn't explain how on earth it's interpreted correctly, and any more correct than anyone else's? The way you view the message?

If you are somehow trying to interpret it as a whole positively in order to ignore all the nastiness in there (you see it as some big message, 'lesson' or something like that for example, ignoring all the horror in there or something like that) then how is it any more valid than cherry-picking individual bits?

How does it have any more ground than cherry-picking individual bits? It's like your just cherry-picking out your own personal interpretation of the 'book as a whole' rather than actually paying attention to the parts.

Like "the message is this, this is how I interpret the whole", and if not necessarily ignoring the rest, using it to somehow back up the 'message' that you interpret or something?

Where are YOUR grounds, where is the substance for your point in the first place? Why would any challenge need ground when you didn't really give any substance to your 'point'? How on earth do you interpret the message correctly as a whole when everyone interprets it differently? And how do you make sure you aren't just doing some kind of disguised cherry-picking by using the stuff you don't like to somehow backup the 'message' perhaps, rather than just being like "Well I don't like this, I like this though so I'll pay attention to that".

Just because you're paying attention to the book as a whole doesn't mean you're still not kind of avoiding the nastiness somehow. You may not be ignoring it but it's kind of cherry-picking in a way I think; (or equally silly) to use bits you don't like to back up your own personal 'whole message' of the bible. How you interpret the bible as a 'whole'.

Or are you simply just totally ignoring the rest, and saying that you are interpreting it as a 'whole' when in fact you are actually just focusing on one part and saying it's the whole message. And not even somehow using the rest to back it up, but simply ignoring that because that's not part of the message?

So where is the real substance to your point in the first place? Why would it need grounds to be dismissed when as far as I'm concerned at least; it's groundless itself?

You appear to be merely asserting your 'point'. Where is the substance? Why can't it be merely dismissed when I don't see the ground for this 'point' itself in the first place?

EvF

[fr0d0]

@ Kyu

If I were going to criticise something I'd hope to understand it first, otherwise how do I know I'm right or wrong? This is exactly the problem that scientists rightly complain about with theists, when theists assert the ignorant. Theist extremists are wrong, and so are you.

The bible is 'true' for me, but then it's how you define truth. I'm not defining truth as empirically provable, I suspect you are.

It's very easy for theists to check supposed discrepancies in the bible on bible gateway - the concordance for every verse and chapter explains everything basically. From a serious study perspective. If you want an ignorant and uninformed opinion then the place to check is the skeptics bible. It'd be a bit like me consulting some creationist twonk for my ideas.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If I were going to criticise something I'd hope to understand it first, otherwise how do I know I'm right or wrong? This is exactly the problem that scientists rightly complain about with theists, when theists assert the ignorant. Theist extremists are wrong, and so are you.

Are we venturing into No True Scotsman territory again? Who says that atheists and/or scientists don't understand theistic claims, cannot deal with them on their own ground or any other? You? Well big frakking deal.

The bible is 'true' for me, but then it's how you define truth. I'm not defining truth as empirically provable, I suspect you are.

Granted that truth is a variable commodity and as such is not really good for anything is it, that why we turn to facts and reasonable interpretation of the same. The fact is that you, for some reason, are Christian ... the question is why? And that brings me back to the questions I asked (that you so ineptly side-stepped).

It's very easy for theists to check supposed discrepancies in the bible on bible gateway - the concordance for every verse and chapter explains everything basically. From a serious study perspective. If you want an ignorant and uninformed opinion then the place to check is the skeptics bible. It'd be a bit like me consulting some creationist twonk for my ideas.

The concordance? You mean agreement? You're insane ... the bible isn't even internally consistent never mind consistent with what we now know and for what it's worth not only is the Sceptic's annotated dictionary a very good resource (usually getting it 100% on the mark) but you've again wandered into NTS territory.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Fr0d0? 'True for you'?

We're talking about the existence of an entity in reality here and how it can be understood - according to you - through 'faith'.

If God exists then he exists. If he doesn't then he doesn't.

If it's true for you are you suggesting that God exist for some and not for others?

So if he's 'true for you' what you mean inside your very own head?

Where is his actual existence in REALITY? How can faith have any bearing on that? And why is God treated as a special case?

You need evidence for other claims about reality (scientific claims) so why not God? It's nonsense.

'True for you'. How silly.

We're not talking about subjective truth here like 'true love', or a 'truly good sandwich' or something.

We're talking about the actually existence of something. Either God truly does exist or he truly doesn't. And there is no God.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Whoops! Apologies ... unfortunately my moderator powers allowed me to edit your post by mistake!!!!

Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
Are we venturing into No True Scotsman territory again? Who says that atheists and/or scientists don't understand theistic claims, cannot deal with them on their own ground or any other? You? Well big frakking deal.

I know quite a lot about my subject. Scientists as scientists know diddly squat. If you're claiming that scientists are by definition experts on theism then that's extremely odd to me. Also, please refrain from swearing at me, I'm not allowed to swear at you so I'd like a little fairness please.

(Today 11:57 AM)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:
Granted that truth is a variable commodity and as such is not really good for anything is it.

Truth isn't a variable commodity!!! Show me evidence to support that.

(Today 11:57 AM)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(Yesterday 06:48 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:
It's very easy for theists to check supposed discrepancies in the bible on bible gateway - the concordance for every verse and chapter explains everything basically. From a serious study perspective. If you want an ignorant and uninformed opinion then the place to check is the skeptics bible. It'd be a bit like me consulting some creationist twonk for my ideas

.

The concordance? You mean agreement? You're insane ... the bible isn't even internally consistent never mind consistent with what we now know and for what it's worth not only is the Sceptic's annotated dictionary a very good resource (usually getting it 100% on the mark) but you've again wandered into NTS territory.

Kyu

Another insult - you're calling me insane. why are you allowed to get away with that when I'm not?

The bible is completely internally consistent. No one has proved to me that it isn't. Including you. Back up your statements please without resorting to petty insult.

[leo-rcc]

A valid point Fr0d0.

Guys, tempers can flare sometimes, but name calling is not productive. Address the topic, not the person.

[fr0d0]

If it's true for you are you suggesting that God exist for some and not for others?

No. Some see it and some don't

Where is his actual existence in REALITY? How can faith have any bearing on that? And why is God treated as a special case?

His existence in reality is beyond what is empirically provable to us. Only faith can have any bearing, since there's no other way to know. Everything is it's own case. This is how this works. You don't accept it or believe it, so what's the problem?

[Edwardo Piet]

Once again: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

Don't just tell me that it does.

Any you say that the bible is internally consistent and say no one has proved that it isn't.

Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.

Add some substance to your positive claims. You say the bible is internally consistent: How is it? You say faith has bearing on God's existence: How does it?

You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?

If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.

How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.

Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....

OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.

The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.

[fr0d0]

Once again: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

I don't understand your question. Let me say what I think you're asking:
Q. How can our unprovable idea that God exists have any bearing on God's actual existence or not.
A. It cannot. If God exists, it is outside of our sphere of proof.

So what's the point? The point is this enables a huge opportunity for any individual to experience life the best we possibly can. I think that's no small thing.

No one is tied to the idea. Everyone has complete liberty under this system to do whatever they like, without condemnation at all from those who do.

Don't just tell me that it does.

Have I EVER said "because it does"?

I don't do that. I require rational explanation for everything.

Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.

A through example of scholarly explanations of every chapter in the bible is on Bible Gateway. There lies proof of the complete internal consistancy. On the other hand, the evidence for the opposition is the ignorant (I choose the word carefully) skeptics bible.

You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?

If you believe that God exists, then you can't believe he only exists for some people and not for others. That seems impossible to me. This was your idea that God can and can't exist at the same time. You explain it to me!

If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.

I never said I can physically 'see' anything. That would be inconsistent, even ridiculous given my repeated assertions.

I can assert to you that belief in God requires no evidence, because that is the definition of religious belief.

This is the whole point. Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion. The rules of science don't apply. The consistent message of the bible is of faith in what we cannot see.

Faith is to believe what we cannot see; and the reward of faith is to see what we believe.

How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.

You can't trust me on it, that's the whole point. You have to have faith yourself to get it. It's completely an individual choice.

Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....

So would I

OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.

The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.

That has to always be a possibility. Nice that people get 'feelings' of confirmation that what they're doing is right, that way down in primeval instinct perhaps something stirs to make you shiver.

Humanity has struggled to describe what's going on. and religious language has described it completely and perfectly. The fashion is to rubbish reasonable wisdom and replace it with nothing, because it isn't described in a scientific way. Why should we be brainwashed by scientists to throw away what they don't yet understand because even though there is absolutely no hope just yet of this ever happening, it just might happen, but maybe not.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I know quite a lot about my subject. Scientists as scientists know diddly squat. If you're claiming that scientists are by definition experts on theism then that's extremely odd to me. Also, please refrain from swearing at me, I'm not allowed to swear at you so I'd like a little fairness please.

I think there would be quite a few scientists who would take umbrage at your assertion that they know diddly squat.

I'm sure you do but, from where I'm sitting, only from a certain POV; it requires persons with a more objective POV and less of an agenda to look at the bigger picture ... some scientists (like Dawkins) are exceptionally good at demonstrating exactly what religious beliefs are IMO.

It's probably worth pointing out that it wasn't AT you (did I say you're being "frakking" something? No I didn't) and also that I didn't actually swear (and yes I know exactly what I said that's why I am fairly confident that I didn't swear).

Truth isn't a variable commodity!!! Show me evidence to support that.

OK ... I'll try and keep this simple but if you want more long-winded explanations we can go there.

First of all science is not about truth, it's about methodology, it's about knowledge, it's about facts and explaining those facts as reasonably as possible but here's the thing ... no matter how confident we (science) are about a given explanation we can NEVEFR say it's true because truth implies certainty and science can NEVER be certain.

Secondly science is the only philosophy that actually works ... nothing else has EVER explained anything in the real world (maths is an exception but maths still requires testing in the real world).

If nothing can ever be held to be absolute than nothing can ever be utterly true IOW we can only approach certainty but can never reach it.

Truth varies.

Ultimately I would sum it up in the following way ... there's your truth, their truth and the facts.

Another insult - you're calling me insane. why are you allowed to get away with that when I'm not?

Actually, although we can never be so, it was more like the sort of thing I would say to a friend you know, they say something which stretches your incredulity and you say, "What? You're insane!" it's little more than ribbing, and exclamatory remark, that's all. Come on, please tell me you're not so prudish as to not do similar things with your friends?

The bible is completely internally consistent. No one has proved to me that it isn't. Including you. Back up your statements please without resorting to petty insult.

OK, then can you explain the conflicting genealogies of Jesus Christ? Can you also enlighten me concerning the manner in which Judas Iscariot died?

Kyu

P.S. Again my apologies for editing your post, I got confused by my modding powers ... I've recovered it all but not in exactly the same format.