|
Ok I've read it over a few times but I really don't have another way to say it.
I'm sorry but I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance. And then he sends me to hell cause I'm the bad one. Sorry but it just doesn't make sense.
I know it sounds like I'm being deliberately mean but I'm not trying to be. More wars have been caused by religion than anything else. I mean look at the war in afghanistan it was definitely started by religion. Religious exetremists motivated by a very dangerous belief to commit mass murder suicide. It just seems unjustifiable and it's happened time and again throughout history. I mean how can you seriously support that.
Ok I've read it over a few times but I really don't have another way to say it. More wars have been caused by religion than anything else. I mean look at the war in afghanistan it was definitely started by religion.
By "it," I assume you don't mean "this entire thread." It was clearly demonstrated some time ago that many of the wars "caused by religion" were and are in fact territorial or economic in nature, and/or stemming from mankind's instinct to form "in" groups and kill outsiders. Religion is a convenient excuse, and it makes the troops better-behaved, but it is seldom if ever a root cause.
|
|
Again it still doesn't justify it's teachings which are found in the bible that of racism. Read the old testament the jews were the people of god everyone else was a gentile, unclean, evil. Many of times god told the Jews to show no mercy to the gentile. When Joshua invaded the city of Jericho he was commanded to kill them to a man leave none alive, genocide was fine in this instance. When they finally reached the promised land of Israel again God commanded to kill all of those found therein to leave none alive to corrupt the Jewish people. (Howerer they did leave one tribe alive who promised to serve them and this royally pissed god off that they were not slain as well). In the New testament Jesus came to originally save the Jews. Read the book of Acts only after the Jews rejected christ as a heretic did they turn to the gentiles.
Sexism, in the old testament a woman was nothing more than property of a sort. She lived to serve the man. In fact only 3 instances in those records did a woman gain a leadership role. One was a prophet from the book of judges (and the only female prophet ever). The other 2 were the apocryphal books. The book of Judith (who was commanded by god to go into a besieging armies camp seduce the general and cut off his head while he slept), and the other was the apocryphal book of Mary Magdelene. Both are rejected as non canon. Neither was approved by the council of Nicea and to this day are shunned by the church. Paul in his writings seemed very sexist he wrote of how a woman should be in submission to the man and that "women should be silent in the temple". To this day how many Woman priests do you see?
Homophobia- I don't think I need to get into this but it is very prevelent in modern religion Leviticus 20:13 will tell you all about it.
Ignorance- The greatest enemy to scientific progress has always seemed to be the church. From the inquisitions of the middle ages, the torturing of Galileo Galilei, to the modern ignorance promotion of trying to disprove evolution. Fact is if it disagrees with supposed "truth" then it must be opposed by them. Despite the fact we have physical facts to say it couldn't have happened that way.
I'm sorry but this is what most religion promotes and teach and it isn't societally healthy. The fact it could teach such awful things is horrible and honestly it isn't hard to see how it could spiral into violence in the above teachings.
I'm sorry for being very blatant but the facts just don't support a benevolent organization that does no wrong and doesn't cause violence.
|
A good amount of passionate stuff...
When looking at the Old Testament, You would do far far better to compare it to other religions of the day rather than today's social standing, etc. The Jewish people really took a stand against many of the things that you are talking about. Perhaps not to the extent that we are at currently, but far more than what was common for the day. People talk about "sexism" freely when talking about the old testament -- however there were hi level leaders/prophets who were women, and the whole "selling your daughter" thing was giving value to women -- not actually selling them. Compared to the cultures surrounding the Jews, they were actually rather progressive.
There are a number of things that I don't have answers for, but before you go on a tirade, compare the Old Testament with other Old Testament cultures. Don't compare what was with what is.
Again it still doesn't justify it's teachings which are found in the bible
If I may, a couple of points probably need clarification. First off, your gripe seems to be with Abrahamic faiths in general, and with Christianity and Islam in particular. When you say "religion is bad!" and then cite the Bible as evidence why, it makes me, a Buddhist, assume that you're not really thinking this through at all.
Second off, and this is something that has come up quite a bit, no one advocates that you open the Bible to a random passage and do whatever it says there. Most of what's in it is supposedly historical -- "this is how it was/is in these places" -- and separating that from the "thou shalts" would seem like a reasonable first step. If I read a National Geographic article about Darfur, that doesn't mean that the National Geographic Society is advocating genocide -- maybe they're impartially reporting, or maybe they're strongly against it. Another important point is that, if I understand them correctly (I'm not one of them), Christians assert that the Old Testament prohibitions and admonishments apply to Jews only, not to Christians. So they can eat shellfish, for example, despite Leviticus saying not to.
So, if you've got specific modern-day religious teachings, from a specific religion, that you'd like an accounting for, spell them out and I'm sure someone here can give a reasonable answer. Until then, please refrain from lumping me in with "all those racist homophobes," because I subscribe to a religion that (a) predates Christianity by a wide margin and (b) doesn't adhere to the Bible in any event.
|
|
Again it still doesn't justify it's teachings which are found in the bibleIf I may, a couple of points probably need clarification. First off, your gripe seems to be with Abrahamic faiths in general, and with Christianity and Islam in particular. When you say "religion is bad!" and then cite the Bible as evidence why, it makes me, a Buddhist, assume that you're not really thinking this through at all.
Second off, and this is something that has come up quite a bit, no one advocates that you open the Bible to a random passage and do whatever it says there. Most of what's in it is supposedly historical -- "this is how it was/is in these places" -- and separating that from the "thou shalts" would seem like a reasonable first step. If I read a National Geographic article about Darfur, that doesn't mean that the National Geographic Society is advocating genocide -- maybe they're impartially reporting, or maybe they're strongly against it. Another important point is that, if I understand them correctly (I'm not one of them), Christians assert that the Old Testament prohibitions and admonishments apply to Jews only, not to Christians. So they can eat shellfish, for example, despite Leviticus saying not to.
So, if you've got specific modern-day religious teachings, from a specific religion, that you'd like an accounting for, spell them out and I'm sure someone here can give a reasonable answer. Until then, please refrain from lumping me in with "all those racist homophobes," because I subscribe to a religion that (a) predates Christianity by a wide margin and (b) doesn't adhere to the Bible in any event.
First off read the book of Joshua! Joshua was the leader of the Isrealites appointed by Moses to take the holy land. And secondly it directly says god commanded to leave not a soul alive, time and again while conquering the holy land. It's all there read the whole book and find out. I'm not taking it out of context. It says god commanded him to do so and he did. He was also commanded to slay ever soul of every tribe inhabiting the land that was promised to the isrealites by god, so they did, except for one tribe who asked to be there slaves in exchange for life. Joshua spared them and it made god really really angry. Frankly I wish you would read it before responding.
Secondly as to the charge of sexism your argument only validates how out of date the belief system is. Even if it was slightly less sexist than the surrounding societies thats like the difference between 1st and 3rd degree murder it's still wrong(Maybe a bad analogy but the only varying degree I could think of at the time). And actually according to the code of Hammurabi Babylon had a greater respect for women than the Isrealites.
First off read the book of Joshua! Joshua was the leader of the Isrealites appointed by Moses to take the holy land. And secondly it directly says god commanded to leave not a soul alive, time and again while conquering the holy land. It's all there read the whole book and find out. I'm not taking it out of context. It says god commanded him to do so...
I've read it, thanks. Yeah, he thinks God told him to, just like W thinks God told him to stop drinking. (P.S., Moses was a bit of a prick himself, so him picking Joshua isn't much of a recommendation.) Again, I'm not a Christian. I don't believe any of the miracles stuff, so maybe I look at this thing as too much of a parable. But even if you take the "God told him" to mean that God actually told him, vs. "He's hearing voices again," the whole deal is Old Testament as well, which my Christian friends tell me "doesn't count" -- they don't obey that stuff, remember? And when I read the New Testament, Jesus isn't telling the believers to be sexists, or racists, or to conquer nations. So, if you want to condemn Christians, go ahead -- but do it based on their "guidebook," the NT. Otherwise, it's like condemning Muslims for what the Rig Veda says.
Let me make this clear: I despise the "Christian Nation" Dominionists more than anyone. But people who follow the Sermon and otherwise leave me alone -- people like Moff and Erian and Moorluck -- well, I have no problem with them at all... in fact, I like them and admire them, because I don't see them acting in any of the ways you're implying that they're dictated to act.
|
|
I am not saying that most christian people are well intentioned I think most are. I think they're misguided. Thats all. I was just making the point no matter what their "god" does now well he did and commanded awful things back then. They also have the belief that god is the same yesterday today and forever. So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.
So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.
Such as bombing clinics and killing doctors? Sadly, you're totally correct.
But alas, evil people always seem to find justification for any atrocities they wish to commit, "holy" book or no.
|
So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.Such as bombing clinics and killing doctors? Sadly, you're totally correct.
But alas, evil people always seem to find justification for any atrocities they wish to commit, "holy" book or no.
I agree with what you say Kirth, Far too many people take atrocities commited by loonies who want to say "The Bible told me so" at their word. I know, and used to work for, a guy that stood by the opinion that his wife was his servant, cause the Bible says it. I guess the douche forgot the part where he puts NO OTHER before her, people will always use whatever reasoning they can to justify their actions, we have all been guilty of it at one time or another. Christian or not. The thing you have to keep in mind is the Bible is a book, written by man, a long time ago. The world has changed, people have changed. A lot of people are shocked to find out that I support gay marriage because it is the christian thing to do. Anyway, just wanted to throw my 2cp back into the debate.
EDIT: When I say what you have to keep in mind, I refer to everyone, myself included. ;)
|
|
So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.Such as bombing clinics and killing doctors? Sadly, you're totally correct.
But alas, evil people always seem to find justification for any atrocities they wish to commit, "holy" book or no.I agree with what you say Kirth, Far too many people take atrocities commited by loonies who want to say "The Bible told me so" at their word. I know, and used to work for, a guy that stood by the opinion that his wife was his servant, cause the Bible says it. I guess the douche forgot the part where he puts NO OTHER before her, people will always use whatever reasoning they can to justify their actions, we have all been guilty of it at one time or another. Christian or not. The thing you have to keep in mind is the Bible is a book, written by man, a long time ago. The world has changed, people have changed. A lot of people are shocked to find out that I support gay marriage because it is the christian thing to do. Anyway, just wanted to throw my 2cp back into the debate.
EDIT: When I say what you have to keep in mind, I refer to everyone, myself included. ;)
And I really wish this was the view of all christian people but alas there are far to many lieralists. (those who take the bible literally on every word and letter). And lieralists also seem to be the same as fundamentalists, and again these seem to be the people doing awful things.
|
And I really wish this was the view of all christian people but alas there are far to many lieralists. (those who take the bible literally on every word and letter). And lieralists also seem to be the same as fundamentalists, and again these seem to be the people doing awful things.So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.Such as bombing clinics and killing doctors? Sadly, you're totally correct.
But alas, evil people always seem to find justification for any atrocities they wish to commit, "holy" book or no.I agree with what you say Kirth, Far too many people take atrocities commited by loonies who want to say "The Bible told me so" at their word. I know, and used to work for, a guy that stood by the opinion that his wife was his servant, cause the Bible says it. I guess the douche forgot the part where he puts NO OTHER before her, people will always use whatever reasoning they can to justify their actions, we have all been guilty of it at one time or another. Christian or not. The thing you have to keep in mind is the Bible is a book, written by man, a long time ago. The world has changed, people have changed. A lot of people are shocked to find out that I support gay marriage because it is the christian thing to do. Anyway, just wanted to throw my 2cp back into the debate.
EDIT: When I say what you have to keep in mind, I refer to everyone, myself included. ;)
Jeremy,
It's hardly a shock that Christianity has a bunch of zealots who are intolerant. Every belief system or cause has those. There are Republican and Democrat zealots who have no tolerance for any view other than theirs. There are environmental zealots, communist zealots, nationalist zealots and so on and so forth. And there are religious zealots. There are even atheist zealots (Ricahrd Dawkins, I'm looking at you).Saying all Christianity is at fault because of the zealots is as stupid as saying all Republicans believe the same as Storm Thurman or all Democrats agree with Al Sharpton. The vast majority of Christians are reasonable people who try their fallible best to do the right thing. In other words, they're just like everybody else.
I am a Christian and I play D&D. The following post addresses several different ideas I've seen posted. As I am proclaiming my faith in this post, I will most likely some offend non-Christians. I might offend some Christians. It is not the intention to anger people. I regret that you are angered. I do not apologize for my faith.
It is important to remember that the people who God told Joshua to annihilate had fallen from grace. They had been been given a chance and had sinned. The Lord cannot abide imperfection, and so, after warnings and continued stiff-neckedness, sent the Israelites to eliminate them.
This is before the Christ comes and dies on the cross for everyone's sins.
It is a valuable lesson for us to learn the fate of those who are not perfect in the sight of the Lord.
But we can't be perfect! But Christ Jesus has atoned for our sins. We are still not perfect, but when we are in Jesus Christ we get a pardon. On our day of Judgement, Christ intercedes for us and says, "Hey, Dad, s/he's with me, they get a pass."
Without the lesson of those who had fallen short of the glory of God, and that wrath, as executed by the Israelites, we would not know to fear the Lord (fear not always being a bad thing; in fact, sometimes being a good thing that keeps us from doing something colossally stupid). And without the saving grace of Christ, we would not know to love the Lord with all our hearts, minds, and bodies.
The OT is a history that informs us and leads us to the NT. You don't free a people who've been slaves for 400 years and then turn them loose on the land. 400 years they've been told when to eat, what to eat, when to sleep, get up, pee, everything! Imagine what the Israelites would have done then! Chaos would have ensued. That's a big reason why the Lord sends Moses with the Law. It's not just the Ten Commandments; God sends moral law, dietary law, political law.
Then, after they've learned how to operate as their own people, and those laws eventually become a stumbling block, God sends prophets to tell them that a new way is coming. Isaiah speaks in the past perfect tense; he's so certain of what the Christ will do, he talks about things Jesus hasn't done yet as if they're already accomplished. Then, after centuries of warnings, Jesus shows up and teaches us a new way, that adherence to the dietary laws are not going to save you, that whether or not you're circumsized doesn't matter.
God may be unchangeable, but his plan is not. It, like all plans, has stages that we can only see after they are accomplished; even if prophets come and tell us what's going to happen.
But how can Christ die for our sins now if he died 2000 years ago? Christ was with God in the beginning, but we weren't saved from the dawn of creation. So how does that work? God, in all three parts, stands outside of Time. Christ can "wait" until the end of time, "tabulate" all of the sin, and then go to Calvary 2000 years ago and die on the cross, once for all.
How can God condemn all those noble savages and other believers to Hell? The world hasn't come to an end. There's a reason. God wants us all to be saved, Jew and Gentile alike. If we Christians were doing a better job of the Great Commission ("preaching and teaching to all nations") then the End of Ze World ("AHHHH, Motherland!") would be a lot closer and we'd all have our new bodies (which would be, I believe, light, not a new flesh bag meat sack) and the world would be remade.
Lot's wife isn't turned to a pillar of salt just because she glances over her shoulder. Its because she looks back; not to see what's going on, but because she's gonna miss that place. She yearns for the sins of the flesh.
Why don't all Christians agree/get along? Remember, the Christians of the first few centuries were overjoyed because everyone could be saved. For a 1000 years the church was one. Then the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Contstantiople over who controlled the southern Italian churches, and the Patriarch excommunicated the Pope and the split began. Then, 500 years after that, Martin Luther translates the Holy Bible into German and Gutenburg prints it for everyone to read and the splintering happens to bring us to where we are today. Satan works hardest on Christ's church.
And, now, having tried to explain these things in my own poor way, I have angered others with my "misguided, superstitious notions." I will read replies that will initially make me angry because that is the comfortable way to deal with ideas that threaten my belief (something I can't prove to be true anymore than scientists can prove their postulates, even simple ones like "between any two points there is a line.") But as I finish this post in anticipation of them, I want you to know that it isn't anger towards you that I feel. It is disappointment in myself; if I'd done a better job, you would understand the joy that I feel. I recognize that by being honest with my emotions I have made myself vulnerable. Please, love thy neighbor as thyself.
And, now, having tried to explain these things in my own poor way, I have angered others with my "misguided, superstitious notions." I will read replies that will initially make me angry because that is the comfortable way to deal with ideas that threaten my belief (something I can't prove to be true anymore than scientists can prove their postulates, even simple ones like "between any two points there is a line.")
First, Mykull, welcome to the thread. I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly don't get any anger out of reading what you posted. Indeed, the clarifications regarding Joshua and Lot's wife, coming from the standpoint of a believer, are greatly appreciated. One thing I couldn't help but notice, though -- and I honestly mean no offense here -- is that some of the other explaining "in your own poor way" consists of repeating slogans from brochures that well-meaning people often drop on my doorstep or hand me on the street (they are also things that have been discussed here in greater detail in the preceding pages). In general, and with the exception of some unfortunate rants here and there, this thread is mostly about dialogue, specifically with those whose beliefs might differ from ours. If you enjoy that sort of thing, this is the place for you!
I also noticed that you mentioned that other ideas "threaten your belief." I'm puzzled by that statement. Does it imply that your belief is shaky? I'm honestly curious as to that. Personally, I love being exposed to ideas that lie outside of my own practice (which is why I find this thread so endlessly fascinating), and certainly don't feel threatened by them at all.
P.S. I should probably point out that "between two points is a line" is a mathematical definition, not a "scientific postulate." One thing that is considered bad form here is to assert things about something we know nothing about, rather than asking about them. For example, statements like "X is only a theory" and "scientists can't prove X" reveal a lack of any basic idea as to what the scientific method is all about. Those misstatements, and a number of others, have been discussed at length on several occasions previously in this thread, if you're interested.
I also noticed that you mentioned that other ideas "threaten your belief." I'm puzzled by that statement. Does it imply that your belief is shaky? I'm honestly curious as to that. Personally, I love being exposed to ideas that lie outside of my own practice (which is why I find this thread so endlessly fascinating), and certainly don't feel threatened by them at all.
I would read that as "ideas which threaten my beliefs".
He's just talking about ideas which are incompatible with the things he believes in. That's not to say that these things damage his belief itself.
I could be wrong.
|
|
So within those bounds one could find justification for many things.Such as bombing clinics and killing doctors? Sadly, you're totally correct.
But alas, evil people always seem to find justification for any atrocities they wish to commit, "holy" book or no.
I wonder why the guy killing the pro-life activist (for being a pro-life activist) didn't get much play in the "neutral" media.
Oh, yeah. Can't showcase that BOTH sides have their psychos. Doesn't fit with the spin the "neutral" media is trying to sell.
:)
I wonder why the guy killing the pro-life activist (for being a pro-life activist) didn't get much play in the "neutral" media. Oh, yeah. Can't showcase that BOTH sides have their psychos. Doesn't fit with the spin the "neutral" media is trying to sell.
I wonder why that guy got nothing BUT play in the "neutral" media. Oh, yeah, can't mention that talk radio is a communication medium. Doesn't fit with the "left wing radical media" spin they're trying to sell. ;P
|
|
I wonder why the guy killing the pro-life activist (for being a pro-life activist) didn't get much play in the "neutral" media. Oh, yeah. Can't showcase that BOTH sides have their psychos. Doesn't fit with the spin the "neutral" media is trying to sell.I wonder why that guy got nothing BUT play in the "neutral" media. Oh, yeah, can't mention that talk radio is a communication medium. Doesn't fit with the "left wing radical media" spin they're trying to sell. ;P
Ok, seriously. NBC. CBS. ABC. CNN. MSNBC. Fox News. Only one of these outlets mentioned it more than once. ALL of them mentioned the abortion doctor who was killed endlessly.
Talk Radio. One outlet specifically geared towards a specific audience. I believe you call that the "driving around in their pick up all day" demographic? And, no, NPR didn't give the story much (if any) run either.
ACORN. This story has been around since before the election. Only in the last WEEK has anyone other than talk radio and right leaning blogs (again, Fox excepted) really discussed ACORN.
Most people get their news from TV sources. Not talk radio. Not even the internet, really. And five of the six major TV news outlets hardly mentioned ACORN (until non-traditional media made it impossible NOT to ignore the problem), barely mentioned the loonie who killed the abortion activist in Wisconsin, but spent WEEKS discussing the abortion doctor who was killed (in a way that condemned the entire political right side of the spectrum for his death).
Of course, we really must pass/reinstate the "fairness" doctrine. All those radio shows not toeing the same line five of the six major TV outlets is a danger to America, I tell you!
;)
It is important to remember that the people who God told Joshua to annihilate had fallen from grace. They had been been given a chance and had sinned. The Lord cannot abide imperfection, and so, after warnings and continued stiff-neckedness, sent the Israelites to eliminate them.
Are you seriously arguing that that genocide based on religious differences is a-ok? Because, well, damn.
It is a valuable lesson for us to learn the fate of those who are not perfect in the sight of the Lord.
That he will have his goons murder you for disagreement? When people behave this way, we don't think very highly of them at all. Why does the perfect creator of the universe get a pass? Can't he be better than a Al Capone? Or Stalin?
I know I can manage that and I'm not omnipotent or omniscient. Hell, I'm not even the nicest person to be around but I can manage that with just my ordinary mortal faculties. I bet you can too. So why so easy on him? It's not like asking people to refrain from genocide is demanding a lot. You don't have to be the world's biggest bleeding heart to comply with that request.
But we can't be perfect! But Christ Jesus has atoned for our sins. We are still not perfect, but when we are in Jesus Christ we get a pardon. On our day of Judgement, Christ intercedes for us and says, "Hey, Dad, s/he's with me, they get a pass."
Thank God for nepotism and cronyism? If the only way to avoid eternal torture, or near enough to it, is to be friends with this one guy I'm not sure how comfortable I am being in that group. Especially since he's the guy who arranged the torture. This isn't just a complaint about deities, though. I'd be equally uncomfortable being associated with any such sort that tortures those he doesn't agree with.
How can God condemn all those noble savages and other believers to Hell? The world hasn't come to an end. There's a reason. God wants us all to be saved, Jew and Gentile alike. If we Christians were doing a better job of the Great Commission ("preaching and teaching to all nations") then the End of Ze World ("AHHHH, Motherland!") would be a lot closer and we'd all have our new bodies (which would be, I believe, light, not a new flesh bag meat sack) and the world would be remade.
Seems like he picked a poor subcontractor. Being outside time he knows the future and thus knew this would be the case. So it's not like his hands are tied. He could have chosen someone competent to finish the job in a timely manner. So by your own admission, your god must want decent people who disagree with him to suffer unbelievable torture. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but you're summarizing the case against worshiping your god. He doesn't sound like the ultimate good to me. In fact, it sounds like the complete opposite.
Most people get their news from TV sources. Not talk radio.
What people are those? EVERYONE I know except maybe you me gets their "news" from the radio. I can't walk into an office in my building without hearing Rush or Glen Beck. And when I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel in Texas... well, the last 10 out of 10 had the TV tuned to Fox News.
|
|
Most people get their news from TV sources. Not talk radio.What people are those? EVERYONE I know except maybe you me gets their "news" from the radio. I can't walk into an office in my building without hearing Rush or Glen Beck. And when I go downstairs for breakfast in a hotel in Texas... well, the last 10 out of 10 had the TV tuned to Fox News.
Cool, people in Texas have known ACORN is corrupt for a few years now. The rest of the country found out last week.
:)
The rest of the country found out last week.
Off-topic!
|
|
Off-topic!** spoiler omitted **The rest of the country found out last week.
Off Topic (which is a decomposing equine anyway)
Funny thing about Fox, though, demographically speaking, they own the independent voters in the ratings 3 to one over CNN and MSNBC. Of course, CSPAN probably owns MSNBC, MSNBC lost all sense of objectivity long ago. Heck, Fox gets a good chunk of the liberal crowd, if you believe the Neilsen and Arbitage peeps.
|
|
I'm sorry but Mykall your response is unacceptable. If your god says that genocide is acceptable in some instances he is no better than Adolf Hitler or Slavodan melosovitch, or any other genocidal murderer in human history. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean your free game to die. Thats just f%+!ing evil. Why should god not be held accountable for atrocities that would have a human executed for crimes against humanity? Frankly I find it quite disturbing that such things would be accepted.
is that some of the other explaining "in your own poor way" consists of repeating slogans from brochures that well-meaning people often drop on my doorstep or hand me on the street
I can understand why they're seen as slogans. The early churches often drifted from the teachings of the disciples and were sent letters because he was in jail or couldn't get there just then. Paul writes many of the same things to the Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, etc. Over the centuries, Christians have said, "Oh, hey, this point comes up again and again; verily, Paul doth harp upon this subject. It must be really important (that's the British God voice from the clouds}. They repeat them, just those phrases (often times out of context), and they become slogans to place in brochures on doorsteps so "Christians" can feel like they've actually evangelized. Because if Paul wrote letters, so can we, right? No, because he was writing to Christians. The most one can hope for by leaving pamphlets to non-believers is that'll they'll recycle. Its more like the song, "They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love," not our Literature. Yeah, I put Christians in quotes; just because you're in a garage doesn't mean your a car (another slogan).
you mentioned that other ideas "threaten your belief." I'm puzzled by that statement. Does it imply that your belief is shaky?
Poor word choice on my part. I should have used "challenge" instead. ~1.1 billion people are atheist/nontheist/agnostic/secular, 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus, and 2 billion Christians (and even we can't all agree). And its not a majority vote. I'd be remiss as a reasoning being if I didn't acknowledge that I might be dead wrong. I haven't seen a pillar of fire, or had Heaven revealed to me; not even a burning bush. I'd have knowledege of God and then I'd be a fanatic (and I don't mean in a paint my chest green & yellow, sitting shirtless in -10 degree weather with a cheese head on my pate at Lambeau Field good way). I have faith.
But what is that? Just a belief. I think I'm right. But I don't know. I don't have any proof to show. But that's one reason why religious people gather together regularly: to bolster their faith by spending time with those who believe similarly. It's also one of the reasons zealots kill people. See, I can't know that I'm right, so I'll kill everyone who believes differently so that I won't hear any dissenting opinions and then have to have doubts. Another slogan: "God's fine; it's his fan club I can't stand."
So, of course, ideas that run contrary to mine are going to challenge my faith. But avoiding that is not something, as a Christian, I'm supposed to do.
I should probably point out that "between two points is a line" is a mathematical definition, not a "scientific postulate." One thing that is considered bad form here is to assert things about something we know nothing about,
Merrill's Informal Geometry (ISBN 0-675-05854-6) (1988) defines "postulate" on p. 18 as "a rule of geometry that is accepted as being true without proof." Postulate 1-1 of that textbook states, "Two points determine a line."
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill's Geometry & Applications (ISBN 0-02-824438-9) (1995) says this on page 77, "Geometry is built on conditional statements called postulates. Postulates are principles that are accepted to be true without proof." It then goes on to state Postulate 2-1, "Through any two points there is exactly one line."
This idea that "every two points lie on exactly one line" is, in fact, the first of Euclid's Five Axioms. Axiom and postulate are synonymous (according to any dictionary). I cannot speak to the "other misstatements" to which you referred. However, the idea that between any two points there is a line must be accepted without proof. It hasn't been proven in the 2300 years since it was put forth.
The early scientists of Babylon, under King Nebuchadnezzar, were astronomers (so says secular history books). Those history books also teach that they had jobs before they became scientists. They were the priests. The book of Daniel also refers to these early scientists. Rather than call them astronomers, Daniel calls them astrologers. What a difference, huh? Scientists were born out of a priesthood. But, when trying to convert people to one's religion, it sounds far more convincing to say, "We have theorems based on postulates," than to say, "We have educated guesses based on assumptions." Theoretical physicists have very complicated mathematics, that only a very few people truly understand, to explain "everything." Aside from the fact that it only accounts 4% of the universe and the rest is supposedly this "dark matter" that no one can see or detect, the common person must accept that these scientists (priests) are telling the truth (that their calculations are accurate). It is very similar to when the Roman Catholic church conducted Mass in Latin (a language that the common person didn't speak). It forced the layman to have to trust the priest that they were saved.
Are you seriously arguing that that genocide based on religious differences is a-ok? Because, well, damn.
No. Let me try it this way. The Holy Bible is an answer to the first question anyone ever asks God. Yep, it was Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" If we are not, then the Law of the OT is what we should expect in this life and, and we'll have to stand perfect before our God on the day of judgment, alone. If we are our brother's keeper, then we stand within the Christ Jesus and the NT is your guide on Earth.
Its an easy switch from "was" to "is." But I did not make it. Those were the days when God was more present on Earth. He actually talked to people. When God spoke to people in the OT, they glowed (the mistranslation being the reason why Moses is often depicted with horns). There wasn't any, "Well, that's just what he thinks." There was a physical manifestation that others could see so that they knew that this prophet came from God. Today, not so much. If I said, "All Coloradans must die because their state looks too much like Wyoming." (which I'm not) People would say I was off my rocker. If I said it walking around with a constant undefinable glow about me (and I don't mean, glowing like you're happy or just had really good sex, I mean light radiating out from me) people might get the idea that I really had been spoken to by the Lord. That sort of command, I imagine (not having received one) would be nigh impossible to ignore (because, again, one would have faith removed and replaced by knowledge).
Especially since he's the guy who arranged the torture.
He didn't arrange it, we did. The whole eating the fruit we were told not to eat. At least Eve was deceived. Adam had no such excuse (and Adam, not being deceived, took and ate). Adam knew he wasn't supposed to and did it anyway.
There are choirs of angels that fly about the Lord singing "Holy Holy Holy" 24/7. Not because its a mirror mirror on the wall, but because He is. Humans were not to be so, we were given the ability to chose. We chose poorly; but God has sent His own son to atone for our mistakes, for the torture we have inflicted upon ourselves.
That torture isn't spiritual hot coals and thumbscrews. Its simply being absent from God's sight. Imagine sometime in your life when you did something you regretted. For a while, you really kicked yourself about it. "Why did I do that? If I could just go back . . ." But, of course, we can't. Over time, we allow our memories to fade because we don't like being reminded of our poor judgment. Hell is that forever. Self-anguish over not believing in Jesus Christ and being away from God, forever.
So, you'd be associating with the one trying to save you. If I were on a ship with the ship's builder and the ship sank and I was drowning, I wouldn't mind getting a life preserver from the builder (who's now in the water with me), even though he built the ship that is sinking.
Seems like he picked a poor subcontractor. Being outside time he knows the future and thus knew this would be the case. So it's not like his hands are tied. He could have chosen someone competent to finish the job in a timely manner. So by your own admission, your god must want decent people who disagree with him to suffer unbelievable torture.
Perhaps he did pick the best. I agree that doesn't mean we're good subcontractors, just the best out of a really bad lot. We can't know if anyone would have been competent to finish in a timely manner. And what's a timely manner in relation to eternity?
Nepotism: favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship.
Cronyism: partiality to cronies especially as in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications.
I wouldn't use those terms, but that is essentially it. The lineage of Jesus is traced back to Abraham (and further back to Adam). We, as believers on Jesus as Lord, are now the children of God. Children don't have parents that provide roofs over their heads because the children have done something to earn it. Parents don't turn out their school failing child for the A student; they show favoritism and provide for their child because of their kinship.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we had to stand on our own merits to enter the kingdom of Heaven, no one would get in. Fortunately, we are saved by grace alone, so that no man may boast, without regard to our qualifications.
Why should god not be held accountable for atrocities that would have a human executed for crimes against humanity?
Jesus is Lord. He was held accountable. He was executed for every crime against humanity. For Adolf Hitler's. For Slobodan Miloševic's. For everything everyone has ever done, is doing, and will ever do.
The Lord gave us the free will to chose. And we have, as a race, in many instances, chosen badly. I would not rather be deprived of my free will. I would not rather that anyone be deprived of it.
But there are serious consequences for the sins we have committed, both in this life and the next. At the end, on the cross, Jesus cries, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Imagine: a triune god that cannot bear to see itself. A god so heavy laden with the evil of this world for all time that he cannot bear to look at himself. He has atoned once for all.
Accepted? At least for me, it is wrestled with. I do not discard it out of hand. But objective truth is hard to swallow. We humans, in this day and age, do not generally enjoy the idea of an objective truth. We prefer subjective truth. That way there is always the margin for us to be right, from Obi-Wan's certain point of view. This leads to "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
----------
I enjoy D&D because I like to imagine that such supernatural things are possible. I enjoy Christianity for that reason as well as others.
I'm not sure what I'm doing posting in this forum. I may just be using you all as a sounding board to challenge my own faith. I believe that the best way to evangelize to people is face-to-face, so, no, I do not think I will make any converts here. But I will continue to try to answer questions from my limited Christian perspective.
May the Lord bless you and keep you all.
|
|
I take it that you were referring to Slobodan Milosevic? Apologies for not putting the appropriate accents over the s or c of Milosevic, but that is the spelling that otherwise appears to be correct.
Thanks, that was bugging me, too.
In the beginning (heh) of my post, I asked this:
Are you seriously arguing that that genocide based on religious differences is a-ok? Because, well, damn.
To which you replied:
No.
Well ok, but then why are you defending the genocide by the Hebrews against the people of Canaan? You said just that right here:
It is important to remember that the people who God told Joshua to annihilate had fallen from grace. They had been been given a chance and had sinned. The Lord cannot abide imperfection, and so, after warnings and continued stiff-neckedness, sent the Israelites to eliminate them.
Now I don't think the facts are in dispute. You believe that Israel launched a successful genocidal war (I don't think you can say they were annihilated and eliminated and then claim it's not a genocide.) against the inhabitants of Canaan. You said this was ok because they were, more or less, of the wrong religion. So which is it? Is it ok to commit genocide for religious reasons or is it not?
All your paragraph about how sure they had to be tells me is that you do in fact think that genocide is a-ok as long as it comes at God's command. Which does not square with your flat declaration that it is not. You can't have it both ways.
He didn't arrange it[the whole Garden of Eden business], we did. The whole eating the fruit we were told not to eat. At least Eve was deceived. Adam had no such excuse (and Adam, not being deceived, took and ate). Adam knew he wasn't supposed to and did it anyway.
Myrkull, according to your own story your God built the garden. He put the tree there. He made Adam and Eve. You told me that he knows the future, so he knew from before he even started building that everything would play out exactly as it did and in fact, being all-knowning, he knew it with perfect certainty. Given that knowledge, he could have:
1) Put the tree somewhere else
2) Said it was no big deal to eat from the tree
3) Made Adam and Eve incapable or eating from the tree
4) Never made the Serpent
5) Made it so the Serpent couldn't talk to Eve, or anybody else
6) Made it so Eve wouldn't listen to the Serpent
And that's just off the top of my head. The list could go on and on. That he could foresee what happened and did not prevent it can indicate nothing but that he intended for everything to play out as it did. How are mere mortal to contend against that omnipotent design? God rigged it for failure, knowing that we would fail, and then punished us for failing. Not just the guilty parties, either! He punished all their descendants. This has to be the most monstrous injustice in all of history, if you believe it to be true.
Then after setting us up like a cheap conman, God comes around and says that the only thing that will satisfy him enough to get over the obvious results of his own plans is for him to commit suicide by Roman. But even that's not enough, because we also have to go around plying him with endless flattery and bugging others about him all the time. I thought humans could get pretty crazy and egotistical, but this takes the cake.
I'll tell you the truth here. I don't think Jesus did anything worthy of death. Had I been there at the time, I would have argued against his execution. I plain don't approve of killing people because of their ideas, religious or otherwise, whether they agree with me or not. But I wasn't there. It's not my fault that he was killed. It's not my fault if my great-to-infinity-grandfather ate out of some tree either. I cannot possibly be responsible for actions I had no part in taking, did not take myself, and could not possibly have opposed because they happened before I was born. For your god to hold me responsible, even if all the rest of what you said was a good excuse for holding the people at the time responsible, is a monstrous injustice and I want nothing to do with such a sick creature as to insist upon it and punish me for doing otherwise.
Perhaps he did pick the best. I agree that doesn't mean we're good subcontractors, just the best out of a really bad lot. We can't know if anyone would have been competent to finish in a timely manner. And what's a timely manner in relation to eternity?
No, if God picked the best the world would have been converted. He's omnipotent, so he could make the best. He's omniscient so he knows how. If he's all good and failure has such terrible consequences for us, then he obviously wants to do his very best. Perfect beings do not get to claim they're making the best of a bad situation. He could have made any other situation. He's not a finite mortal bound by the chains of circumstance. Apparently God is big on responsibility when it comes to people who can't possibly be held responsible but never for himself. Typical of tyrants, wouldn't you say?
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we had to stand on our own merits to enter the kingdom of Heaven, no one would get in. Fortunately, we are saved by grace alone, so that no man may boast, without regard to our qualifications.
So it's eternal bliss or eternal torture (however you want to dress it up) and nothing we do makes any difference. It's entirely about whether or not we're cronies of God's kid. What a monstrous belief. I do think that may be the most monstrous thing it's possible to believe, since I don't see any way at all to top suffering forever. A good person suffers because he didn't kiss the right divine posterior while a bad person prospers because he did? This is no justice any decent person should accept.
It's exactly the sort of deity Dawkins had in mind when he wrote this much-maligned passage:
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
That's the kind of god you're describing here and I can't see how any decent person would want anything to do with him. You are posting not reasons to accept Christianity, but reasons to work against it. How can a god such as you describe be worthy of worship?
|
|
Lots and lots of stuff...
I'm not entirely sure if Myrkull knew what he was getting into. I really feel for the guy...
I'm going to make a few points. I've commented quite a bit about a lot of this and I keep learning more. And I will admit that there is a lot that I don't know. Having said that...
Genocide -- and so on. As near as I can figure out, Canaan was essentially a whole bunch of independent city-states. They didn't wipe out all the inhabitants of Canaan. (And some might argue that failure to do this caused many problems for the Israelites for many years afterward.) Regardless, there were times when God said to basically kill everything -- including livestock and so on. There were also times when he gave different instructions. (But no one seems to mention those. I guess it's not as fun.) Now, did God actually come to Joshua -- in person -- and tell him to do these things? I don't know. The book itself was most likely compiled much later than the events in question and by people who most likely weren't there. I believe that certain events happened. Possibly even most of them -- probably not quite in the timeline suggested in Joshua (although it doesn't really give much of a timeline anyway).
I don't think that the "genocide" or who died or was killed, etc. was really the point that the original writers were trying to get across to the "chosen people". Time and again the people seemed to follow God for a little bit and then decided to do their own thing. When they were focused and working together, they seemed to get thing accomplished and had periods of prosperity. When they chose to do their own thing, typically "bad" things happened to them. "War" was something that they could probably easily understand. So a lot of their stories revolved around that. Was it really that different with the other cultures of the time? If anything, I find it incredibly interesting that the Israelites -- many times -- wrote and recorded their defeats as much (if not more often) than their victories. That seems to be a significant difference between them and other cultures.
If people really want to focus on the "genocide" or whatever, fine. I do not know everything. I don't know what people will be saved and what people won't. If the ultimate "goal" is life after death and God truly knows who will be saved or not, then he can speed up the process or not. He is not Hitler. And I really didn't appreciate the comparison. Seriously, we are mortals -- with an incredibly finite amount of information. How do you compare "finite" with "infinite"? And yet we do. Repeatedly, we end up trying to create God in our image. Good luck with that.
Sorry, I'm rambling. All I'm trying to say is -- why is it so hard to see or believe that God sees or knows something that we don't?
Moving on...
Adam, Eve, Tree, etc. -- This is all getting into the "Free Thought" debate. I won't go there again.
Dawkins -- Wow. That was unnecessary and a little uncalled for. Did Dawkins actually write up a comparison of all the other "fictional" gods and stories and show how all the infant and virgin sacrifices and so many other truly disgusting things that people did back in the day and how all those things were SOOO much better than some of the disturbing things written about in the Old Testament? It just looks much more like he just wanted to say something stinging about Christianity without anything to back it up. Something like an atheist battle cry or some such.
As I've said before -- Especially with regard to early Old Testament, people really need to compare it with other relgions of the time. And not with the current socio-economic environment we currently live in.
It very possibly isn't God who has changed but rather people have changed.
Hi Moff :)
Now, did God actually come to Joshua -- in person -- and tell him to do these things? I don't know. The book itself was most likely compiled much later than the events in question and by people who most likely weren't there. I believe that certain events happened. Possibly even most of them -- probably not quite in the timeline suggested in Joshua (although it doesn't really give much of a timeline anyway).
That appears to be the gist of the story. But Joshua could of course have been mistaken. Or lying. Humans have been known to be both of those things. If you want to take it as a typical "God is on our side" excuse for wars of conquest and the rest, I'm certainly not going to argue. My concern here is with the notion that it's somehow right. It's a thorny theological issue, at least for believers. To lay it out:
1) God is all-good
2) Therefore, any instructions God gives have to be the moral thing to do.
I think most Christians would agree with both of those. Furthermore the second obviously follows from the first. You can't be all-good if you've taken to telling people to go out and kill a bunch of people because you don't like their religion. That's a bad thing. (At least I think it is. Maybe I'm crazy.) Or if you want to get really formal about it, you can't be both A and not-A at the same time. If God is all-good, then he is all-good. Being all-good precludes being any bit evil, since that would entail being not good.
So the book believers tell us is the paramount authority on God's doings in the past has him giving out some orders. If God is all-good, then those orders must also be all-good. If they're not, then either he's not all-good, or he didn't give them.
Neither of those options is very attractive to believers, obviously. If the Bible is mistaken or lying about the sorts of things God wants done then it has unfortunate implications for the religions involved. But what else is there to say? One can attempt to argue as follows:
1) God is all-good
2) Therefore, any order God gives is all-good by definition.
That's tightly circular and thus not very convincing (It's not actually an argument, just a restatement of the premise we have no particular reason to accept.) but it's a pretty common notion. I've seen it from lots of believers. The only problem is that if God's say-so is the only thing that makes things good or bad then why should we care? God could say that rape is good, and by this principle we'd have to agree that yes it is. Nobody should accept this, and if they do it's probably going to be a terrible thing for other people. Either deeds are good and/or bad because of their particular characteristics themselves regardless of God's say-so, or calling God moral (or a source of morality) has no meaning at all. This is why I don't think that God's order could excuse anything. I'm curious as to why Myrkull seems to think that it does, at least half the time.
Sorry, I'm rambling. All I'm trying to say is -- why is it so hard to see or believe that God sees or knows something that we don't?
I can't see something that hasn't been shown, to get right to the point. Nor am I going to believe something exists without evidence. If God has a reason, he could have very well written it into the Bible, or ordered it be written there. Myrkull gave one, but it's a deplorable one which is unworthy of an all-good God. In fact that is the only reason I recall given in the Bible too.
It's entirely fair to say that these are the brutal parts of the mythology of a long-dead time. I certainly think so. But that's not what believers take it to be. Instead it's the true story of the doings of the all-good creator of the universe. ...except that he's so all-good that we can exceed his goodness just by going about our everyday lives. I mean, if God is the eternal, morally perfect for all time guy we are told that he is then his morality should not be worse than our own. It should be vastly better and vastly superior to anything else offered then or now. But it's not. It's about typical for the period, a bit worse here, a bit better there. It's hard to put it into firm context because so little of the other religions of the area has survived.
As I've said before -- Especially with regard to early Old Testament, people really need to compare it with other relgions of the time. And not with the current socio-economic environment we currently live in.It very possibly isn't God who has changed but rather people have changed.
That's fair. It's presentist (that's a real historian's term) to judge ancient works by modern standards. If one takes a thoroughgoing secular view of the Bible, then none of this makes much difference. It's just the work of fallible humans who are products of their time and culture, just like Harry Potter, Naked Lunch, Howl, 4e, or anything else.
We don't criticize Beowulf or the Táin Bó Cúailnge for being full of raging psychotics who feud murderously with one another for kicks. (Also the Tain involves a simply epic bathroom break that carves three canyons. Maybe it's my inner twelve year-old, but I get a chuckle out of that.) It's true but it's not particularly fair since nobody else was all that much better back then. They're typical artworks for their time. I have no objection to saying that the Bible is more or less a typical expression of human myth in the period. I mean the Greek myths are pretty petty and violent too. I'm not as up on the Sumerian or Babylonian, but I doubt they come out smelling like roses either. (It doesn't, of course, follow that because we accept certain things as historical norms that we must also accept them in the present day. This is a common misunderstanding.)
The thing of it is that this isn't how believers treat the Bible any other time. It's the Living Word, eternally correct and suitable for teaching and reproof down to every jot and tittle. Which means that our standards are just as relevant as those of the Bronze Age. It should ring just as true and righteous for us as it did for people in the Ancient Near East. I mean, it's the timeless product of the eternal all-knowing all-good creator of the universe. It was written for us every bit as much (maybe more, since there are a lot more of us now) as for them. If God's morality is obsolete then obviously he's not all-good. So again what's he doing when he goes about ordering these genocides and all the other things we find repellent?
I know you don't think genocide is right, Moff. You're a decent guy. I'm willing to bet that Myrkull would generally agree with you. He did once. But how is it that we mere mortals have found ourselves on the moral high ground against the ultimate goodness? To me the obvious answer for a believer would be that God didn't really order that. Joshua, or his biographer, made it all up. It raises some questions about what else might have been made up, but it certainly seems more palatable than the alternatives.
|
|
Hi Moff :)
Hi back.
Very good stuff. Just really one quick point. (I'm going to be busy today.)
This is kind of how I see a lot of the Old Testament. It's what the people really needed at that time. There is a lot of Law found there -- and it was VERY specific in what to do but not a lot of reason why. Jesus comes a long and "fulfills" the Law. He keeps the Law, but puts it on its head. He shows that people really were missing the point of the Old Testament Law by only doing the letter of the law and really needed to reevaluate what the purpose was behind the laws.
There are still good points to be made from the Old Testament. The people of the time wrote down what they thought or understood. Sometimes they were making a point and trying to draw a "lesson". Other times they were probably trying to simply tell what happened without really giving any moral implications (like the end of Judges). But regardless, I think that many of us (on both sides) end up getting hung up on a few specific verses without a full or proper understanding of the whole story. And with some of the ancient history stuff, it's hard to come up with "why" for a lot of it. We keep trying to put Western ideas to ancient Hebrew writings. I'm not sure that always works out for the best.
Jesus comes a long and "fulfills" the Law.
But why? Couldn't god, Jesus and the holy spirit get it right the first time?
*smacks self for chiming in but goes ahead anyways*
Another contextual item to consider is that the Bible was 'written', both Old Testament and New, when the world's population was largely illiterate. Putting aside the debate of Holy Spirit written vs. inspired, the Word was shared to those people by the small segment of educated people. This opens the door to a lot of other questions.
RL example. My wife is Baptist and I am Catholic. My wife grew up thinking the stained glass in churches, while beautiful, were a display of wealth. But, churches were designed from the Romanesque style to Gothic to inspire and educate the churchgoers via those windows, lifting them up from the drudgery of their lives. In this context she re-evaluated her POV. Should the money been spent to raise the people's standard of living? Would it have been enough? Or is the need to raise people's spirit, their souls? Those windows have been in place for hundreds of years. How many millions have been touched by their beauty?
Sorry for the ramble. Just wanted to add a couple of points.
|
|
As to your question about "Does Dawkins think the christian God is worse than the other gods of thtime" I really don't think he does he sees them all as equally barbaric and fictional. He believes them nothing more than a dark reflection of the psyche of man. Read "the God Delusion" It makes it very apparent that man made god after his own image and not the other way around (A violent hateful territorial ape). He really sees no distinction just because the other gods of the time had human sacrifice, well Yahweh (adonai, jehovah, whatever else you want to call him) demanded if a woman wasn't a virgin when married than she was to be forcibly taken outside of the camp tied down and pummelled with big frickin rocks til she was dead, same to rebellious teenagers, those who worked on the sabbath, homosexuals, etc.. etc., etc., etc. Honestly that doesn't really sound any better than human sacrifice really.
This idea that "every two points lie on exactly one line" is, in fact, the first of Euclid's Five Axioms. Axiom and postulate are synonymous (according to any dictionary). I cannot speak to the "other misstatements" to which you referred. However, the idea that between any two points there is a line must be accepted without proof. It hasn't been proven in the 2300 years since it was put forth.
The early scientists of Babylon, under King Nebuchadnezzar, were astronomers (so says secular history books).
Mykull,
Thanks again for your responses. I admire very much what you wrote about your faith; great clarification, and excellent standpoint, I think.With regards to axioms and postulates, I have no issue with your definitions -- only with your next step. Personally, I am a practical scientist by trade, not a theoretical mathematician. In science, we don't have axioms or postulates, and we accept it as a given that NOTHING is ever "proven." So when people say things like "that's an unproven theory," they miss the whole fundamentals of science.
Now, I understand that to most people, math and science sort of blend together into a hazy fog of "dork stuff," but they are separate disciplines, working off of different assumptions. (As to theoretical astrophysicists, I'd consider them mathemeticians, not applied scientists.) The history books are inaccurate (or at least guilty of oversimplification) when they refer to early Babylonian scientists -- those who follow the scientific method, regardless of their field of study, are scientists; those who do not, aren't -- again, regardless of their field of study. A person who knows all the constellations, or who knows everything about whales, is not necessarily a scientist. A person who tinkers with engines might me, or might not. Science is a method of learning, not a field of theoretical knowledge.
|
|
This idea that "every two points lie on exactly one line" is, in fact, the first of Euclid's Five Axioms. Axiom and postulate are synonymous (according to any dictionary). I cannot speak to the "other misstatements" to which you referred. However, the idea that between any two points there is a line must be accepted without proof. It hasn't been proven in the 2300 years since it was put forth.
The early scientists of Babylon, under King Nebuchadnezzar, were astronomers (so says secular history books).
Mykull,
Thanks again for your responses. I admire very much what you wrote about your faith; great clarification, and excellent standpoint, I think.With regards to axioms and postulates, I have no issue with your definitions -- only with your next step. Personally, I am a practical scientist by trade, not a theoretical mathematician. In science, we don't have axioms or postulates, and we accept it as a given that NOTHING is ever "proven." So when people say things like "that's an unproven theory," they miss the whole fundamentals of science.
Now, I understand that to most people, math and science sort of blend together into a hazy fog of "dork stuff," but they are separate disciplines, working off of different assumptions. (As to theoretical astrophysicists, I'd consider them mathemeticians, not applied scientists.) The history books are inaccurate (or at least guilty of oversimplification) when they refer to early Babylonian scientists -- those who follow the scientific method, regardless of their field of study, are scientists; those who do not, aren't -- again, regardless of their field of study. A person who knows all the constellations, or who knows everything about whales, is not necessarily a scientist. A person who tinkers with engines might me, or might not. Science is a method of learning, not a field of theoretical knowledge.
Dude, you know, the Earth and a black hole are going to be directly lined up in 2012!
Dude, you know, the Earth and a black hole are going to be directly lined up in 2012!
Look! I move the black hole -- THEY'RE STILL IN A LINE! I move the Earth -- IT'S STILL IN A LINE! We're already in Limbo, and haven't figured it out yet!
Even if the whole bible was invented by a crazy pope/Roman emperor/Leonardo da Vinci, and is complete fiction from first word to last, those words in that situation are I feel an example of humanity and generosity of spirit which should be an inspiration to people.
Now, that I can agree with. But then all religious texts have something of inspiration in them.
But then all religious texts have something of inspiration in them.
Even Battlefield Earth?
Man overcomes enslavement against incredible odds?!
Or man creates abysmal movie despite incredible odds.