Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really like this post. It made me laugh. This belief in the flood and the ark kind of fits along with 2+2=5.
That is absolutely right. The believer has three choices when choosing between the Bible and science that contradicts it
(a) go with the science and say either that the Bible...(1) is metaphorical or (with some Interpretation) it actually agrees with the science,
(b) dismiss the stuff that is undermined by science and just believe the rest
(c) Believe that the Bible is right, no matter how obviously wrong it is.
(1) we are actually talking about Genesis here (1b). Creationism is NOT about the Bible as such (as Creationism has taught the faithful to believe) but about Genesis literalism. Creationists have deluded Christians into believing that there are only two choices - you believe Darwinism ("An atheist scientist only a theory that denies that God made everything" : Theist - English dictionary) or you believe the Bible; you cannot do both.
(1b) Exodus is similar (1c), though it isn't so much a 'scientific' (Geology, Palaeontology) demurral but a historical/archaeological one. History and archaeology do not seep to support or even make possible an Exodus as described in the Bible.
(1c) though 'in Creationist terms, 'Darwinism also includes the Exodus isn't true' argument
(2) like for instance get over 6 days by dividing 15 billion years into 6. And never mind 'light and dark called 'morning and evening'.
(3) Have a good weekend, folks.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-28-2019 at 04:44 AM..
And yet if someone does post something of substance, you refuse to answer.
As an example, here is a serious question that was posted to you more than a week ago, and which you have studiously refused to answer. Would you like another chance?
Your father is God. According to the Bible your father ordered that children and babies should be eviscerated and decapitated . Are you willing to "stick up for God" by justifying the evisceration and decapitation of children and babies?
Here is another question. Is God omnipotent? Or does God make mistakes?
Last edited by Tired of the Nonsense; 09-28-2019 at 08:26 AM..
Ok. Let me suggest that what Tzaph is talking about is the 'Blind men and the elephant'.
God is like several blind men holding bits of an elephant and describing a tusk, an ear or a tail differently, but it's their limited perception of one thing. That's the explanation of the analogy of various (different) places in the world - but all part of the same world, right Tzaph?
If so (anticipating your endorsement) then all the various religions are man -made and so are their gods. The perception of the thing is common to all of them; the 'experience' of God. But all the religions, Holy Books and gods associated with them are human anthropomorphisations of this unexpressible Real God. Ok so far?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
...Christianity says that god made man in his image.
Hinduism portrays Ganesh as a weird looking elephant.
if phet is asking does God look like an elephant or a human, then he
(a) is a literalist
(b) misses or ignores that spirit has no physical form
(c) does not see what the descriptions might symbolize or represent
he sees words describing shapes (man, image, elephant), but does not know what the symbols represent or how they are used.
if all a person knows is basic math (literalist reading of basic words on page) then they don't know what the squiggles and doodles in calculus mean (symbols that represent concepts) or how they are used.
from the question he is asking, it appears that he doesn't understand the basics of the subject, or the symbols in books he reads with concepts that he does not grasp. that's why i used the math analogy. he is taking literal words "elephant" "human" "image" but not addressing the concepts in the context that the words appear and how they are used.
a "literalist" may give a superficial surface reading of something. but unless (or until) there is a conceptual understanding as well, there is no depth to the grasp of the material. [and beyond that, beyond the conceptual understanding, the next deeper level is the experiential, actually putting it into practice.]
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-28-2019 at 09:10 AM..
And yet if someone does post something of substance, you refuse to answer.
As an example, here is a serious question that was posted to you more than a week ago, and which you have studiously refused to answer. Would you like another chance?
Your father is God. According to the Bible your father ordered that children and babies should be eviscerated and decapitated . Are you willing to "stick up for God" by justifying the evisceration and decapitation of children and babies?
Here is another question. Is God omnipotent? Or does God make mistakes?
A dumb question, repeated weeks later, does not deserve a response.
A dumb question, repeated weeks later, does not deserve a response.
Fair enough, but what makes it a dumb question far as you are concerned? I ask in all sincerity, because when it comes to any questions that strive to better understand not only truth but one another, I'm curious which should be considered smart/good questions and which are dumb/bad questions. If you might care to explain. I'd appreciate the effort...
if phet is asking does God look like an elephant or a human, then he
(a) is a literalist
(b) misses or ignores that spirit has no physical form
(c) does not see what the descriptions might symbolize or represent
he sees words describing shapes (man, image, elephant), but does not know what the symbols represent or how they are used.
if all a person knows is basic math (literalist reading of basic words on page) then they don't know what the squiggles and doodles in calculus mean (symbols that represent concepts) or how they are used.
from the question he is asking, it appears that he doesn't understand the basics of the subject, or the symbols in books he reads with concepts that he does not grasp. that's why i used the math analogy. he is taking literal words "elephant" "human" "image" but not addressing the concepts in the context that the words appear and how they are used.
a "literalist" may give a superficial surface reading of something. but unless (or until) there is a conceptual understanding as well, there is no depth to the grasp of the material. [and beyond that, beyond the conceptual understanding, the next deeper level is the experiential, actually putting it into practice.]
No, that isn't what Phet is asking or proposing, although I can see why you might think I was being a literalist in that way of phrasing it. So let me start with that. Even the way that god is portrayed in different religions is not just nominally different, it is often drastically different. Christians think of god as being like a human in appearance. Hindus certainly don't. Some Hindu divinites are portrayed as animals (Ganesha, Hanuman, the Nagas, the vahanas, and several of Vishnu’s incarnations. And then, of course, we have Buddhism where there is generally thought of as having no god. These aren't slight variations in the perception of god; they are drastic variations in the perception of god. Even in christianity, I've been in homes and churches where Jesus is depicted a white as driven snow, and other homes and churches where Jesus is depicted as African. Well, he was a real man (wasn't he?), so it does matter.
Now you can say that these differences are merely superficial, if you wish, but do Hindus essentially believe the same thing as christians? Do christians essentially believe the same thing as Buddhists? The only place I see any commonality at all regarding beliefs is among Jews, christians, and muslims, and even there the differences are so drastically different that people have fought wars over those differences, and continue to die over those differences on an almost daily basis.
Do I miss or ignore that spirit has no physical form. Not at all. *****(I will come back to this). But these difference religions have clearly assigned drastically different physical forms to go along with drastically different religious beliefs. For example, to christians, god is god. To Hindus, the various gods have different personas that relate to what they do. That's not a minor difference in perception.
Having spent a great deal of time in Buddhist temples throughout much of Southeast Asia, I am fully aware of what various Buddhist artwork says about symbolization. Having visited Hindu temples in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, I have seen a great deal of symbolization of religious beliefs. But I've yet to hear a single Buddhist or Hindu say, "Oh we believe in the same thing you christians do" (since they automatically tend to assume that white Westerners are christians).
What I wanted to get back to is this: When I speak out against religion, I am speaking out against religions as they are practiced. If you wanted to search, you could find -- for example -- a number of posts where I have said that I disbelieve in the theistic god, but that there may be a deistic god. There very well may be a spiritual force out there. But as a person with a science background, before I'm going to say "I believe that"...you gotta show it to me. Because until you can provide firm evidence of such a force, you're just guessing. Guessing is not a bad thing, but it's also not a convincing argument. And I say this as person who believes in "something beyond" what man understands.
You seem to try to portray me as the one person who doesn't believe this. The one bad guy. Grow up. You've got a whole body of most christians out there who believe in "one god, the father almighty, the maker of heaven and earth...", who also believe (when you pin them down) that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior that you're going to hell. And after you convince all of them, then you can start on the Muslims, who believe similarly...except not the Jesus part.
In my view, if there is a unifying spiritual entity, "it" hasn't done a very good job with the unifying aspect. If there is a god, I would think he/she/it would be the god of all people he created. I see almost no religionists who believe that. Most all people hunker down in their own little spiritual tribe.
You said, "a "literalist" may give a superficial surface reading of something. but unless (or until) there is a conceptual understanding as well, there is no depth to the grasp of the material. [and beyond that, beyond the conceptual understanding, the next deeper level is the experiential, actually putting it into practice.]" I would counter by saying that a -- well, let's see, what are you in comparison to a literalist -- seem to want to deny the reality of the thinking of almost all of mankind. I don't see that attitude as being particularly "deep".
No, that isn't what Phet is asking or proposing, although I can see why you might think I was being a literalist in that way of phrasing it. So let me start with that. Even the way that god is portrayed in different religions is not just nominally different, it is often drastically different. Christians think of god as being like a human in appearance. Hindus certainly don't. Some Hindu divinites are portrayed as animals (Ganesha, Hanuman, the Nagas, the vahanas, and several of Vishnu’s incarnations. And then, of course, we have Buddhism where there is generally thought of as having no god. These aren't slight variations in the perception of god; they are drastic variations in the perception of god. Even in christianity, I've been in homes and churches where Jesus is depicted a white as driven snow, and other homes and churches where Jesus is depicted as African. Well, he was a real man (wasn't he?), so it does matter.
Now you can say that these differences are merely superficial, if you wish, but do Hindus essentially believe the same thing as christians? Do christians essentially believe the same thing as Buddhists? The only place I see any commonality at all regarding beliefs is among Jews, christians, and muslims, and even there the differences are so drastically different that people have fought wars over those differences, and continue to die over those differences on an almost daily basis.
Do I miss or ignore that spirit has no physical form. Not at all. *****(I will come back to this). But these difference religions have clearly assigned drastically different physical forms to go along with drastically different religious beliefs. For example, to christians, god is god. To Hindus, the various gods have different personas that relate to what they do. That's not a minor difference in perception.
Having spent a great deal of time in Buddhist temples throughout much of Southeast Asia, I am fully aware of what various Buddhist artwork says about symbolization. Having visited Hindu temples in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore, I have seen a great deal of symbolization of religious beliefs. But I've yet to hear a single Buddhist or Hindu say, "Oh we believe in the same thing you christians do" (since they automatically tend to assume that white Westerners are christians).
What I wanted to get back to is this: When I speak out against religion, I am speaking out against religions as they are practiced. If you wanted to search, you could find -- for example -- a number of posts where I have said that I disbelieve in the theistic god, but that there may be a deistic god. There very well may be a spiritual force out there. But as a person with a science background, before I'm going to say "I believe that"...you gotta show it to me. Because until you can provide firm evidence of such a force, you're just guessing. Guessing is not a bad thing, but it's also not a convincing argument. And I say this as person who believes in "something beyond" what man understands.
You seem to try to portray me as the one person who doesn't believe this. The one bad guy. Grow up. You've got a whole body of most christians out there who believe in "one god, the father almighty, the maker of heaven and earth...", who also believe (when you pin them down) that if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior that you're going to hell. And after you convince all of them, then you can start on the Muslims, who believe similarly...except not the Jesus part.
In my view, if there is a unifying spiritual entity, "it" hasn't done a very good job with the unifying aspect. If there is a god, I would think he/she/it would be the god of all people he created. I see almost no religionists who believe that. Most all people hunker down in their own little spiritual tribe.
You said, "a "literalist" may give a superficial surface reading of something. but unless (or until) there is a conceptual understanding as well, there is no depth to the grasp of the material. [and beyond that, beyond the conceptual understanding, the next deeper level is the experiential, actually putting it into practice.]" I would counter by saying that a -- well, let's see, what are you in comparison to a literalist -- seem to want to deny the reality of the thinking of almost all of mankind. I don't see that attitude as being particularly "deep".
Was it you or someone else who accused me of sometimes rather LONG comments that take awhile to read through? To be fair I think it was...
And devoted to someone who doesn't seem to accept any such reason or logic? Not a problem for me in any case. I admire your efforts. Just curious is all...
Was it you or someone else who accused me of sometimes rather LONG comments that take awhile to read through? To be fair I think it was...
And devoted to someone who doesn't seem to accept any such reason or logic? Not a problem for me in any case. I admire your efforts. Just curious is all...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
