Sunday, 4 January 2009

the word of a sky daddy|?

Xians say that there book is "the word of god" however it cant have escaped the attention of anyone who had looked at a copy that it contains many words. Thus my argument is as follows:

1.The word of someone is one word long (otherwise it would by the words of god)
2.Xians say that there book is the word of god
3.tghe bible contains lots of words
4.therefore it is not the word of god

Or is only one word the true word and the rest is rubbish? If so, how do you decided which word is the one your sky daddy wrote?

51 comments:

johnny said...

it's not as common as it used to be, but there is a phrase (i'll use your name in the example)...


"Mike is a man of his word"

The phrase means that "Mike" means what he says, and says what he means.
It also means that "Mike" honors his promises.

Mere humans fall short of this, but if you are a man of your word, Mike, other men would realise that, although you are human and fall short, you would still be a man of integrity.


However, God does not lie.
The Word of God is that which He has spoken. God says what He means and means what He says, and honors His promises.

The two most important promises that God has given us in His Word is that we are guilty of eternal punishment in Hell because we have disobeyed Him, but He has promised that those that believe that His Son has payed that penalty, are forgiven.

God Bless,
johnny

CodewordConduit said...

Anyone ever wonder why God didn't destroy Lucifer and the fallen angels as soon as they sinned? Y'know, cast them into that abyss that they're going into at the end of human time anyway?

Instead God allowed Lucifer/Satan to possess a snake (of a creation that God had called "good" so would not be suspect to Eve who wasn't even aware of evil) and then vanished off the scene at the crucial "snake starts talking" moment.

If that wasn't enough God gave Satan dominion over the Earth. Instead of just throwing him in the abyss, away from human beings that he can damage further.

johnny said...

"Anyone ever wonder....?"

Nope. You are the very first person in history to ever have had that inquiry.

Nobody ever wondered why an Omniscient God didn't create in a way that no one rebelled, either. If you hurry you can be the first one to think that one up too.

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

I HAVE wondered, however, how any of that is relevent to Mike Trites post...

CodewordConduit said...

Well shit... do you cretins have any capacity for recognizing and perhaps processing irony?

Explaining the "meaning" of God's "word"; like the exact, literal etymological definition, without a shred of self-awareness. Jesus fucking Christ.

While you're still here and bleating explain DNA decay, and Johnny you condescending fuck; try re-explaining your whole "incest was okay" premise without waffling inanely as you did in your previous reply. If it had a point, it was sure as hell lost on me.

As for what it has to do with Mike's comment, Think-a-Lot - Mike's comment was about God's word, the Bible is God's word.

Got that Sherlock?

CodewordConduit said...

Apologies for the definitely (ridiculously) over-aggressive nature of the previous comment. I'm giving up smoking and fighting the bank - the combination of which seems to bring out the "angry" rather more often than not.

The sentiment remains the same, ignore the OTT use of language.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

As for what it has to do with Mike's comment, Think-a-Lot - Mike's comment was about God's word, the Bible is God's word.

And you comment has what exactly to do with the Bible/God's word?

As for recognizing/processing irony. Mine works just fine, apparently Jonny's does too, as his post was pure irony.

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny was saying that God does not lie, ergo the Bible does not lie. I (on this "atheist" blog, lest you forget) wanted to further that with a discussion as to whether God's proported word can just be called "truth", just like that, with no proof.

As for appreciating irony, I hope you realize that sarcasm isn't irony. Most of what either you or Johnny write in an attempt at humour rests exclusively in the "pseudo-patronizing sarcasm" zone.

As for Mike, he's obviously taking the piss. Why do you keep jumping for it?

Mike is Wright said...

All they ever do is be sarcastic and rude. I dont think they ever offered a logical response to anything ive ever written.

johnny said...

"and Johnny you condescending fuck; "

Aside from your battle with the bank and smoking, i'm wondering if you thought that you were being open to honest discussion in your opening remarks. It would seem that you thought that my condescension stifled your "honest" question?

If you were being honest with your attempt at irony, please explain, because it seemed to me as either a huge non-sequitur or as condescending as you accuse me of... implying that only CodewordConduit has been able to notice--- far beyond the 'bleating' that the sheeps are capable.

Again with your painfully honest, humble, non-agressive discourse, you said, "do you cretins have any capacity for recognizing and perhaps processing irony?"
Or perhaps, "without waffling inanely" and not to mention, "Got that Sherlock?".



So... what do you say, CC? Shall we both treat each other with respect and have a decent conversation or should we continue to call each other a hypocrite?

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

All they ever do is be sarcastic and rude. I dont think they ever offered a logical response to anything ive ever written.

Yea cause using terms like 'sky daddies' and purposefully mispelling Jesus as 'jebus' is perefectly polite.

And I'v offored logical responses to most everything you've posted(except for a few that were too dumb to bother), and anybody who's seen me on other sites can tell I'm usually one of the last people to turn to insults or rudness.

I DO have a fondness for sarcasm, but I dont think sarcasm is in itself bad, especially when it has a point(such as when I compare your revision of history to alien cover-ups).

CodewordConduit said...

I apologized for my attitude earlier.

Yeah let's be polite. I was being a tosser.

johnny said...

Fair enough, and i'm sorry too.

I'll start out with my last response in Mike's "Atheist How to Guide", and we can try to move on from there...

"CodewordConduit,

I've given your post to me some thought. I have to admit that to a point, you had me stumped. But if we back up a bit further, we are told that Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only way incest would have been evil, before there was a command against it, would have been from evil intent. We are told that in the days of Noah (before the flood), they had been marrying and giving in marriage. Marriage is not evil, but the action can be wrong because of wrongful intent.
Depending on intention, rightful actions can be for the wrong reasons, and wrongful actions can be done with the best of intentions.

Also, your first post had mentioned a question regarding Christian's and sterile siblings..
At this point it would be wrong because it is after a Command against close relations, and against adultery (and since it is illegal in the U.S., and i assume the U.K., to marry one's sibling, any sex between the two would be against both Commands).

johnny

20 December 2008 19:16

Anonymous said...

Why don't you come over to theologyweb.net as it's probably a easier place to have discussions

CodewordConduit said...

"Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The only way incest would have been evil, before there was a command against it, would have been from evil intent."

Please explain a situation where incest could arise from "evil intent", and a situation where incest could arise from "non-evil intent", just to clarify these motivations for me.

"Marriage is not evil, but the action can be wrong because of wrongful intent."

Again, an example of marriage as a result of "evil intent" and marriage as a result of "non-evil intent" is necessary.

I'm not sure that either U.S. or U.K. law has any bearing on God's Law or how he expects Christians to behave. For example many creationists have been taken to court and foung guilty of attempting to teach creationism in the science classroom and therefore violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I'm sure that you (and God) would back them in their law-breaking actions.

Sorry for the delay in responding and thank you for your gentlemanly behaviour regarding our previous disagreement.

johnny said...

Please explain a situation where incest could arise from "evil intent", and a situation where incest could arise from "non-evil intent", just to clarify these motivations for me.

Evil intent--
If it was driven simply by lust--- selfishness. We could have the same discussion about Cain killing Abel.. based on the Bible, God had not commanded against it but Cain knew it was wrong.

Non-evil intent--
The caring of two individuals.

As long as it had not been Commanded against, then only intent could be the deciding factor of it's "evil-ess".

Again, an example of marriage as a result of "evil intent" and marriage as a result of "non-evil intent" is necessary.

Is a modern example ok?
How about a young thing marrying an old guy because he's rich and about to die?
And, "... and giving in marriage"
... we do know that some times and cultures, marriage is arrange. I suppose an arranged marriage could also be based off of both good and evil intentions. What do you think?

Non-evil intent?-- Marriage because two people love each other.
Or simply in obedience to the command, "be fruitful and multiply".


I'm not sure that either U.S. or U.K. law has any bearing on God's Law or how he expects Christians to behave.

Were supposed to follow the laws of our government, as long as those laws to not violate His Law.
So what i was trying to say, is that, not only is there now a command against incest, Christians (if they were following the example you gave) would also be violating the law of the government, which is also a Sin.

For example many creationists have been taken to court and foung guilty of attempting to teach creationism in the science classroom and therefore violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I'm sure that you (and God) would back them in their law-breaking actions.

yeah, probably. Daniel and his 3 buddies violated the law of their government by continuing to worship God.... they got put away for safe keeping(some lions and some fire)


sorry for the delay in responding and thank you for your gentlemanly behaviour regarding our previous disagreement.

Delays are cool... we all have lives.

I have been trying to treat Mike decent (ya, there may have been a slip up or two) which might be why i kinda flew off the handle at you.

Acomment was made to bring this to tweb, but as Mike has pointed out, he wasn't treated with much respect... some of which may have been deserved since he violated some of tweb rules. I've been avoiding tweb for a few days because there are Christians that think what i did to you was no different than breathing or blinking, and i've been studying some Scripture and some commentaries in order to see if it's something i'm missing, or if it is they who are reading wrong intent into Scripture (if you are the least bit interested, the discussion about riposte/insults rears it's head a couple of threads every month or two).
This paragraph is also for the purpose of answering your question earlier... As for Mike, he's obviously taking the piss. Why do you keep jumping for it?
Generally, despite someone mocking Christianity for the sake of their own entertainment/ranting, or even those that are militant against Christianity/religion, i try to answer them as if they are presenting an honest objection they have (despite HOW they present it). My Scriptural reason is from 1 Peter 3:15. My personal reason is because of how i used to treat people back when i was about your age (21, right?), and realising that didn't accomplish much, if anything (and that wasn't even when it was about Christianity... it ranged anywhere from advertisement's hold on consumers to how stupid i thought NASCAR was-- sometimes i was voicing my opinion and sometimes, just to get a rise out of someone)

Sorry this was so long.
johnny

johnny said...

it looks as though i missed a letter or two in the last post, or i deleted 'em. If it's confusing, point them out.

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

I'm not sure that either U.S. or U.K. law has any bearing on God's Law or how he expects Christians to behave. For example many creationists have been taken to court and foung guilty of attempting to teach creationism in the science classroom and therefore violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I'm sure that you (and God) would back them in their law-breaking actions.

I cant speak for Jonny, but I wouldnt. Not so much b/c it violates the law(I doubt creationism taught as a 'force' or impersonal creater would violate the first ammendment), but because I dont approve of anybody spreading misinformation, and creationism has little to no evidence, and its proponats, from what I'v seen, are more concerned with finding flaws in evolution than actually proving creationism.

CodewordConduit said...

Arranged marriages?

I think that they are wrong in the strict definition of the term. However, there is nothing wrong with introducing your kid to someone they might like and seeing if they "hit it off"... as long as you respect their wishes if they don't.

At the end of the day, parents should not decide who their children marry, or excommunicate/kill their children if they go against their will.

@Sir Think-a-Lot

Exactly. I have no problem with kids being taught that "we don't know" what kicked the universe into existence/or the catalyst for the big bang. I have no problem with children being informed that current scientific consensus can be overturned. Because it can. But to overturn it, you must prove your hypothesis within the peer review process (if you are seeking scientific credibility). Nothing proving intelligent design has passed muster on this front, so yeah keep it away from my kid.

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Exactly. I have no problem with kids being taught that "we don't know" what kicked the universe into existence/or the catalyst for the big bang. I have no problem with children being informed that current scientific consensus can be overturned. Because it can. But to overturn it, you must prove your hypothesis within the peer review process (if you are seeking scientific credibility). Nothing proving intelligent design has passed muster on this front, so yeah keep it away from my kid.

I dont havea problem with children being taught that 'we dont know what caused the Big Bang.' because...well we dont. I also dont have a problem with schools teaching that we dotn know how the first life forms appeared.

But I DO have a problem teaching that evolution is false/we dont know it happened. That evolution is responsible for the diversity of life today is pretty firmly established. We're still not certain exactly HOW it happened(Darwin's 'slow and steady change' or punctured equilbrium), and there are minor gaps in the theory, but none big enough invalidate the theory as a whole.

If they want to teach that we dont know exactly how evolution happened, thats fine(cause again, we dont) but dont teach that it didnt/we dont know. Unless you have another theory that fits all the current evidence.

johnny said...

CC,
you asked that i provide an example of marriage as a result of evil and non-evil intent. My personal position re: arranged marriages aside, i think it does fit the answer for both evil and non-evil intentions, and, also despite my feelings about them, it is a fact that different cultures and different times made use of arranged marriages. (for the record, i'm against arranged marriages).

However, your post leads me to wonder... you said, "I think that they are wrong in the strict definition of the term." Why do you think it's wrong (or anything, for that matter)? And what makes one morally subjective opinion "more right" than any other morally subjective opinion?




Also STAL said, "I cant speak for Jonny, but I wouldnt. Not so much b/c it violates the law(I doubt creationism taught as a 'force' or impersonal creater would violate the first ammendment), but because I dont approve of anybody spreading misinformation, and creationism has little to no evidence, and its proponats, from what I'v seen, are more concerned with finding flaws in evolution than actually proving creationism."

I'm confused, STAL, but can you explain to me how a Christian can not believe in Special Creation?
Or perhaps Special Creation does not fit in the definitions of Creationism.
It would seem to me that all Christians, at some point in their understanding, MUST be creationist.

(Just so that my cards are on the table.., i lean toward YEC. I do not see anything in Scripture that leads understanding toward vast time periods since creation, and much of Scripture (as i understand it) seems to indicate less than 10,000 years)

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

I'm confused, STAL, but can you explain to me how a Christian can not believe in Special Creation?
Or perhaps Special Creation does not fit in the definitions of Creationism.


Well if by 'Special creation' you mean God magicly made everything appear exactly as it stands today, then the simple fact is that the evidnece overwhelming points against it, Especially for an Old Earth(Evolution is on slightly shakier ground, though theres still no good reason to doubt it).

However I DO believe God had a direct hand in the creation of the universe, and in directing its formation to reach a point where humanity would exist.

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny,

When I say "right" I mean "beneficial for me" or in the case of other people "beneficial for me should I find myself in your set of circumstances".

And no, I don't believe that everything benefical for me is particularly beneficial to someone else. If someone agrees with my stance then we can talk about right or wrong in "our" context, not just mine, as common ground has been established.

I believe that society works on this basis, although of course this is my opinion only. But could Christianity exist as a "group" if people disagreed on various "rights" and "wrongs"? I think that may be why there are many different branches of Christianity all under the umbrella of a central agreement/truth/tenent - Jesus died for our sins.

But even Christianity emerged as the result of a split in subjective opinion (was Christ the Messiah?), which resulted in the new Christian church (Constantine, Nicean Creed, new scriptures to annexe the Torah etc).

This of course, is from my perspective. But thanks for the interesting question.

@ Sir Think-a-Lot

You have an approach that is consistent with reason. I applaud you :)

CodewordConduit said...

That should say "Nicene creed".

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

You have an approach that is consistent with reason. I applaud you :)

Thanks...I think.

I actually went through a brief phase as an OEC(I always found YEC rather laughable), Until I realized that there is good reasons to believe evolution, and that creationists dont really have any evidence of their own(rather they assume idsproving evolution is tantamount to proving their position).

johnny said...

CC said, "When I say "right" I mean "beneficial for me" or in the case of other people "beneficial for me should I find myself in your set of circumstances".

Does that really say anything?
Suppose terrorists broke into your home and threatened to kill a loved one of yours if you did not kill yourself. Your statement, at best, is simply a economic statement, based, perhaps, on how much you value your own life vs. the life of your loved one... at worse, on the value you have of yourself, regardless of your value for your loved one....
It's basically a reduction to, 'i haven't had cherry pie in awhile and i love cherry pie'.... but after a few pieces of cherry pie, you don't love cherry pie quite as much. But it does not really answer the original question--"And what makes one morally subjective opinion "more right" than any other morally subjective opinion?"

And no, I don't believe that everything benefical for me is particularly beneficial to someone else.

Do you believe that there is anything that is, to use your term, 'particularly beneficial' to humanity, in an absolute sense?

If someone agrees with my stance then we can talk about right or wrong in "our" context, not just mine, as common ground has been established.

So, what you are saying, in effect, is that might makes right? i.e. the more you have on your side, the more right it is?

I believe that society works on this basis, although of course this is my opinion only.

I would agree with you, in general, that this is how society works, but why do you suppose it works that way? Because morals actually exist, perhaps (beyond opinion)?

But could Christianity exist as a "group" if people disagreed on various "rights" and "wrongs"? I think that may be why there are many different branches of Christianity all under the umbrella of a central agreement/truth/tenent - Jesus died for our sins.

Yes, and you point out instances. It does depend on what the "right/wrongs---tenents" are, though.

But even Christianity emerged as the result of a split in subjective opinion (was Christ the Messiah?),

I accept your statement here, as long as it is noted that the use of the term, "subjective opinion" has and addition to indicate that the splits/disagreements/agreements were over what was understood as Biblical Truth.
OH, and for what it's worth, i'm pretty sure that Christianity, right from the start, already acknowledged Christ as Messiah.. you might have been meaning to say, "Jesus the Christ, as the Second person of the Trinity". (as i've noted elsewhere, i am not as up on the 'Christian history' aspect)

which resulted in the new Christian church (Constantine, Nicean Creed, new scriptures to annexe the Torah etc).

And the note that the Council's purpose was not in dividing, but in unifying... or rather, stating the agreements.
What i'm trying to say here, is that the disagreements had already started, and there was a need to determine/acknowledge/declare what Scripture taught as central truths.

johnny

johnny said...

STAL,

In a slight effort to to try to bring this thread back to Mike's original post and to try to start addressing CC's post, Johnny was saying that God does not lie, ergo the Bible does not lie. I (on this "atheist" blog, lest you forget) wanted to further that with a discussion as to whether God's proported word can just be called "truth", just like that, with no proof....

You say that you used to believe in OEC... what do you believe now, regarding origins? And why?

johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

You say that you used to believe in OEC... what do you believe now, regarding origins? And why?

Right now I'm a theistic evolutionist. As I stateed before I believe God created the universe and had a hand in controling/guiding evolution to reach the point we're at now.

My reasons for this are the fact there is good evidence for evolution, specificly the fossle record(yes, its incomplete, but theres absolutely no reason we should ever expect it to be 100% complete, and what we do have clearly supports evolution, although it seems to point slightly more towards punctured equilibrum than darwinism), and that the mechinism of evolution(natural selection, which creationists call 'micro-evolution') is acknowldged and accepted by even the most extreme YEC's, even Jack Chick acknowldges so called 'micro-evolution'(which again is just natural selection by a different name).

That and, as I previously stated, Creationists(young and old earth) have no real evidence in support of their views. They simply assume that disproving evolution is tantamount to proving Creationism.

And I see no conflict between Scripture and evolution. And even where theres potental conflict, its not on any central doctrines/issues.

To be honest though, the whole Creation/evolution debate bores me. I'm amazed I stuck with it this long.

johnny said...

Thanks Think(s), for your answer. I kinda suspected TE but i actually wanted to know.

You made the claim a couple of times, "They (creationists) simply assume that disproving evolution is tantamount to proving Creationism." As a YEC, maybe the only one though, that is not my agenda. Personally i have no quarrel with evolution, if that is what God used to bring us to this point, but i see no Biblical evidence to support the claim, and much Biblical evidence against vast periods of time (OEC, TE, Gap, etc.)... that said, i'll drop this aspect, since i too, have gotten rather bored with the particular debate.

I brought up the topic for a different purpose though.

As a Christian, i would assume that you believe:

1) that Jesus is the promised Messiah, yes?
2) that Jesus is the Son of the Living God?
3) that Jesus is the Second person of the Godhead?

Also, would you agree that the Biblical claim is that God does not lie?
Do you agree with that claim?


How about something not so central?...
Do you believe that Jesus changed water to wine?


If you said yes to most or all of these, where is your proof?... or rather, why is your proof the God's Word?

Believe me, i'm not trying to pick a fight with someone on the same team (a fellow Christian), but these things are pertinent to the discussion.
You said, "but because I dont approve of anybody spreading misinformation, and creationism has little to no evidence, "
therefore, what is your evidence that Jesus changed water to wine?....
Or much more importantly, what is OUR evidence that Jesus paid OUR penalty for OUR Sins against God?

To quote CC again, "Johnny was saying that God does not lie, ergo the Bible does not lie. I (on this "atheist" blog, lest you forget) wanted to further that with a discussion as to whether God's proported word can just be called "truth", just like that, with no proof....".

If i recall, there is a standard apologetic answer to her question. I even think i recall what it is... however, my use of that answer would fall flat, because, as a YEC i fly in the face of what "science says". (i'm not going to recite the pat answer right now, incase you use it).


I'm going to stop for now. I've got to get ready to try to take my mom to her doctor appointment.
Trust me, dementia sucks.

God Bless,
johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

1) that Jesus is the promised Messiah, yes?
2) that Jesus is the Son of the Living God?
3) that Jesus is the Second person of the Godhead?

Also, would you agree that the Biblical claim is that God does not lie?
Do you agree with that claim?


How about something not so central?...
Do you believe that Jesus changed water to wine?A


Yes, to all of the above.

If you said yes to most or all of these, where is your proof?... or rather, why is your proof the God's Word?

Proof, is a funny word, it implies that I can demonstrate something with absolute certainity. what I do have is evidence, historical evidence of the Ressurection in the forms of eyewitness accounts, in the fact that a movement proclaiming this fact, was not only formed, but was FLOURISHING within 20 years of Jesus's death, and this movements continued existance under persecution and martyrdum. Furthermore theres no good reason to doubt the ressurection unless you presume naturalism(ie. 'Miracles cant happen so theres NO WAY Jesus rose from the dead').

The ressurection, in turn, becomes evidence for Jesus's divinity. Both because a ressurection in itself points towards divine works, and because Jesus himself, and his earliest followers explained the siginifcance of the act.

Water to wine is a slightly different story. I believe it b/c it fits with what I already know/believe abnout Jesus, and it was recorded by an eyewitness to his life and teachings. I dont have any real 'hard evidence' but theres also no reason to doubt it.

That said, I'll admit that belief in these things does require a 'leap of faith' to a certain extent. But its not 'blind faith' its faith that this is where the facts are pointing, and that we are at least reasonably certain that this is the truth, really most things we believe require this kind of leap(I should also add, that in the context of Christianity, it also means actually following God and obaying his commandments, intellectually accepting that God exists, Jesus's divinity/ressurection ect isnt enough if it doesnt result in some changes, or at least honest attempts at changes, in your life)

To allow the leap of faith we must make to believe in God allow us to throw away our intellect, and willingness to learn and challange our beliefs is both dishonest and harmful imo.

johnny said...

what I do have is evidence, historical evidence

Nope, sorry, but you have something prior to that historical evidence.
That something is what makes sense out of that historical evidence. Without that "something", the historical evidence is of little use.
That "something" is truth.
It is the Word of God.
The reason for the Resurrection is found in that truth... that we are Sinners.
That Truth is the reason
1) that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
That Truth is the reason we know
2) that Jesus is the Son of the Living God?
That Truth is the reason we know
3) that Jesus is the Second person of the Godhead?


Furthermore theres no good reason to doubt the ressurection unless you presume naturalism(ie. 'Miracles cant happen so theres NO WAY Jesus rose from the dead').

And this too, shows that that very same evidence needs to be interpreted... and IS interpreted, in light of a persons presuppositions and world view.
Don't get me wrong, intellectually, i come to the same interpretation of that very same evidence, but there is more to it.

Just as water doesn't change to wine, except by Divine intervention (miracles.. um, your term earlier was, "magicly", was it not?), resurrections don't happen all too often without a bit of help from the Creator. But you're willing to accept a Resurrection based on the Word of God (but only because of a bit of supporting evidence?)

The ressurection, in turn, becomes evidence for Jesus's divinity.

To you and i, sure. But what about CC or Mike?
What makes them different from a YEC, like myself? Or a TE, like you? (I'm sure that you consider yourself as reasonable and rational. I'm sure they think that they are reasonable and rational. I know that i think i am.)

Both because a ressurection in itself points towards divine works, and because Jesus himself, and his earliest followers explained the siginifcance of the act.

Jesus' earliest followers explained it, based on the Old Testement. The understood the OT in terms of literal Sin and the need for forgivness.

They also understood the OT as God's Word (which presupposes God).
They understood the prophets as having been told what to say, by God Himself.

Water to wine is a slightly different story.

Not really.

I believe it b/c it fits with what I already know/believe abnout Jesus,

For me, so does a young earth creation account.

and it was recorded by an eyewitness to his life and teachings.

I would agree. However, i'm guessing that we might disagree (at least, at first) with who that eyewitness is.

I dont have any real 'hard evidence' but theres also no reason to doubt it.

You have the same reason to doubt as CC and Mike. They also have the same reason to believe as you and i do.
The bottom line for all of us is what we hold as the most important evidence... for CC and Mike, i would assume that they hold their own understanding/senses/perceptions (or that of authority figures in those cases that they do not know first hand--- as we all do).

That said, I'll admit that belief in these things does require a 'leap of faith' to a certain extent. But its not 'blind faith' its faith that this is where the facts are pointing

I sorta apologize for using you in the manner that i did.

What you just said here, is more or less the point i was trying to make, and had hoped that you would go in the direction that you did.
Basically, what i was trying to get you to say, is that you base your belief on God's Word. In part, it is interpreted on the evidences that He gives us, both internal and external to His Word. In the places that we can verify (such as historical evidence of the Resurrection, or prophecies fulfilled, or historical accuracy, etc), His Word is consistant....
I know, i know--- this is comming from someone that believes that the earth and all of creation is only about 6,000 yrs old (and i will admit that there are things that, even to me, seem to not fit)
.... but my bottom line is that the Biblical evidence must come first, and i see more Biblical evidence for a young earth than for an ancient one--- it's my presupposition and i'm entitled to it. (that last, bolded part, is a much shortened version of a path we mighty need to travel with CC., and you've already laid some of the foundations for that trip-- thank you)

and that we are at least reasonably certain that this is the truth, really most things we believe require this kind of leap

True... to put it in terms of Nick (whatever name he's going by at the moment, the guy that is bonkers over Chloe)
They need to give evidence for their evidentialism.

(I should also add, that in the context of Christianity, it also means actually following God and obaying his commandments, intellectually accepting that God exists, Jesus's divinity/ressurection ect isnt enough if it doesnt result in some changes, or at least honest attempts at changes, in your life)

Agreed. Hopefully those that currently do not believe, recognise us by the clothes we wear... Col 3:12,... that we might be a light that reflects the light of Christ, that they too may recieve the Grace that we know.

To allow the leap of faith we must make to believe in God allow us to throw away our intellect, and willingness to learn and challange our beliefs is both dishonest and harmful imo.

I might be misunderstanding you here, but i don't think that i've called anyone to throw away any intellect.
However, it seems to me that the CC's and Mike's of the world, think that we do, simply by believing in God (ok.. me more than you, since i'm the irrational YEC.. :) ).

God Bless,
johnny


ps. again, i am sorry for using you without your consent. My agenda has nothing, really, to do with a beef against evolution or science, as some might think, but it has everything to do with pointing those that are currently unSaved to the One that can and does Save.

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny, I hope you aren't going to attempt to take me down the presupp thread?

To "presuppose" the existence/non-existence of God, one has to make the prior presupposition that their senses are providing them with accurate information.

johnny said...

You're right CC, however this is true of everyone.

Each of us has to presuppose that the world outside of our minds exists; that it exists (more or less) as we perceive; that other people have minds; etc.

Are you saying that you disagree with this? Or are you saying that you just don't agree with the theist on what is a basic presupposition? (basic presupposition = one that all rational persons are entitled to hold)

johnny

CodewordConduit said...

Define "rational".

On what basis can you know that somebody is rational or not?

On what basis can you know who is "entitled" to this basic presupposition?

johnny said...

Since you had said to STAL that he
has "an approach that is consistent with reason. I applaud you :)", i would assume that you are going somewhere with this.

Since i'm curious to the direction you're going, i'll just start out by giving a dictionary def. of rational... agreeable to reason; being in full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid.

I know, i know... sane, lucid, etc.
seems to be begging the question, eh? Like i said, let's see where you are going with this..


You asked, "On what basis can you know that somebody is rational or not?

On what basis can you know who is "entitled" to this basic presupposition?"


Before i answer, i would like to point out that, by your statement to STAL, you've held the same anvil over your own head as mine.

In regard to your entitlement question, reason dictates that, in order to know anything and to communicate, we must ALL make some prior assumptions.

If i can not assume that you have a mind and that the world outside my mind (and yours)is a reflection of reality, then i am asking you, "are you and i even having a conversation?"

Those entitlements are given to anyone that proceeds to examine the world outside his/her mind, and to those who communicate. i.e. everyone -even the sophist in me ;)


Concerning your question on how i can know that you ;) are rational or not... the jury is still out.... but my presupposition says, "hey, give her a chance".

I am teasing here, but it is accurate. It would seem that, apart from paranoia* we generally presuppose that others are "reasonably" rational.

*paranoia-- to include prior experience, prejudice, and our own lapses into irrationality (like, "i just don't like the way he looks.. i don't trust him"-- or somesuch)

your turn

CodewordConduit said...

For every reason you have given above, Johnny, the presupp argument is a pointless waste of time.

All it basically states is that we are all at mercy to our own personal interpretations of information gleamed by the senses.

Any process that a majority consensus ("right is might" remember? :p) recognises (e.g. "that refracted light is green") then becomes more-or-less what you and I might be tempted to call "truth".

But let us not forget colour-blind individuals for whom "the refracted light is red". They are a small minority, so:

The majority consensus of "green" as the label for refracted light of a particular wavelength sticks.

We can say:

"It is true that the grass is green."

Can you see what I'm getting at here?

Johnny, I wasn't sure where you were going with the "presuppositions" comments. I was nipping it in the bud, as I have very little time for an argument of such post-modern absurdity :)

johnny said...

I was going to defend and clarify (but it got quite long, and these blogs aren't very useful in this sort of discussion), but instead let me ask you, are you saying that you don't believe in presup?

Also, if you don't, what is it that you think is the state of affairs?

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

CodewordConduit I have two questions:

1. Do you believe that the world outside your mind exists?

2. Do you believe that your senses, generally speaking, accurately reflect the world?

If you answered yes to either(or both) of these, then how do you know that? If you answered no to either(or both), then how can you be sure that you really know anything?

CodewordConduit said...

STAL & Johnny.

As far as I am concerned, no one can be sure that the "world" exists outside of their own mind/consciousness. I can't be sure that I am "rational". In fact, my status as either rational/irrational cannot be decided by me at all. Everyone I come into contact with will assess me and the opinion of the majority will label me.

But how can anyone say with all certainty that their world exists outside of their own minds? Before I was sentient (cognito ergo something-or-other) my world did not exist.

Should consciousness completely fail me, it will also cease to exist.

I would like you guys to just outline your presupp premise, as I think it might be different from the one I am - frankly - sick to the back teeth of debating.

Thanks :)

johnny said...

CC,

I'm not so certain that we are all that far apart in our understanding.

The two main reasons for pointing this out are, as i've said and you've just reiterated, we're all in the same boat... there are certain things (everything, actually, but it boils down to few basic beliefs) that are presupposed... properly basic beliefs that are foundational to our noetic structure.
The second point being an off-shoot of that, namely what we constitutes proof-- evidence...
You said, "..whether God's proported word can just be called "truth", just like that, with no proof."

My noetic structure has 'God exists' as one of my properly basic belief. Yours, i'm guessing, has something based on your senses being accurate.... in a nutshell, when information comes to us, we accept, deny or rearrange that info based on our basic beliefs.


johnny

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny,

I would be interested how you came to your understanding that "God exists" without prior sensory input, if this is the case.

If you came about your opinion because you had certain sensory revelations I would like to hear you explain the process for me.

Someone's existing beliefs do not stop them from changing beliefs once evidence that they consider to be sufficient is provided.

Just ask Paul of Tarsus :)

johnny said...

I would be interested how you came to your understanding that "God exists" without prior sensory input, if this is the case.

Well, first off, i could not have understanding before i had sensory input... i could not be tabula rasa. I would have to have the ability of understanding, prior to sensory input. Basic to a Christian worldview is the presup that humans are created with the image of God... we've got the atribute that is conscious of a god... The God. And according to Scripture, the god of this world (the devil) has caused blindness of this truth.

Second, how could you know that sensory input exists prior to sensory input?

As i've said, it's an anvil over both our heads.
However, the Christian worldview is confirmed by Scripture, where as a non-theist/atheist must assume that knowledge of truth, if possible at all, is completely accidental since natural origin can have no purpose, and natural origin of life forms does not need to be driven by truth (it can be, but is not a necessary condition).


If you came about your opinion because you had certain sensory revelations I would like to hear you explain the process for me.

1Jn 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

Someone's existing beliefs do not stop them from changing beliefs once evidence that they consider to be sufficient is provided.

Just ask Paul of Tarsus :)


First, Paul already believed in God
Second, Paul claimed Jesus is the same God.
Third, the foundational beliefs require HUGE amounts of evidence to be changed.
Fourth, Jesus supplied the necessary amount of evidence for Paul (for the sake of God's Glory, not for the sake of Paul's redemption).

CodewordConduit said...

Johnny,

Why not pop over to my blog? We're discussing the relative morality of high school sex education.

Might be a bit more fun than dragging this one out.

STAL is welcome to contribute too.

johnny said...

thank you for the invite... i'll give it a look-see in a bit. My wife and i are taking the MiL out to eat to celebrate Annie's (my wife) bingo win of $1600 (there might be a relative morality bit about a Christian gambling :p )

CodewordConduit said...

Lol is she a MiLilf?

(sorry)

Nice one on the bingo win :)

Laters Johnny.

lilpixieofterror said...

Hello Conduit, I've been doing some reading and it seems as if you need to learn a bit about Christian theology, Let me help you there!

"Anyone ever wonder why God didn't destroy Lucifer and the fallen angels as soon as they sinned? Y'know, cast them into that abyss that they're going into at the end of human time anyway?"

Did you stop to think that just maybe is because God was working for the greater good and as a result, the temporary results of sin are something that is used to bring about a greater amount of good? Simply stating, God allows bad things to happen to bring about the greatest amount of good in the end.

CodewordConduit said...

"Hello Conduit, I've been doing some reading and it seems as if you need to learn a bit about Christian theology, Let me help you there!"

OK, if you feel like you must.

Did you stop to think that just maybe is because God was working for the greater good and as a result, the temporary results of sin are something that is used to bring about a greater amount of good?

Erm no, because God is all good and all powerful, therefore sin can only be allowed to exist as part of God's all good and powerful will.

No?

Simply stating, God allows bad things to happen to bring about the greatest amount of good in the end.

Biblical evidence please. I don't care about your opinion. If I eant to hear unsupported opinions I'll bugger off to the pub.

lilpixieofterror said...

Erm no, because God is all good and all powerful, therefore sin can only be allowed to exist as part of God's all good and powerful will.

Where does a good God imply that sin and evil can't be used for a greater purpose? All God has to do to be good is to bring about the greatest amount of good by using evil and there goes your entire argument. Since Christianity teaches that evil is used to bring about the greatest amount of good, it follows that sin and a good God is not contradictory at all. Do your self a favor and stop reading the likes of Dawkings and try reading some real theologians (perhaps like NT Wright or William Lane Craig). Sorry, but it does not follow that a good God and evil + sin can't exist, as so long as God uses evil and sin to cause the greatest amount of good.

Biblical evidence please. I don't care about your opinion.

Somebody really needs to stop reading the likes of Harris and actually pick up a Bible or a good theologian and start reading. One of the most famous passages is found in Romans where Paul states:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
Romans 8:28, NIV

There you go, one example that God uses everything (good and evil) to accomplish the greatest amount of good in the world. In fact, Jesus laid the ground work for this idea all over the Gospels, such as when he tells the disciples that, "In this world, you will find trouble, but take heart for I have overcome the world." There you go, yet another example of evil being used to accomplish the greatest amount of good. You also find examples in Acts (how did Paul convert?), The OT (how did David truly learn to be humble?) and within the life of Jesus (He who knew no sin became sin, so that we might find God). There you go, examples abound of evil being used to bring about the greatest amount of good and thus, your argument falls apart.

If I eant to hear unsupported opinions I'll bugger off to the pub.

Such a shame that my view is well supported huh? Well, might want to try to actually read the Bible instead of listening to what your hero's say about it.

CodewordConduit said...

Lil Pixie,

I can assure you that I have read the Bible. Cover-to-cover at the age of six, three times after that before I was twelve, and have continued to study it throughout my life since. My dad is a born-again Christian with a first class honours degree in Theology and a university lecturer. He finds my views to be abhorrent, but my Biblical knowledge to be exemplary. My local pastor has just completed his PhD in theology and we have many interesting discussions (we take the same train most mornings) - he says that it's an embarrasment to the church that there aren't more people as well versed in scripture as I am. In my current Religious Studies course I am a straight A student.

I actually think you're a bit screechy and dull. Prove me wrong. I'm also not arguing with you over three separate threads. Stick to one on my blog from now.

CodewordConduit said...

That should say:

"Stick to the one on my blog from now on."

lilpixieofterror said...

I can assure you that I have read the Bible. Cover-to-cover at the age of six, three times after that before I was twelve, and have continued to study it throughout my life since.

And yet... you didn't even find the parts that taught that bad things happen to good people and that God uses all things for the good? Wow, that's pretty funny! Now have you read any commentaries or theological books on the Bible or do you just read your 21st century views onto it and call it good?

My dad is a born-again Christian with a first class honours degree in Theology and a university lecturer. He finds my views to be abhorrent, but my Biblical knowledge to be exemplary.

That's nice, but you're not your dad, are you? That is sort of like saying that since my dad is a pilot, I'm qualified to fly a plane. Does that follow? Not at all because even if my dad was a pilot (which he is not) all that means is that I might know more about flying a plane, but I'm not a pilot, my dad is. So spare me the rant about your dad being such and such because that is irrelevant to this conversation and does not improve your knowledge of the Bible one bit.

My local pastor has just completed his PhD in theology and we have many interesting discussions (we take the same train most mornings) - he says that it's an embarrasment to the church that there aren't more people as well versed in scripture as I am. In my current Religious Studies course I am a straight A student.

Are you this pastor? Nope, so again... this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, is it? BTW I am also a student and have taken classes on the NT as well as read a number of critical, theological books on the Bible as well as read the detractors as well. Again, explain what this has to do with anything on your knowledge? Nothing, shoot... you couldn't even find Romans 8:28? Sorry honey, but you don't win goodie points though me by bragging about how smart you are, you do it by showing and thus far... it appears you haven't shown it at all.

I actually think you're a bit screechy and dull. Prove me wrong. I'm also not arguing with you over three separate threads. Stick to one on my blog from now.

I did, and your inability to provide an answer to my point and just brag about how smart people say you are is just more proof that you're not only a blow hard, but a bit insecure about her knowledge. Again, I really do not care about your father's degree is or what some man says about you on a train, I care about what you show here and so far you've shown me that you don't know what you're talking about, but you're very good at throwing up distractions and not providing answers to my points. Now are you going to answer me here or just rant for a bit and not provide an answer?