Thought thinking about thought requires thought.
Writing about language requires language.
Or: to disprove logic, one employs logic.
Very profound statements, or perhaps just supercilious puns on a level with "being beings." Our language can be quite ironic, can't it?
A circular argument attempts to prove its conclusions by a restatement of the original premiss. I am not sure that logic proving logic does this in the same way, or even that logic NEEDS to require argumentative proof. Certain mathematical/logical sciences rely for their ground on transcendental ideas or conditions, one might almost say innate intuitions of the mind. How does one "prove" that you cannot have A and not-A simultaneously?
Cheers,
John
Full Version: Miscellaneous Religious Topics.
QUOTE(jgweed @ Jul 27 2007, 11:47 AM) 
Thought thinking about thought requires thought.
Writing about language requires language.
Or: to disprove logic, one employs logic.
Very profound statements, or perhaps just supercilious puns on a level with "being beings." Our language can be quite ironic, can't it?
A circular argument attempts to prove its conclusions by a restatement of the original premiss. I am not sure that logic proving logic does this in the same way, or even that logic NEEDS to require argumentative proof. Certain mathematical/logical sciences rely for their ground on transcendental ideas or conditions, one might almost say innate intuitions of the mind. How does one "prove" that you cannot have A and not-A simultaneously?
Cheers,
John
Writing about language requires language.
Or: to disprove logic, one employs logic.
Very profound statements, or perhaps just supercilious puns on a level with "being beings." Our language can be quite ironic, can't it?
A circular argument attempts to prove its conclusions by a restatement of the original premiss. I am not sure that logic proving logic does this in the same way, or even that logic NEEDS to require argumentative proof. Certain mathematical/logical sciences rely for their ground on transcendental ideas or conditions, one might almost say innate intuitions of the mind. How does one "prove" that you cannot have A and not-A simultaneously?
Cheers,
John
not really sure what you are asking...but I have always believed transcendental idealism to be a lot of hot air. What does any of this have to do with....So we have one natural process that is a rational process...which does not agree with evolutionary theory. What natural mechanism randomly generated a rational process? We are talking about origins, right?
Well, I wasn't necessarily discussing the origin of rationality, so I must have misread your comments.
First, though, I am not sure that reason, or rationality, necessarily "disagrees" with evolutionary theory. Is that saying that the scientific method does not use reason to arrive at its conclusions? Or is that saying that reason is not the result of an evolutionary process of the brain, or at least the latter's capability of memory and language? And if the human (and other animals) mind was generated through a natural mechanism, why would it necessarily be random?
Second, I think we have to be careful about distinguishing the physical processes by which the brain came to be what it is, and the origin and growth of "mental" processes. Mental processes might own their origin and growth, for example, to the self's interaction with other selves, or to language.
Third, the speculative origin of rationality doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether it is "true" or "it works," just as the truth of a statement is not dependent on its source. If monkeys were able to speak English, and one of them said "two plus two equals four," would we dismiss the utterance, or would it be therefore false?
Cheers,
John
Regards,
John
First, though, I am not sure that reason, or rationality, necessarily "disagrees" with evolutionary theory. Is that saying that the scientific method does not use reason to arrive at its conclusions? Or is that saying that reason is not the result of an evolutionary process of the brain, or at least the latter's capability of memory and language? And if the human (and other animals) mind was generated through a natural mechanism, why would it necessarily be random?
Second, I think we have to be careful about distinguishing the physical processes by which the brain came to be what it is, and the origin and growth of "mental" processes. Mental processes might own their origin and growth, for example, to the self's interaction with other selves, or to language.
Third, the speculative origin of rationality doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether it is "true" or "it works," just as the truth of a statement is not dependent on its source. If monkeys were able to speak English, and one of them said "two plus two equals four," would we dismiss the utterance, or would it be therefore false?
Cheers,
John
Regards,
John
If its not random...its organized...if its organized (systematic coordination), it very much disagrees with evolutionary theory. According to evolutionary theory, what sense of morality (which supposedly keeps us from killing each other) was evident in a single particle? Allegedly, genetic mutations would occur, and eventually, some form or process of reason would have been physically inserted into genetic structure (as reason and thought is supposedly a firing of various neurons). So at what point did that happen...and not only that...why does morality matter in a natural-only world?
Third, the speculative origin of rationality doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether it is "true" or "it works," just as the truth of a statement is not dependent on its source. In a natural-only world, truth would be completely subjective to the perception of the individual. (relative.)
Second, I think we have to be careful about distinguishing the physical processes by which the brain came to be what it is, and the origin and growth of "mental" processes. Mental processes might own their origin and growth, for example, to the self's interaction with other selves, or to language.
How do you explain the moment of transition from not understanding, to understanding? You miss the whole concept of genetics as well. The approach you are taking is a philosophical one.
Third, the speculative origin of rationality doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether it is "true" or "it works," just as the truth of a statement is not dependent on its source. In a natural-only world, truth would be completely subjective to the perception of the individual. (relative.)
Second, I think we have to be careful about distinguishing the physical processes by which the brain came to be what it is, and the origin and growth of "mental" processes. Mental processes might own their origin and growth, for example, to the self's interaction with other selves, or to language.
How do you explain the moment of transition from not understanding, to understanding? You miss the whole concept of genetics as well. The approach you are taking is a philosophical one.
Morality does not apply to the natural world, which is "red in tooth and claw." Electrons are neither good nor evil.
Morality only applies to, has meaning in, the human world, and I would suggest that its origins would be found in the latter. It may very well be that thought is the happy conjuction of synapses/ electrical current and that the brain as a organ evolved to preserve a rather weak species in a hard world. If so, then the question seems to be why did (does) this electrical process yield such things as a symphony or reason, or morality? As I suggested above, the origin of the brain and (in this case) morality are not necessarily of the same kind, and we should not suppose that evolutionary theory should have to give, or to be able to give, an account for both.
Regards,
John
Morality only applies to, has meaning in, the human world, and I would suggest that its origins would be found in the latter. It may very well be that thought is the happy conjuction of synapses/ electrical current and that the brain as a organ evolved to preserve a rather weak species in a hard world. If so, then the question seems to be why did (does) this electrical process yield such things as a symphony or reason, or morality? As I suggested above, the origin of the brain and (in this case) morality are not necessarily of the same kind, and we should not suppose that evolutionary theory should have to give, or to be able to give, an account for both.
Regards,
John
It may very well be that thought is the happy conjuction of synapses/ electrical current and that the brain as a organ evolved to preserve a rather weak species in a hard world.
That takes quite a bit of faith to believe.
Evolution could somehow determine that a species needed something specific in order for it to be preserved, instead of letting it die off.
And evolution could somehow determine "its a hard world"
....very interesting indeed.
That takes quite a bit of faith to believe.
Evolution could somehow determine that a species needed something specific in order for it to be preserved, instead of letting it die off.
And evolution could somehow determine "its a hard world"
....very interesting indeed.
It doesn't take faith to believe that the mind evolved as a way to preserve a physically weak species; I find it a quite plausible explanation if one looks at the ways other animals have evolved to preserve their species, and the demonstratable increase in brain size over time seems to confirm this.
Cheers,
John
Cheers,
John
Why would there be a need to preserve a species? The weaker die in evolutionary theory.
Oh, and its hard for me to "look at the way other animals evolved"...well...because I don't buy evolution.
What about while the brain was supposedly in transition...(going through various mutations), if it wasn't built perfectly, it would be completely worthless to the organism, and thusly would have died off. Besides that, wouldn't we see humans with various stages of brain development? We can witness this in the birth of a child, but after 9 months, everything needed is there. It certainly doesn't take millions of years. What about at any point if the brain is not developed correctly in that 9 month period...does the child live to the same capacity of humans with fully developed brains? Not to my knowledge, in fact most die.
Oh, and as far as brain size goes...to what research are you referring? Are you talking about the published article in Nature magazine? And just so I'm clear, are you equating brain-size with higher-intelligence/stronger capability to survive?
Oh, and its hard for me to "look at the way other animals evolved"...well...because I don't buy evolution.
What about while the brain was supposedly in transition...(going through various mutations), if it wasn't built perfectly, it would be completely worthless to the organism, and thusly would have died off. Besides that, wouldn't we see humans with various stages of brain development? We can witness this in the birth of a child, but after 9 months, everything needed is there. It certainly doesn't take millions of years. What about at any point if the brain is not developed correctly in that 9 month period...does the child live to the same capacity of humans with fully developed brains? Not to my knowledge, in fact most die.
Oh, and as far as brain size goes...to what research are you referring? Are you talking about the published article in Nature magazine? And just so I'm clear, are you equating brain-size with higher-intelligence/stronger capability to survive?
Yes, Budapest, I understand your finding some issues with some of the things said on the ‘card’. I did find it interesting though that at least it’s been published in recognized journals and thought it may give at least a slightly better understanding for some, like myself, of what it’s about.
I too cringe when reading about, for example, Sharia law – but I also cringe when reading parts of the Bible that appear to condone punishments that seem ‘ungodly’, to say the least. And while the majority of Christians don’t take these ‘instructions’ literally, neither do they remove them from their Bible – and I do wonder if it’s not similar with the Islamic faith.
There are many people who have this Faith and live gentle, kind lives – and while I could be wrong, I often wonder if the ones who take the ‘ugly’ parts literally and make it their own truth are not twisting things to meet their own personal needs. Just as there as those who feel the constant urge to ‘miss’ all the goodness that can be learned from the Bible and instead pick and choose the ‘ugly’ parts to meet their own personal needs.
On a personal note, when I read, “Islamic society comes closer than any other society to the ideal democracy” I thought egad. Guess it’s likely human nature that most feel their particular society is closest to the ‘best’ – even though saying it doesn’t make it so to the rest of us.
----
Re: " I ask sincerely...how can we take you seriously when you defend islam? "
Piffle. (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself ). But I say piffle because if one re-reads my (and other’s) earlier posts, I never defended Islam as a whole. Nor do I defend Christianity as a ‘whole’.
If I said, after reading horrible things that ‘twisted’ Christians have done, “How can we take you seriously when you defend Christianity?” … hmmm, come to think about it, I wouldn’t say it.
To lump people together in a group and judge them simply doesn’t make sense to me – rather, I choose to see people as individuals, some wonderful and some quite dreadful.
----
Morality, science and how our incredibly wonderful brains work aside for a moment, is, to me at least, an accumulative process.
Without a word of organized religion mentioned, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people with not just a sense of right and wrong but often with having the gift of empathy. In fact, to believe that religion is required in any way but spiritual for many is perhaps not facing reality.
I too cringe when reading about, for example, Sharia law – but I also cringe when reading parts of the Bible that appear to condone punishments that seem ‘ungodly’, to say the least. And while the majority of Christians don’t take these ‘instructions’ literally, neither do they remove them from their Bible – and I do wonder if it’s not similar with the Islamic faith.
There are many people who have this Faith and live gentle, kind lives – and while I could be wrong, I often wonder if the ones who take the ‘ugly’ parts literally and make it their own truth are not twisting things to meet their own personal needs. Just as there as those who feel the constant urge to ‘miss’ all the goodness that can be learned from the Bible and instead pick and choose the ‘ugly’ parts to meet their own personal needs.
On a personal note, when I read, “Islamic society comes closer than any other society to the ideal democracy” I thought egad. Guess it’s likely human nature that most feel their particular society is closest to the ‘best’ – even though saying it doesn’t make it so to the rest of us.
----
Re: " I ask sincerely...how can we take you seriously when you defend islam? "
Piffle. (Sorry, I couldn’t help myself
). But I say piffle because if one re-reads my (and other’s) earlier posts, I never defended Islam as a whole. Nor do I defend Christianity as a ‘whole’.If I said, after reading horrible things that ‘twisted’ Christians have done, “How can we take you seriously when you defend Christianity?” … hmmm, come to think about it, I wouldn’t say it.
To lump people together in a group and judge them simply doesn’t make sense to me – rather, I choose to see people as individuals, some wonderful and some quite dreadful.
----
Morality, science and how our incredibly wonderful brains work aside for a moment, is, to me at least, an accumulative process.
Without a word of organized religion mentioned, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people with not just a sense of right and wrong but often with having the gift of empathy. In fact, to believe that religion is required in any way but spiritual for many is perhaps not facing reality.
To lump people together in a group and judge them simply doesn’t make sense to me
Were you at any point including me in the below assumption?
It can't hurt to read it - one needn't accept it - but to not read the 'other side' is to close ourselves off to honest evaluation and understanding of those we fear and/or judge unduly, perhaps.
Oh and yes...."love your neighbor as yourself" makes me shudder.......
Without a word of organized religion mentioned, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people with not just a sense of right and wrong but often with having the gift of empathy. In fact, to believe that religion is required in any way but spiritual for many is perhaps not facing reality.
I remember you saying in one thread..."I can't be sure of anything." So its hard to imagine how real your perception of reality could be.
human nature that most feel their particular society is closest to the "best" even though saying it doesn't make it so to the rest of us. So would you say that your society is the best? I'm sure you don't even see it as a "best" or "worst" situation, but I don't want to assume that.
If I said, after reading horrible things that "twisted" Christians have done, "How can we take you seriously when you defend Christianity" hmmm, come to think about it, I wouldn't say it. Using it as an example of an argument is the same thing as saying it. Otherwise, why would you post it?
The reason I said what I did, is because you don't believe in God. So for you to argue on behalf or in defense of a religion is well.....
but I also cringe when reading parts of the Bible that appear to condone punishments that seem "ungodly", to say the least.
Do you cringe about atheistic views of euthenasia? Of course, I'm sure all viewing would love to see the scripture references.
Were you at any point including me in the below assumption?
It can't hurt to read it - one needn't accept it - but to not read the 'other side' is to close ourselves off to honest evaluation and understanding of those we fear and/or judge unduly, perhaps.
Oh and yes...."love your neighbor as yourself" makes me shudder.......
Without a word of organized religion mentioned, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people with not just a sense of right and wrong but often with having the gift of empathy. In fact, to believe that religion is required in any way but spiritual for many is perhaps not facing reality.
I remember you saying in one thread..."I can't be sure of anything." So its hard to imagine how real your perception of reality could be.
human nature that most feel their particular society is closest to the "best" even though saying it doesn't make it so to the rest of us. So would you say that your society is the best? I'm sure you don't even see it as a "best" or "worst" situation, but I don't want to assume that.
If I said, after reading horrible things that "twisted" Christians have done, "How can we take you seriously when you defend Christianity" hmmm, come to think about it, I wouldn't say it. Using it as an example of an argument is the same thing as saying it. Otherwise, why would you post it?
The reason I said what I did, is because you don't believe in God. So for you to argue on behalf or in defense of a religion is well.....
but I also cringe when reading parts of the Bible that appear to condone punishments that seem "ungodly", to say the least.
Do you cringe about atheistic views of euthenasia? Of course, I'm sure all viewing would love to see the scripture references.
"I often wonder if the ones who take the ‘ugly’ parts literally and make it their own truth are not twisting things to meet their own personal needs."
Christianity shares with Islam a basis on a sacred text, and the richness of the text makes it open to various interpretations. It is not, I think, the case that there is the "real" Christianity and the "real" Islam and then there are a bunch of different interpretations (often labelled "perversions"of it), since one must choose what is "real" in either case.
I do think that the followers of either, though MaraM, would make the world a far better place if they recognised that their own particular version was just that---one version, and accept the responsibility for that interpretation and for the fact that it is but one interpretation.
Cheers,
John
Christianity shares with Islam a basis on a sacred text, and the richness of the text makes it open to various interpretations. It is not, I think, the case that there is the "real" Christianity and the "real" Islam and then there are a bunch of different interpretations (often labelled "perversions"of it), since one must choose what is "real" in either case.
I do think that the followers of either, though MaraM, would make the world a far better place if they recognised that their own particular version was just that---one version, and accept the responsibility for that interpretation and for the fact that it is but one interpretation.
Cheers,
John
Christianity shares with Islam a basis on a sacred text, and the richness of the text makes it open to various interpretations. It is not, I think, the case that there is the "real" Christianity and the "real" Islam and then there are a bunch of different interpretations (often labelled "perversions"of it), since one must choose what is "real" in either case.
I do think that the followers of either, though MaraM, would make the world a far better place if they recognised that their own particular version was just that---one version, and accept the responsibility for that interpretation and for the fact that it is but one interpretation.
Cheers,
John
Hard to argue with that. Really.
Have a good weekend, and thanks for the discussion John.
I do think that the followers of either, though MaraM, would make the world a far better place if they recognised that their own particular version was just that---one version, and accept the responsibility for that interpretation and for the fact that it is but one interpretation.
Cheers,
John
Hard to argue with that. Really.
Have a good weekend, and thanks for the discussion John.
The whole world is a marketplace for Love,
For naught that is, from Love remains remote.
The Eternal Wisdom made all things in Love.
On Love they all depend, to Love all turn.
The earth, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars
The center of their orbit find in Love.
By Love are all bewildered, stupefied,
Intoxicated by the Wine of Love.
From each, Love demands a mystic silence.
What do all seek so earnestly? `Tis Love.
Love is the subject of their inmost thoughts,
In Love no longer "Thou" and "I" exist,
For self has passed away in the Beloved.
Now will I draw aside the veil from Love,
And in the temple of mine inmost soul
Behold the Friend, Incomparable Love.
He who would know the secret of both worlds
Will find that the secret of them both is Love. ~ Farid Ud Din Attar (12th century Sufi poet)
hehe...you did say miscellaneous.
For naught that is, from Love remains remote.
The Eternal Wisdom made all things in Love.
On Love they all depend, to Love all turn.
The earth, the heavens, the sun, the moon, the stars
The center of their orbit find in Love.
By Love are all bewildered, stupefied,
Intoxicated by the Wine of Love.
From each, Love demands a mystic silence.
What do all seek so earnestly? `Tis Love.
Love is the subject of their inmost thoughts,
In Love no longer "Thou" and "I" exist,
For self has passed away in the Beloved.
Now will I draw aside the veil from Love,
And in the temple of mine inmost soul
Behold the Friend, Incomparable Love.
He who would know the secret of both worlds
Will find that the secret of them both is Love. ~ Farid Ud Din Attar (12th century Sufi poet)
hehe...you did say miscellaneous.
John, you're ever so right. So many Faiths and each open to interpretation.
When we get a religious leader who is tolerant and kind and interprets the Holy word a certain way, his or her congregation seems to find little difficulty in believing that their faith is right and true for them while allowing others in believe in their own faith without telling them they are 'wrong'.
When we get a less tolerant religious leader, perhaps filled with 'rightous anger' towards all those who do not believe his or her exact interpretation of the Holy Book, his or her 'flock' appear to have the same tendency towards intolerance to others.
I think it was my cousin who mentioned that the Christian religion 'over all' is loosing about 1% of it's followers per year. Rather than walking away from the Faith, perhaps more and more will simply keep their Faith and zip on over to a Church lead by a kinder leader. And hopefully, something similar will happen within all Faiths - kindness and tolerance could prevail and less bickering among various religious groups begin.
- - -
Re: Post $410 ...
"Oh and yes...."love your neighbor as yourself" makes me shudder......." Not sure I mentioned that phrase but sounds pretty darn sensible to me.
"I remember you saying in one thread..."I can't be sure of anything." So its hard to imagine how real your perception of reality could be"
I think this was in response to my believing that even when raised without religion, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people.
How every odd that offense seems to be taken by my believing the above. To not believe it would surely mean one believes that no one can be a highly moral person if they do not believe in God?
"So would you say that your society is the best? I'm sure you don't even see it as a "best" or "worst" situation, but I don't want to assume that"
??
"Do you cringe about atheistic views of euthenasia? Of course, I'm sure all viewing would love to see the scripture references.
??
So for you to argue on behalf or in defense of a religion is well.....
I'm sorry but I truly don't see your point. Is it meant that if one does not believe in God, he or she does not have the right to try to understand other people's beliefs? Or have the right to defend other's right to believe in whatever he or she chooses as long as they do no harm to others?
When we get a religious leader who is tolerant and kind and interprets the Holy word a certain way, his or her congregation seems to find little difficulty in believing that their faith is right and true for them while allowing others in believe in their own faith without telling them they are 'wrong'.
When we get a less tolerant religious leader, perhaps filled with 'rightous anger' towards all those who do not believe his or her exact interpretation of the Holy Book, his or her 'flock' appear to have the same tendency towards intolerance to others.
I think it was my cousin who mentioned that the Christian religion 'over all' is loosing about 1% of it's followers per year. Rather than walking away from the Faith, perhaps more and more will simply keep their Faith and zip on over to a Church lead by a kinder leader. And hopefully, something similar will happen within all Faiths - kindness and tolerance could prevail and less bickering among various religious groups begin.
- - -
Re: Post $410 ...
"Oh and yes...."love your neighbor as yourself" makes me shudder......." Not sure I mentioned that phrase but sounds pretty darn sensible to me.
"I remember you saying in one thread..."I can't be sure of anything." So its hard to imagine how real your perception of reality could be"
I think this was in response to my believing that even when raised without religion, children can and do grow up to become highly moral people.
How every odd that offense seems to be taken by my believing the above. To not believe it would surely mean one believes that no one can be a highly moral person if they do not believe in God?
"So would you say that your society is the best? I'm sure you don't even see it as a "best" or "worst" situation, but I don't want to assume that"
??
"Do you cringe about atheistic views of euthenasia? Of course, I'm sure all viewing would love to see the scripture references.
??
So for you to argue on behalf or in defense of a religion is well.....
I'm sorry but I truly don't see your point. Is it meant that if one does not believe in God, he or she does not have the right to try to understand other people's beliefs? Or have the right to defend other's right to believe in whatever he or she chooses as long as they do no harm to others?
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jul 27 2007, 07:25 PM)
Why would there be a need to preserve a species? The weaker die in evolutionary theory.
You are correct in that the "weaker" die in evolutionary theory; however, I do not recall anyone stating that there is any "need" to preserve a species.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Jul 27 2007, 07:25 PM)
What about while the brain was supposedly in transition...(going through various mutations), if it wasn't built perfectly, it would be completely worthless to the organism, and thusly would have died off.
While the brain was in transition the entire organism was in transition (you could say that all organisms are always in transition). So while the brain of a spider crab would be totally inadequate for a human, it is adequate for a spider crab (I just picked spider crabs at random as an example). Evolutionary theory does not require that an organism (or any part of an organism) be built "perfectly".
Guys this is about misc religious topics not evolution. There are separate threads for evolution discussion.
Seafox14
Seafox14
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Jul 29 2007, 08:01 AM)
Guys this is about misc religious topics not evolution. There are separate threads for evolution discussion.
Seafox14
Seafox14
Oooh,
I just know somebody is going to be upset with me
if I suggest that this topic has evolved!
QUOTE(JohnWho @ Jul 29 2007, 09:18 AM)
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Jul 29 2007, 08:01 AM)
Guys this is about misc religious topics not evolution. There are separate threads for evolution discussion.
Seafox14
Seafox14
Oooh,
I just know somebody is going to be upset with me
if I suggest that this topic has evolved!
Actually I don't take offense at this comment. I know it was said in jest and not as ridicule of stances that I've taken on other topics.
Seafox14
Great article by Robert Spencer:
Flushed Korans and Protected Victims
A 23-year-old student at Pace University, Stanislav Shmulevich, was arrested Friday and charged with two felony counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree as a Hate Crime. Numerous analysts have been quick to recognize the cruel irony of these charges. Mark Steyn quipped that instead of flushing the Qur’an, “obviously Mr Shmulevich should have submerged it in his own urine, applied for an NEA grant and offered it to the Whitney Biennial. But to that Michelle Malkin responded with the grim truth: “Actually, no. The NEA would have turned Shmulevich in to the police, too. Now, if he had submerged a Bible in urine or coated a Torah in cow dung and submitted it for a federal grant, he’d be sitting pretty–and facing rave New York Times editorials instead of time behind bars.”
And that’s why, as Christopher Hitchens said, “This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of ‘hate crime,’ I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons.”
Indeed, it has to stop. For all the examples of the double standard that he, Malkin and others have brought forth – from Piss Christ to Chris Ofili’s Turner-Prize-winning, elephant-dung and pornography-bedecked Virgin Mary and the rest – emphasize the fact that the real agenda of today’s dominant politically correct culture is certainly not tolerance, or even anything-goes moral relativism. Some things most emphatically don’t go, as Stanislav Shmulevich’s two felony charges indicate. As a cultural movement, political correctness and multiculturalism are emphatically anti-Western and anti-Christian. And they are also suicidal.
But it is not going to stop. As mad as the felony charges against him are, Stanislav Shmulevich most likely is not the end of anything, but rather the beginning. We are unlikely as a society to become a place in which disrespect or even hatred of Christianity comes to be regarded as just as dangerous to the social order as disrespect or hatred of Islam, and we are just as unlikely to return to a saner time when one could not be prosecuted for disliking someone else’s beliefs (in which case Shmulevich would have to pay for the books, and for any necessary plumbing work, but that would be all). We have become a society of sacrosanct protected classes whose victim status places them above all criticism. Those individuals and groups who do not enjoy victim status can be shredded with impunity in the public square, and the shredders are hailed as “courageous,” “iconoclastic,” and “irreverent.” But if the protected group is criticized in any way, we are told that the criticism creates a climate of “hostility” and “hate” that can culminate in yet more victimization.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has worked assiduously for years to claim this protected victim status for Muslims, and its reaction to this incident has allowed them to articulate how they want Muslims in America to be regarded. CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif said: “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African-American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.” Muslims are the new blacks, and CAIR is the new NAACP; this statement is of a piece with CAIR’s annual hate crimes report, which attempts, often in quite imaginative ways, to project an image of Muslims as bravely going about their daily lives in an American society that is inveterately hostile, racist, and on the verge of breaking out into open violence against them.
Yet this is nothing more than a myth. A potent one, to be sure, but a myth. Muslims are not being lynched, or persecuted, or discriminated against in America. Time and time again breathless media-amplified fears of “backlash” against Muslims prove unfounded, and Muslims continue to practice their faith here with more freedom than they enjoy in most of the countries from which they came. That’s why Stanislav Shmulevich and his flushed Qur’ans are a windfall for American Muslim advocacy groups: he has now validated the victim status they so doggedly claim. And until the American public discourse can dare to break away from the protected-victim model and its subtext of white Christian guilt, these groups will experience many more such windfalls, whenever someone acts obnoxiously or boorishly toward any Muslim or Islamic object. The American public square today simply has no apparatus for dealing with the possibility that the protected victims might be perpetrating evil themselves. The cognitive dissonance regarding Muslims since 9/11 is ultimately what has given birth to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Reichstag fire analogies, and the like. Muslims can’t be responsible, because they are non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners. It must be something we have done.
Most ominous of all is the fact that policymakers at the highest levels assume this. Western leaders routinely assume that money will defeat terrorism: that alleviating poverty in the Islamic world will end the jihad. This assumption rests on a further assumption: that the jihad imperative doesn’t arise from anything within the Islamic world that would still be present even if the West somehow began to treat Muslims better. For Muslims are victims, and Westerners are the guilty party.
That is the West’s guiding myth. It is why desecration of the Bible will continue to be celebrated as art, and desecration of the Qur’an as a “hate crime.” So also is an objective examination of the elements of Islam that jihadists use today to incite to violence, for that violence is all the fault of the guilty post-Christians of Europe and America.
If the West is to survive the challenge of the global jihad, this foundational myth must be brought out into the open, repudiated, and decisively rejected.
Flushed Korans and Protected Victims
A 23-year-old student at Pace University, Stanislav Shmulevich, was arrested Friday and charged with two felony counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree as a Hate Crime. Numerous analysts have been quick to recognize the cruel irony of these charges. Mark Steyn quipped that instead of flushing the Qur’an, “obviously Mr Shmulevich should have submerged it in his own urine, applied for an NEA grant and offered it to the Whitney Biennial. But to that Michelle Malkin responded with the grim truth: “Actually, no. The NEA would have turned Shmulevich in to the police, too. Now, if he had submerged a Bible in urine or coated a Torah in cow dung and submitted it for a federal grant, he’d be sitting pretty–and facing rave New York Times editorials instead of time behind bars.”
And that’s why, as Christopher Hitchens said, “This has to stop, and it has to stop right now. There can be no concession to sharia in the United States. When will we see someone detained, or even cautioned, for advocating the burning of books in the name of God? If the police are honestly interested in this sort of ‘hate crime,’ I can help them identify those who spent much of last year uttering physical threats against the republication in this country of some Danish cartoons.”
Indeed, it has to stop. For all the examples of the double standard that he, Malkin and others have brought forth – from Piss Christ to Chris Ofili’s Turner-Prize-winning, elephant-dung and pornography-bedecked Virgin Mary and the rest – emphasize the fact that the real agenda of today’s dominant politically correct culture is certainly not tolerance, or even anything-goes moral relativism. Some things most emphatically don’t go, as Stanislav Shmulevich’s two felony charges indicate. As a cultural movement, political correctness and multiculturalism are emphatically anti-Western and anti-Christian. And they are also suicidal.
But it is not going to stop. As mad as the felony charges against him are, Stanislav Shmulevich most likely is not the end of anything, but rather the beginning. We are unlikely as a society to become a place in which disrespect or even hatred of Christianity comes to be regarded as just as dangerous to the social order as disrespect or hatred of Islam, and we are just as unlikely to return to a saner time when one could not be prosecuted for disliking someone else’s beliefs (in which case Shmulevich would have to pay for the books, and for any necessary plumbing work, but that would be all). We have become a society of sacrosanct protected classes whose victim status places them above all criticism. Those individuals and groups who do not enjoy victim status can be shredded with impunity in the public square, and the shredders are hailed as “courageous,” “iconoclastic,” and “irreverent.” But if the protected group is criticized in any way, we are told that the criticism creates a climate of “hostility” and “hate” that can culminate in yet more victimization.
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has worked assiduously for years to claim this protected victim status for Muslims, and its reaction to this incident has allowed them to articulate how they want Muslims in America to be regarded. CAIR-NY Civil Rights Coordinator Aliya Latif said: “We must all be concerned when any actions cross the line from protected free speech to acts designed to intimidate. Just as there is a difference between someone burning a cross in their own backyard and burning that same cross in the yard of an African-American family, there is a difference between desecrating a religious text in a private setting and doing so in a setting that will create a hostile learning environment.” Muslims are the new blacks, and CAIR is the new NAACP; this statement is of a piece with CAIR’s annual hate crimes report, which attempts, often in quite imaginative ways, to project an image of Muslims as bravely going about their daily lives in an American society that is inveterately hostile, racist, and on the verge of breaking out into open violence against them.
Yet this is nothing more than a myth. A potent one, to be sure, but a myth. Muslims are not being lynched, or persecuted, or discriminated against in America. Time and time again breathless media-amplified fears of “backlash” against Muslims prove unfounded, and Muslims continue to practice their faith here with more freedom than they enjoy in most of the countries from which they came. That’s why Stanislav Shmulevich and his flushed Qur’ans are a windfall for American Muslim advocacy groups: he has now validated the victim status they so doggedly claim. And until the American public discourse can dare to break away from the protected-victim model and its subtext of white Christian guilt, these groups will experience many more such windfalls, whenever someone acts obnoxiously or boorishly toward any Muslim or Islamic object. The American public square today simply has no apparatus for dealing with the possibility that the protected victims might be perpetrating evil themselves. The cognitive dissonance regarding Muslims since 9/11 is ultimately what has given birth to 9/11 conspiracy theories, Reichstag fire analogies, and the like. Muslims can’t be responsible, because they are non-white, non-Christian, non-Westerners. It must be something we have done.
Most ominous of all is the fact that policymakers at the highest levels assume this. Western leaders routinely assume that money will defeat terrorism: that alleviating poverty in the Islamic world will end the jihad. This assumption rests on a further assumption: that the jihad imperative doesn’t arise from anything within the Islamic world that would still be present even if the West somehow began to treat Muslims better. For Muslims are victims, and Westerners are the guilty party.
That is the West’s guiding myth. It is why desecration of the Bible will continue to be celebrated as art, and desecration of the Qur’an as a “hate crime.” So also is an objective examination of the elements of Islam that jihadists use today to incite to violence, for that violence is all the fault of the guilty post-Christians of Europe and America.
If the West is to survive the challenge of the global jihad, this foundational myth must be brought out into the open, repudiated, and decisively rejected.
Have been sitting here and thinking that since 'the point' of religion seems to be two-fold ... to have a guide to follow/believe in while living and to have a 'reward' at the end?
And because I am guilty of adding some posts in 'One Question to God' that would have been far more suitable here in our 'Misc Religious topics' thread, I do hope no one minds my moving a few of the posts over to here.
(At first I thought one had to ask a Moderator to take the time to do it, but apparently this is okay ... if not, please know I alone take full responsibility for doing it and do feel free to give me a good hard 'bop' on the head - gentle smile).
And because I am guilty of adding some posts in 'One Question to God' that would have been far more suitable here in our 'Misc Religious topics' thread, I do hope no one minds my moving a few of the posts over to here.
(At first I thought one had to ask a Moderator to take the time to do it, but apparently this is okay ... if not, please know I alone take full responsibility for doing it and do feel free to give me a good hard 'bop' on the head - gentle smile).
Copies from 'One Question to God' thread ...
MaraM:
If I believed there was a God, my question would be ...
"If you literally can prevent evil but choose not to in retalitation for the pesky humans who made you angry oh so long ago, what does that say. To let humans make their choices, either filled with goodness or evil is one thing. But to sit back and watch innocents such as children being raped and slaughtered. If you have the power to stop evil, do it. If you are able to - but not willing to - then shame, shame, shame on you".
(I realize casting of stones must be high on many people's list when reading the above, and I'm sorry if I've made anyone angry. But it's an honest question I would have).
DSTM:
Hi MaraM,What I was implying is that we here on this Earth cop more hell than we deserve.And saying we must be sharing hell from elsewhere as well.How can a person in their right mind worship a God that permits millions of children to starve to death,cause all the premature deaths of millions,cause all the floods,famines disease and whatnot.And in return for all this hell and trauma we go through Worship him regardless.After all isn't God responsble for every single thing that happens on this Earth.
Another thing,God gave us a brain,why do we even need to go to Church to listen to somebody give their opinions on the scriptures? What is wrong with worshiping God in your own home?I went to church for years,and for years, I have been asking myself,Why.My relations are the biggest hypocrites Known.They only go to Church to gossip before and after the Church sermon.Who's hooked up with who,how much such and such got at the sale for their livestock.Meet a neighbour who they fancy and this is a good opportunity to see again.Just a meeting place for gossip in my opinion.In all the years of going to Church seldom I heard a person talk about any points in the sermon they just heard.Just a place to show their friends how saintly they pretend to be.As soon as they get home they are planning their next devious exploit.
One final Question,If you commit the same sin over and over again with the same ruse all the time that God will forgive me over and over,do you really think he does?
Let the stoning begin,I'm big enough to take it.
MaraM:
If I believed there was a God, my question would be ...
"If you literally can prevent evil but choose not to in retalitation for the pesky humans who made you angry oh so long ago, what does that say. To let humans make their choices, either filled with goodness or evil is one thing. But to sit back and watch innocents such as children being raped and slaughtered. If you have the power to stop evil, do it. If you are able to - but not willing to - then shame, shame, shame on you".
(I realize casting of stones must be high on many people's list when reading the above, and I'm sorry if I've made anyone angry. But it's an honest question I would have).
DSTM:
Hi MaraM,What I was implying is that we here on this Earth cop more hell than we deserve.And saying we must be sharing hell from elsewhere as well.How can a person in their right mind worship a God that permits millions of children to starve to death,cause all the premature deaths of millions,cause all the floods,famines disease and whatnot.And in return for all this hell and trauma we go through Worship him regardless.After all isn't God responsble for every single thing that happens on this Earth.
Another thing,God gave us a brain,why do we even need to go to Church to listen to somebody give their opinions on the scriptures? What is wrong with worshiping God in your own home?I went to church for years,and for years, I have been asking myself,Why.My relations are the biggest hypocrites Known.They only go to Church to gossip before and after the Church sermon.Who's hooked up with who,how much such and such got at the sale for their livestock.Meet a neighbour who they fancy and this is a good opportunity to see again.Just a meeting place for gossip in my opinion.In all the years of going to Church seldom I heard a person talk about any points in the sermon they just heard.Just a place to show their friends how saintly they pretend to be.As soon as they get home they are planning their next devious exploit.
One final Question,If you commit the same sin over and over again with the same ruse all the time that God will forgive me over and over,do you really think he does?
Let the stoning begin,I'm big enough to take it.
Remainder of posts copied from 'One Question to God' ...
MaraM:
Thanks for being more specific, DSTM - let's hope no stones get cast at either of us - huge gentle smile.
If I believed in God, I would want Him to have less of an ego and put worshiping him at the bottom of the list and actions taken by each individual (whether good or bad) placed right at the top!
Re: "If you commit the same sin over and over again with the same ruse all the time that God will forgive me over and over,do you really think he does?"
You do realize that the Christians amoung us here must be in near hysterics that I, of all people, are going to try to answer that question?
But here goes, and I mean this ever so sincerely ...
Take one person who kills an innocent person or rapes small children repeatedly - not accidently or defending his or her self - but just because he or she wanted to. And they go to confession and confess their sin and are given penance and forgiveness. Technically speaking, this could be done again and again - always with the same result - forgive me Father, for I have sinned. And if they sincerely mean it each time, forgiveness would be given. And provided they die before committing another nasty, they will be admitted to Heaven.
Now, take a person who does not believe in God - yet has spent his or her life being as good as person as humanly possible in all ways and never deliberately harmed another living soul. When 'judgement day' arrives, they are about to go straight to Hell.
And let's say that I'm wrong and God truly does exist. Which group of people do you think I'd rather spend eternity with.
------
Oh crumb bum! I've done it again! Just realized that perhaps these last few posts should have been placed in the Misc Relgious discussion thread. I'll understand completely if a Moderator wishes to switch mine over.
Need TOS:
Well yes, but it is wrong to continuously do that because it says we are to repent of our sins . Yet God is mysterious.
I hopefully hope that you would want to spend eternity with Christians, because most are all not like that.
-Steve
Off topic but just thought I would give an answer of some sort.
BlackSpyder:
No fear, I'll stand in front of you guys. I got a hard head. so Let the stoning begin.
Seriously why does all the bad crap happen in the world? (My grandmother gave me this answer) So we can appreciate Heaven when we get there.(gag) Thanks but no thanks. Ill goto Hell just to stop all the child molesters in the world. It can’t be any worse then Detroit (LOL)
MaraM:
Thanks for the kind offer to throw yourself between DSTM and I and those pesky stones, BlackSpyder! Hug and huge laugh!
Maybe we should ask a Moderator to rescue us and move this over to the 'Misc Religious' thread - I have no idea how to do it myself, but now we've crept off the original intend of 'One Question to God' - eep!
But in response to your kind words, Steve, it would depend on the people themselves and who they were as individuals - not on what they believed.
But then again, just imagine (okay, you don't have to imagine - gentle smile) if on the final day God stood here and and all the self-proclaimed Christians stood in a row waiting entry to Heaven. And He knew each intimately and bopped some on the head and said, "Down you go!". And they said, "But I believe in you!" - and God replied, "No, you don't. In words you do but in actions you have done the opposite of my teachings. To know I exist and to believe in me isn't enough. I expected you to act as one of my representatives in the truest sense. Poof!". And to others who are highly surprised to see God standing in front on them, He gives a milder bop on the head for simply not having believed in him, but says, "Up you go!" - why? because that individual did not harm deliberately to a single person while abiding on earth and unbelieving or not, practiced exactly what he was trying to preach.
DSTM:
I too would like to see these posts moved to the Miscellanous Religous Thread.I am enjoying the read.
MaraM:
Thanks for being more specific, DSTM - let's hope no stones get cast at either of us - huge gentle smile.
If I believed in God, I would want Him to have less of an ego and put worshiping him at the bottom of the list and actions taken by each individual (whether good or bad) placed right at the top!
Re: "If you commit the same sin over and over again with the same ruse all the time that God will forgive me over and over,do you really think he does?"
You do realize that the Christians amoung us here must be in near hysterics that I, of all people, are going to try to answer that question?
But here goes, and I mean this ever so sincerely ...
Take one person who kills an innocent person or rapes small children repeatedly - not accidently or defending his or her self - but just because he or she wanted to. And they go to confession and confess their sin and are given penance and forgiveness. Technically speaking, this could be done again and again - always with the same result - forgive me Father, for I have sinned. And if they sincerely mean it each time, forgiveness would be given. And provided they die before committing another nasty, they will be admitted to Heaven.
Now, take a person who does not believe in God - yet has spent his or her life being as good as person as humanly possible in all ways and never deliberately harmed another living soul. When 'judgement day' arrives, they are about to go straight to Hell.
And let's say that I'm wrong and God truly does exist. Which group of people do you think I'd rather spend eternity with.
------
Oh crumb bum! I've done it again! Just realized that perhaps these last few posts should have been placed in the Misc Relgious discussion thread. I'll understand completely if a Moderator wishes to switch mine over.
Need TOS:
Well yes, but it is wrong to continuously do that because it says we are to repent of our sins . Yet God is mysterious.
I hopefully hope that you would want to spend eternity with Christians, because most are all not like that.
-Steve
Off topic but just thought I would give an answer of some sort.
BlackSpyder:
No fear, I'll stand in front of you guys. I got a hard head. so Let the stoning begin.
Seriously why does all the bad crap happen in the world? (My grandmother gave me this answer) So we can appreciate Heaven when we get there.(gag) Thanks but no thanks. Ill goto Hell just to stop all the child molesters in the world. It can’t be any worse then Detroit (LOL)
MaraM:
Thanks for the kind offer to throw yourself between DSTM and I and those pesky stones, BlackSpyder! Hug and huge laugh!
Maybe we should ask a Moderator to rescue us and move this over to the 'Misc Religious' thread - I have no idea how to do it myself, but now we've crept off the original intend of 'One Question to God' - eep!
But in response to your kind words, Steve, it would depend on the people themselves and who they were as individuals - not on what they believed.
But then again, just imagine (okay, you don't have to imagine - gentle smile) if on the final day God stood here and and all the self-proclaimed Christians stood in a row waiting entry to Heaven. And He knew each intimately and bopped some on the head and said, "Down you go!". And they said, "But I believe in you!" - and God replied, "No, you don't. In words you do but in actions you have done the opposite of my teachings. To know I exist and to believe in me isn't enough. I expected you to act as one of my representatives in the truest sense. Poof!". And to others who are highly surprised to see God standing in front on them, He gives a milder bop on the head for simply not having believed in him, but says, "Up you go!" - why? because that individual did not harm deliberately to a single person while abiding on earth and unbelieving or not, practiced exactly what he was trying to preach.
DSTM:
I too would like to see these posts moved to the Miscellanous Religous Thread.I am enjoying the read.
Sort of continuing on about how difficult it can be at times to make sense of so many religious things if taken literally, I have a most sincere question - and it's honestly asked with respect for those who believe in God.
If God created Adam and Eve ... and Adam and Eve had children ... and since their children were the only children on earth at that time ... they would have had to copulate with each other in order to populate the Earth?
If God created Adam and Eve ... and Adam and Eve had children ... and since their children were the only children on earth at that time ... they would have had to copulate with each other in order to populate the Earth?
QUOTE(MaraM @ Aug 1 2007, 05:59 PM)
If God created Adam and Eve ... and Adam and Eve had children ... and since their children were the only children on earth at that time ... they would have had to copulate with each other in order to populate the Earth?
Well,
one does have to "begin" before they can "begat".
I believe some of the earliest stone tablets, once translated, had the words:
"Go forth and multiply",
which was easier for them to say than
"Copulate to populate".
This is to mara so not to get off topic in the evolution topic.
Mara I did study a bit on Catholics. I do not agree on some things they do/believe in because they go against what the Bible says such as:
http://www.gotquestions.org/worship-saints-Mary.html
I also want to add this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
Yes.
Mara I did study a bit on Catholics. I do not agree on some things they do/believe in because they go against what the Bible says such as:
http://www.gotquestions.org/worship-saints-Mary.html
I also want to add this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html
QUOTE
If God created Adam and Eve ... and Adam and Eve had children ... and since their children were the only children on earth at that time ... they would have had to copulate with each other in order to populate the Earth?
Yes.
Oh dear. Inbreeding rarely results in 'good stock', at least in wild life and farming. Gentle sigh. And is not inbreeding between brothers and sisters considers a horrible sin among most religions?
--------
CGM, I do understand what you are trying to say, I think, about the differences between Catholic and your sect of Christianity - because it's felt that Catholics 'revere' Mary.
The article states, "A definition of "venerate" is "to regard with respect or reverence. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to revere anyone but God alone".
It is possible the writer of the article may have confused the word and understanding of 'worship' with the term 'revere'?
Because in reality, I think it will be found that most people, including Catholics, think of the verb 'revere' to mean 'to regard with the deepest respet, deference and esteem'. And 'deference' is usually understood to mean 'regard or respect'.
So, for myself, I think perhaps it may be easier to assume Catholics know of what they speak - that they do not worship Mary, rather, as the mother of Jesus, hold her in high regard and reverence.
Shall comment on your second link in a moment, CGM ... think it would be too mind boggling for me to combine the two things in one post .
--------
CGM, I do understand what you are trying to say, I think, about the differences between Catholic and your sect of Christianity - because it's felt that Catholics 'revere' Mary.
The article states, "A definition of "venerate" is "to regard with respect or reverence. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to revere anyone but God alone".
It is possible the writer of the article may have confused the word and understanding of 'worship' with the term 'revere'?
Because in reality, I think it will be found that most people, including Catholics, think of the verb 'revere' to mean 'to regard with the deepest respet, deference and esteem'. And 'deference' is usually understood to mean 'regard or respect'.
So, for myself, I think perhaps it may be easier to assume Catholics know of what they speak - that they do not worship Mary, rather, as the mother of Jesus, hold her in high regard and reverence.
Shall comment on your second link in a moment, CGM ... think it would be too mind boggling for me to combine the two things in one post
.
Perhaps we should title this wee section 'Does the Bible contain errors, contradictions, or discrepancies?' - simply because that is the heading on the page the second link leads to.
Quote from your site:
"If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered.
So, what are we to do when someone approaches us with an alleged Bible error? (1) Prayerfully study the problem and see if there is a simple solution. 2) Do some research using some of the fine Bible commentaries, "Bible defense" books, and Biblical research websites that are available. (3) Ask the helpful servants at www.gotquestions.org or your pastor to see if they can find a solution. (4) If there is still no clear answer after steps (1), (2), and (3) are followed - trust God that His Word is truth and that there is a solution that just simply has not been realized yet (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17)".
Oh, CGM - I hardly know what to say here.
First, "We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years". This alone, using logic alone, suggests something to me. 40 different authors - all human, all fallible - writing over such a vast period of time - and things so change over time ... this surely could be one of the major reasons errors - true errors - are found.
This doesn't not negate the entire Bible for you or anyone else with Christian Faith - but once again we go in circles - simply because to believe there are no valid errors in the Bible is to believe each and every word in the Bible is perfectly true - and if each word is 'gospel' and true, would that not mean each and every word should be followed. And if this statement is true, why have many religious leaders decided to 'pick and choose' parts from the Bible to follow and teach - while ignoring other parts entirely or saying it didn't really mean what it says literally.
Quote from your site:
"If you read the Bible, at face value, without a preconceived bias for finding errors – you will find it to be a coherent, consistent, and relatively easy-to-understand book. Yes, there are difficult passages. Yes, there are verses that appear to contradict each other. We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years. Each writer wrote from a different perspective, to a different audience, for a different purpose. We should expect some differences! However, a difference is not a contradiction or an error. It is only an error if there is absolutely no conceivable manner in which the verses or passages can be reconciled. Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered.
So, what are we to do when someone approaches us with an alleged Bible error? (1) Prayerfully study the problem and see if there is a simple solution. 2) Do some research using some of the fine Bible commentaries, "Bible defense" books, and Biblical research websites that are available. (3) Ask the helpful servants at www.gotquestions.org or your pastor to see if they can find a solution. (4) If there is still no clear answer after steps (1), (2), and (3) are followed - trust God that His Word is truth and that there is a solution that just simply has not been realized yet (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17)".
Oh, CGM - I hardly know what to say here.
First, "We must remember that the Bible was written by approximately 40 different authors over a period of around 1500 years". This alone, using logic alone, suggests something to me. 40 different authors - all human, all fallible - writing over such a vast period of time - and things so change over time ... this surely could be one of the major reasons errors - true errors - are found.
This doesn't not negate the entire Bible for you or anyone else with Christian Faith - but once again we go in circles - simply because to believe there are no valid errors in the Bible is to believe each and every word in the Bible is perfectly true - and if each word is 'gospel' and true, would that not mean each and every word should be followed. And if this statement is true, why have many religious leaders decided to 'pick and choose' parts from the Bible to follow and teach - while ignoring other parts entirely or saying it didn't really mean what it says literally.
Mara. from my studies in the old testament, the prohibition against marrying a close relative did not come about until God gave Moses the Law that the Jews were to live by. You could look at it this way. The first 2 humans were perfect (zero genetic defects). After humanity sinned (i.e. Adam and Eve) that perfection was marred but still very little corruption had occurred. It also states that after the exile from the garden that fallen angels did inter-breed with humans further corrupting them:1 Then the people began to multiply on the earth, and daughters were born to them. 2 The sons of God saw the beautiful women[a] and took any they wanted as their wives.(Genesis 6:1-2 NLT) this was shortly before the Flood. Gradually, over the centuries between Noah and Moses, the human genome became more and more flawed until it was no longer save for close relatives to marry and have children.
Summary:
1) In the beginning humanity was perfect. God sustained that perfection.
2) Humanity sinned, rebelling against God. In essence saying, " We don't need you".
3) God gave them what they wanted and removed His sustaing power allowing genetic corruption to come into humanity.
4) Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity accelerating the corruption.
Hope this makes more sense.
Seafox14
Summary:
1) In the beginning humanity was perfect. God sustained that perfection.
2) Humanity sinned, rebelling against God. In essence saying, " We don't need you".
3) God gave them what they wanted and removed His sustaing power allowing genetic corruption to come into humanity.
4) Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity accelerating the corruption.
Hope this makes more sense.
Seafox14
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Aug 2 2007, 04:46 AM)
Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity accelerating the corruption.
I do not remember reading this in Genesis (I'm not saying it's not there, just that I don't remember it). Can you please provide the verse(s).
Fallen Angels??? Huh???
To quote your Scripture
Genesis 6:1&2 (ESV)
1)when man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born unto them, 2)the sons of God saw the daughters of man and they were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
All this states is that men are pigs and always pick the pretty ones first. and that interbreeding was not acceptable and women were not equal to men.(I'll hit these points in a minute)
No angels here, but if we move on down the passage to verse4 we find The Nephilim which are commonly confused as angels but in reality were Giants (translation of the Hebrew).
Onto the points I made about the scripture:
1)Men are pigs they pick the pretty ones first. (We needed a Bible verse to figure that one out?) Read verse 2 as a sentence to understand where this point comes from.
2)Inter Breeding was not acceptable (in Gods eyes)- Sons of God , daughters of man. 2 seperate groups mentioned interbreeding in a section of scripture that describes the corruption of the world before the flood
3)Women are less then men. Notice there are no "Daughters of God" mentioned or "Sons of Man". Indicating that both groups were less then either of the groups in the focus of this passage. The only reason the Daughters of man are mentioned is because they were the lowest class marrying into the higher class marrying into the Highest class.
Just my 2 pennies no research behind it (except reading through a whole chapter of Genesis) just what i get from reading my copy of the Bible with the annotations for Translation differences and meanings (To go from hebrew to greek to latin to english, as the KJV did, it looses some phrasing compared to a hebrew to english translation)
To quote your Scripture
Genesis 6:1&2 (ESV)
1)when man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born unto them, 2)the sons of God saw the daughters of man and they were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
All this states is that men are pigs and always pick the pretty ones first. and that interbreeding was not acceptable and women were not equal to men.(I'll hit these points in a minute)
No angels here, but if we move on down the passage to verse4 we find The Nephilim which are commonly confused as angels but in reality were Giants (translation of the Hebrew).
Onto the points I made about the scripture:
1)Men are pigs they pick the pretty ones first. (We needed a Bible verse to figure that one out?) Read verse 2 as a sentence to understand where this point comes from.
2)Inter Breeding was not acceptable (in Gods eyes)- Sons of God , daughters of man. 2 seperate groups mentioned interbreeding in a section of scripture that describes the corruption of the world before the flood
3)Women are less then men. Notice there are no "Daughters of God" mentioned or "Sons of Man". Indicating that both groups were less then either of the groups in the focus of this passage. The only reason the Daughters of man are mentioned is because they were the lowest class marrying into the higher class marrying into the Highest class.
Just my 2 pennies no research behind it (except reading through a whole chapter of Genesis) just what i get from reading my copy of the Bible with the annotations for Translation differences and meanings (To go from hebrew to greek to latin to english, as the KJV did, it looses some phrasing compared to a hebrew to english translation)
QUOTE(Budapest @ Aug 2 2007, 12:23 AM)
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Aug 2 2007, 04:46 AM)
Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity accelerating the corruption.
I do not remember reading this in Genesis (I'm not saying it's not there, just that I don't remember it). Can you please provide the verse(s).
Genesis chapter 6 verses 1 and 2. Many theologians say that the phrase " Sons of God" used here refers to angels as that phrase is used in other parts of the Old Testament to refer to angels (see Book of Job). Also the only accounts of angels interacting with humans in the Old Testament the angels were acting as either messengers or protectors or in heaven worshiping God. Thus the view that these were most likely fallen angels inter-breeding with humans.
Seafox14
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Aug 2 2007, 06:25 AM)
QUOTE(Budapest @ Aug 2 2007, 12:23 AM)
QUOTE(seafox14 @ Aug 2 2007, 04:46 AM)
Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity accelerating the corruption.
I do not remember reading this in Genesis (I'm not saying it's not there, just that I don't remember it). Can you please provide the verse(s).
Genesis chapter 6 verses 1 and 2. Many theologians say that the phrase " Sons of God" used here refers to angels as that phrase is used in other parts of the Old Testament to refer to angels (see Book of Job). Also the only accounts of angels interacting with humans in the Old Testament the angels were acting as either messengers or protectors or in heaven worshiping God. Thus the view that these were most likely fallen angels inter-breeding with humans.
Seafox14
Wow, I have never heard that before....and think that is absolutely false. Oh, and the Job reference does not help your case, as that reference is not about fallen angels.
The same word is also used in Psalms 29:1 and 89:6-7, both referring to angels praising God. Not fallen angels. I don't know who taught you about fallen angels breeding with men, but I suspect they taught it to put fear into you, and to use the "shame" method of teaching. When Christians use this "shame" method of teaching (telling us how dirty and sinful we are, and constantly pointing out what we've done wrong, and saying weird things like suggesting women bred with demonic-angels further corrupting mankind, etc.) they do it to manipulate and set up an element of control over their congregations. Its rampant in Christianity today, and very sad to see. Jesus never brought shame onto people he encountered. He also never made any mention of us being or having any seed in relation to angels (fallen or not.)
How one slips around Biblical inconsistencies:
Well we can always sit and wait:
"Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered."
But this wait and see attitude doesn't apply to other things. One need not wait until, for example, science to find a answer to creation.
But if archeological evidence (or geological evidence, for that matter) contradicts the literal interpretation of Biblical history, one is free to ignore it. Just as one can pick and choose what passage to use, and how to interpret it, one can pick and choose those scientific "facts" that support one's own view and deny the others. But we can always take a trip to the Creation Museum---it IS after all a museum. Evidence is only evidence, it seems, if it supports a preconceived notion of truth---if it doesn't it's just "opinion."
We can always get help.
"So, what are we to do when someone approaches us with an alleged Bible error? (1) Prayerfully study the problem and see if there is a simple solution. 2) Do some research using some of the fine Bible commentaries, "Bible defense" books, and Biblical research websites that are available. (3) Ask the helpful servants at www.gotquestions.org or your pastor to see if they can find a solution."
Certainly one would NEVER think of using either internal or external textual criticism to decipher the meaning of a passage, or consult any secular or historiographical discussion of the problem that might suggest that it might be anything other than literally interpreted, let alone get hold of a copy of one of the critical editions. I wonder whether asking the "helpful servants" or one's pastor will provide enough diverse views to allow one to make a decision or understand a discrepancy? And I wager the "fine" Biblical commentaries do not come from writers from another Christian sect.
How valid is a search for truth when one is limited to answers one already knows? Despite the language employed, it seems to me that it is just "let's pretend."
Cheers,
John
Well we can always sit and wait:
"Even if we do not have the answer right now, that does not mean the answer does not exist. Many have found a supposed error in the Bible in relation to history or geography only to find out that the Bible is correct once further archaeological evidence is discovered."
But this wait and see attitude doesn't apply to other things. One need not wait until, for example, science to find a answer to creation.
But if archeological evidence (or geological evidence, for that matter) contradicts the literal interpretation of Biblical history, one is free to ignore it. Just as one can pick and choose what passage to use, and how to interpret it, one can pick and choose those scientific "facts" that support one's own view and deny the others. But we can always take a trip to the Creation Museum---it IS after all a museum. Evidence is only evidence, it seems, if it supports a preconceived notion of truth---if it doesn't it's just "opinion."
We can always get help.
"So, what are we to do when someone approaches us with an alleged Bible error? (1) Prayerfully study the problem and see if there is a simple solution. 2) Do some research using some of the fine Bible commentaries, "Bible defense" books, and Biblical research websites that are available. (3) Ask the helpful servants at www.gotquestions.org or your pastor to see if they can find a solution."
Certainly one would NEVER think of using either internal or external textual criticism to decipher the meaning of a passage, or consult any secular or historiographical discussion of the problem that might suggest that it might be anything other than literally interpreted, let alone get hold of a copy of one of the critical editions. I wonder whether asking the "helpful servants" or one's pastor will provide enough diverse views to allow one to make a decision or understand a discrepancy? And I wager the "fine" Biblical commentaries do not come from writers from another Christian sect.
How valid is a search for truth when one is limited to answers one already knows? Despite the language employed, it seems to me that it is just "let's pretend."
Cheers,
John
Whered you get that "load" from John?
I disagree with all of it....simply because....well...there are no inconsistencies in the Bible.
Care to share your source? Or is it your own mind?
I disagree with all of it....simply because....well...there are no inconsistencies in the Bible.
Care to share your source? Or is it your own mind?
See post 427.
John
John
Oh thank you, John!! Therein lies the problem and you've said it so well - huge gentle smile.
If a non-believer says there is inconsistancies - eep! If believers say there are inconsistancies - other believers disagree - another eep!
Taking non-believers out of the equation for just a moment, believers not only seem to disagree about inconsistancies, the varying interpretations of the Bible lead to endless disagreements within believers themselves.
If a non-believer says there is inconsistancies - eep! If believers say there are inconsistancies - other believers disagree - another eep!
Taking non-believers out of the equation for just a moment, believers not only seem to disagree about inconsistancies, the varying interpretations of the Bible lead to endless disagreements within believers themselves.
QUOTE(MaraM @ Aug 2 2007, 01:41 PM)
Oh thank you, John!! Therein lies the problem and you've said it so well - huge gentle smile.
If a non-believer says there is inconsistancies - eep! If believers say there are inconsistancies - other believers disagree - another eep!
Taking non-believers out of the equation for just a moment, believers not only seem to disagree about inconsistancies, the varying interpretations of the Bible lead to endless disagreements within believers themselves.
If a non-believer says there is inconsistancies - eep! If believers say there are inconsistancies - other believers disagree - another eep!
Taking non-believers out of the equation for just a moment, believers not only seem to disagree about inconsistancies, the varying interpretations of the Bible lead to endless disagreements within believers themselves.
Where there is human thinking, there will be disagreements. This however does not prove there are inconsistencies in the Bible.
What's interesting to me is how many "non-believers" disqualify the input of anyone who is a "believer", simply because.....they are a "believer."
I laugh when people point out alleged inconsistencies in the Bible and then ask for clarification....but the clarification cannot be from a Christian source, and there can be no input from Christians. Hence statements such as:
Certainly one would NEVER think of using either internal or external textual criticism to decipher the meaning of a passage, or consult any secular or historiographical discussion of the problem that might suggest that it might be anything other than literally interpreted, let alone get hold of a copy of one of the critical editions. I wonder whether asking the "helpful servants" or one's pastor will provide enough diverse views to allow one to make a decision or understand a discrepancy? And I wager the "fine" Biblical commentaries do not come from writers from another Christian sect.
It is only good enough for you if:
1) The person abandons their belief and concedes that the Bible has inconsistencies.
2) The person admits that they could be wrong about their beliefs.
3) They listen and read a barrage of criticism from those that hold the Bible in contempt. (And then abandon their belief as a result.)
So, I am not allowed to use Scripture to clarify other Scripture, only allowed to use what you deem as qualified? Is that correct? Being Christian, or having a Christian perspective automatically disqualifies one from being logical, rational, and intelligent enough to make decisions? I think its quite clear where the inconsistencies are.
I always thought this excerpt from 1 Corinthians 1:18 was an interesting one...
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing,"
I love that God is right 100% of the time....and righteous 100% of the time.
Putting "non-believers" back into the equation for a moment....there are a vast number of inconsistencies within their ways of life and beliefs. So....what exactly is the point?
I could not have put it better my self jwinathome 
-Steve
-Steve
I think perhaps the point is, at least for me:
I was not speaking of non-Christians saying there are inconsistancies in the Bible. I was speaking of Christians saying there isn't - and Christians saying there is.
So if two people, both believing in the same faith and same Bible do not agree - how does their not agreeing = "This however does not prove there are inconsistencies in the Bible".
And for non-believers, we simply have it easier. We don't have a book that we believe we must follow nor consult before making decisions - so one is right when saying "there are a vast number of inconsistencies within their way of life and beliefs" - or put another way, no inconsistancies because there wasn't any consistancy to start with.
-------
Re: I love that God is right 100% of the time....and righteous 100% of the time.
Actually, that's quite a lovely thought once again, I have no problem with anyone believing it.
I only wish that the thought more or less ended there - with the belief that GOD and only God is 100% right. Not anyone else. And by that, I would include the various humans who wrote the sections of the Bible over such a vast period of time.
If it was truly still felt that every word in the Bible was 'consistant' or worse, 'right' as in literally right - egad, we'd all be in such trouble!
- - - -
I nearly forgot ... SeaFox, thank you for trying to explain the inter-breeding between Adam and Eve's children.
I’m afraid I don’t quite grasp the concept of Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity … but it’s not for lack of clarity in your explanation, rather an inability within myself to comprehend it. But thanks so much for replying to my question.
I was not speaking of non-Christians saying there are inconsistancies in the Bible. I was speaking of Christians saying there isn't - and Christians saying there is.
So if two people, both believing in the same faith and same Bible do not agree - how does their not agreeing = "This however does not prove there are inconsistencies in the Bible".
And for non-believers, we simply have it easier. We don't have a book that we believe we must follow nor consult before making decisions - so one is right when saying "there are a vast number of inconsistencies within their way of life and beliefs" - or put another way, no inconsistancies because there wasn't any consistancy to start with.
-------
Re: I love that God is right 100% of the time....and righteous 100% of the time.
Actually, that's quite a lovely thought once again, I have no problem with anyone believing it.
I only wish that the thought more or less ended there - with the belief that GOD and only God is 100% right. Not anyone else. And by that, I would include the various humans who wrote the sections of the Bible over such a vast period of time.
If it was truly still felt that every word in the Bible was 'consistant' or worse, 'right' as in literally right - egad, we'd all be in such trouble!
- - - -
I nearly forgot ... SeaFox, thank you for trying to explain the inter-breeding between Adam and Eve's children.
I’m afraid I don’t quite grasp the concept of Fallen (i.e. corrupted) angels inter-breed with humanity … but it’s not for lack of clarity in your explanation, rather an inability within myself to comprehend it. But thanks so much for replying to my question.
And for non-believers, we simply have it easier. We don't have a book that we believe we must follow nor consult before making decisions - so one is right when saying "there are a vast number of inconsistencies within their way of life and beliefs" - or put another way, no inconsistancies because there wasn't any consistancy to start with.
Thats actually a good point.
The only area I would contend is being a "hard" vs. "easy" issue. I don't see this within my own life. That does not speak for anyone else though. I don't check a book before I make decisions. I read "The Book" to better know who God is. The decisions I make in life are a reflection of getting to know His heart. Again, I feel separate from many mainstream Christian teachings in that its not about me and how I live...but about Jesus, and knowing Him more. How I live is simply a byproduct of increasing knowledge of the Father's heart, (which coincidentally is what are called the "fruit of the Spirit"...love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, and additionally, compassion for the poor and brokenhearted, and acceptance of ALL. Because as He says, there is neither jew, nor gentile, neither female nor male.) I could go on and on.
It doesn't bother me that people think there are inconsistencies (believers or not), and I understand the arguments (as I have hashed them over and over). But none of this speaks against the One whose Word has no inconsistency. Only against, as you say fallible man.
Thats actually a good point.
The only area I would contend is being a "hard" vs. "easy" issue. I don't see this within my own life. That does not speak for anyone else though. I don't check a book before I make decisions. I read "The Book" to better know who God is. The decisions I make in life are a reflection of getting to know His heart. Again, I feel separate from many mainstream Christian teachings in that its not about me and how I live...but about Jesus, and knowing Him more. How I live is simply a byproduct of increasing knowledge of the Father's heart, (which coincidentally is what are called the "fruit of the Spirit"...love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, and additionally, compassion for the poor and brokenhearted, and acceptance of ALL. Because as He says, there is neither jew, nor gentile, neither female nor male.) I could go on and on.
It doesn't bother me that people think there are inconsistencies (believers or not), and I understand the arguments (as I have hashed them over and over). But none of this speaks against the One whose Word has no inconsistency. Only against, as you say fallible man.
jwinathome, that is what we believe in the Battalion I goto, sponcered by CSB ministries. So really you are not believing differentally than many Christians, because the Bible makes it clear that is how we are to do things. We can not do enough good to earn favour of God and get to heaven for no one can get to the Father except through Christ.
-Steve
-Steve
QUOTE(need TOS @ Aug 2 2007, 03:14 PM)
jwinathome, that is what we believe in the Battalion I goto, sponcered by CSB ministries. So really you are not believing differentally than many Christians, because the Bible makes it clear that is how we are to do things. We can not do enough good to earn favour of God and get to heaven for no one can get to the Father except through Christ.
-Steve
-Steve
Thanks Steve....there seems to be a lot of not only television teachings, but other media as well that are set on "being blessed" and how to acquire the blessing, and acquire "more" "more" "more."
Also shame-based teachings (as I mentioned before.) The shame-based stuff gets on my nerves, because people ultimately end up either controlled, hurt, or both.
I spend my time trying to bless God rather than figure out how to "get blessed." I consider myself blessed enough just to be alive and have a wonderful wife and precious son.
That is a very good way to think, while can not be happy to have a wife because well I'm only 16 I am happy to have a wonderful g/f that really does care for me.
I hope you do continue to live like that, I did not realise that you were a christian until a little bit ago haha sorry about that.
-Steve
I hope you do continue to live like that, I did not realise that you were a christian until a little bit ago haha sorry about that.
-Steve
I got one question regarding the great flood (with Noah). If matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed(law of thermodynamics). Therefore the amount of the water on the planet now has always been the same.
And theoretically if all the ice in the world melted it would only increase the ocean by about 300 feet at the most. And this is assuming that the way the world is now (land placement) is the way it has always been. Let's say if Pangaea was how the Earth was when the Bible says Adam & Eve were here, there were still mountains around at the formation of pangaea. So therefore, the mountains were *most likely* greater than 1,000 feet.
Therefore, I think it would have been impossible for a world-wide flood.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
And theoretically if all the ice in the world melted it would only increase the ocean by about 300 feet at the most. And this is assuming that the way the world is now (land placement) is the way it has always been. Let's say if Pangaea was how the Earth was when the Bible says Adam & Eve were here, there were still mountains around at the formation of pangaea. So therefore, the mountains were *most likely* greater than 1,000 feet.
Therefore, I think it would have been impossible for a world-wide flood.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm
Lots of evidence for a world wide flood but it is denied.
QUOTE(cowsgonemadd3 @ Aug 4 2007, 09:21 AM)
Lots of evidence for a world wide flood but it is denied.
by denied, do you mean ignored, or disproved?
Such as what cgm3? What evidence (besides scripture) could be used? A few words in a book doesn't mean something really happened (interpretation). Please explain.
QUOTE
by denied, do you mean ignored, or disproved?
By ignored.....
QUOTE
Such as what cgm3? What evidence (besides scripture) could be used? A few words in a book doesn't mean something really happened (interpretation). Please explain.
The Bible does talk about how much evidence would be here for a global flood but would be denied.
2 Peter 3:5 NLT
"They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water."
There is a huge amount of fossil evidence to prove this yet it is ignored(by science/evolutionists) for its uncanny implication.
QUOTE(cowsgonemadd3 @ Aug 4 2007, 06:01 PM)
There is a huge amount of fossil evidence to prove this yet it is ignored(by science/evolutionists) for its uncanny implication.
Fossil evidence that this happened exactly how long ago? Not more than 6000-8000 years is it?
QUOTE
Fossil evidence that this happened exactly how long ago? Not more than 6000-8000 years is it?
So what if it showed 6-8k years you would deny it but if it showed 1 billion you would not?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.