Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)
Options
Comments
-
-
Again presumption! What makes you think genesis is a description of the creation of the universe? This isn't taught by any mainstream Christian church! Genesis is a description of the beginning of the relationship, think of it as prelude to the main story.
Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 1
(from the King James Version, simply because that was what I picked up)In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth
Literally the very first line dude. It's right there. What you did there is just as fallacious as a conversation I had earlier in the week with another member, who said "there's no gay hating in the bible". I corrected him by quoting Leviticus 20:13, but he doubled down on his claim, saying that's not what it says, that some other passage elsewhere in the book somehow changes the meaning of that passage or some other <snip>.
So go on tommy...why is it that when the bible says that line, it is somehow NOT a claimed description of the formation of the universe...even though that's what it says? What are you reading there that I'm not?
Also, do you understand the implications of what would happen to the theology if a christian church said that Genesis is symbolic? It basically removes ANY claim that the character of God has to the title of Creator. Without something that the church (whichever one it is) can point to and say "This is how our god created the universe", then that god loses his special status, the very reason that that church, that religion says that everyone should worship him for.
If you say Genesis is not an actual historical account, then there's no creation account, there's no original sin account, thus, there is literally no need for Jesus's supposed "sacrifice", thus the crucifixion loses all importance.0 -
from the charter
•10. No swearing or facsimile thereof (includes textspeak such as "wtf"). Such words will be edited and warnings issued. Banning will occur if it continues.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
-
No, referring to another posters beliefs/opinions as nonsense could fall under insulting and/or an attack on their beliefs. That is against the charter.RikuoAmero wrote: »Duly noted. What if I had said the word nonsense instead?
If you have any more questions, please use the PM facility as discussion of moderation on-thread is also against the charter.
Hope that helps.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to agree with what Stephen Fry said earlier today. If there is a God, then he is evil.0
-
RikuoAmero wrote: »Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 1
(from the King James Version, simply because that was what I picked up)
Literally the very first line dude. It's right there. What you did there is just as fallacious as a conversation I had earlier in the week with another member, who said "there's no gay hating in the bible". I corrected him by quoting Leviticus 20:13, but he doubled down on his claim, saying that's not what it says, that some other passage elsewhere in the book somehow changes the meaning of that passage or some other <snip>.
So go on tommy...why is it that when the bible says that line, it is somehow NOT a claimed description of the formation of the universe...even though that's what it says? What are you reading there that I'm not?
Also, do you understand the implications of what would happen to the theology if a christian church said that Genesis is symbolic? It basically removes ANY claim that the character of God has to the title of Creator. Without something that the church (whichever one it is) can point to and say "This is how our god created the universe", then that god loses his special status, the very reason that that church, that religion says that everyone should worship him for.
If you say Genesis is not an actual historical account, then there's no creation account, there's no original sin account, thus, there is literally no need for Jesus's supposed "sacrifice", thus the crucifixion loses all importance.
Literally is exactly your problem. As to the implications for theology if a Christian church said it was symbolic? Are you serious? All the mainstream churches say it's myth, symbolic and metaphor. Do you have any idea of rcc theology at all or are you just assuming they say it's literally true?
Go do some research before you go tilting at windmills.0 -
Literally is exactly your problem. As to the implications for theology if a Christian church said it was symbolic? Are you serious? All the mainstream churches say it's myth, symbolic and metaphor. Do you have any idea of rcc theology at all or are you just assuming they say it's literally true?
Go do some research before you go tilting at windmills.
If there is no creation account, what then is the Lord/God/Yahweh supposed to be?
If there is no original sin account, then...what is Jesus for then?
Yes I am very aware of RCC theology (how many times do I have to repeat I grew up in a RCC family, went to RCC schools, studied RCC bibles?)
I'm merely pointing out that the only possible way for christianity to make sense is for them to claim that at the very least genesis and the gospels are true (let's leave the question of evidence for another day).
Without genesis, you have no creation. With no creation, the character called God loses all importance. With no importance, the character called Jesus has nothing to do. With nothing to do, Jesus also loses all importance, and thus the very impetus for a person to worship and follow that religion falls apart.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »If there is no creation account, what then is the Lord/God/Yahweh supposed to be?
If there is no original sin account, then...what is Jesus for then?
Yes I am very aware of RCC theology (how many times do I have to repeat I grew up in a RCC family, went to RCC schools, studied RCC bibles?)
I'm merely pointing out that the only possible way for christianity to make sense is for them to claim that at the very least genesis and the gospels are true (let's leave the question of evidence for another day).
Without genesis, you have no creation. With no creation, the character called God loses all importance. With no importance, the character called Jesus has nothing to do. With nothing to do, Jesus also loses all importance, and thus the very impetus for a person to worship and follow that religion falls apart.
My mistake, I didn't realise you were correcting the rcc as to where it went wrong!0 -
Again presumption! What makes you think genesis is a description of the creation of the universe? This isn't taught by any mainstream Christian church! Genesis is a description of the beginning of the relationship, think of it as prelude to the main story.
I always thought Genesis was about God creating the world.
If there is confusion, God must have a hand in allowing such misconceptions.
Perhaps he foresaw this thread!0 -
Advertisement
-
But since the beginning of Christianity up until relatively recently this was all considered fact as scripted by god.Literally is exactly your problem. As to the implications for theology if a Christian church said it was symbolic? Are you serious? All the mainstream churches say it's myth, symbolic and metaphor. Do you have any idea of rcc theology at all or are you just assuming they say it's literally true?
Go do some research before you go tilting at windmills.
When it was written was it considered to be what actually happened or was it intended as a metaphor?0 -
But since the beginning of Christianity up until relatively recently this was all considered fact as scripted by god.
When it was written was it considered to be what actually happened or was it intended as a metaphor?
Good question, scholars disagree is the best I can offer.
One Jewish version starts with 'in a beginning...' The direct translation of the first words of genesis; 'Bere****' (no sniggering in the back!) is 'in beginning' we assume 'the' from how the phrase is used for describing other beginnings later in the bible. Fro example the start of kings reigns.
Whether this tells us it was intended as literal or metaphorical or myth depends on your starting point as it supports both.
I'm not sure the literal argument holds up though because very little story telling from that far back is intended to be read (or heard) literally, they are stories to express values not facts. Myths in the sense of Joseph Campbell's "metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being,"
Genesis is not what we would now call pseudo science. Or an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true, though it has been through that phase.
(edit)
LOL I just noticed the swear filter **** a perfectly good hebrew word and rendered my joke moot!0 -
Good question, scholars disagree is the best I can offer.
One Jewish version starts with 'in a beginning...' The direct translation of the first words of genesis; 'Bere****' (no sniggering in the back!) is 'in beginning' we assume 'the' from how the phrase is used for describing other beginnings later in the bible. Fro example the start of kings reigns.
Whether this tells us it was intended as literal or metaphorical or myth depends on your starting point as it supports both.
I'm not sure the literal argument holds up though because very little story telling from that far back is intended to be read (or heard) literally, they are stories to express values not facts. Myths in the sense of Joseph Campbell's "metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being,"
Genesis is not what we would now call pseudo science. Or an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true, though it has been through that phase.
(edit)
LOL I just noticed the swear filter **** a perfectly good hebrew word and rendered my joke moot!
Really? So the ancient Egyptians didn't believe the sun to be a barge piloted by Ra, despite their writings being just that? The Greeks didn't believe lightning to be a weapon wielded by Zeus? No somehow the Hebrews wrote something that they said explained the origins of the world, understanding all along it was metaphorical?0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Really? So the ancient Egyptians didn't believe the sun to be a barge piloted by Ra, despite their writings being just that? The Greeks didn't believe lightning to be a weapon wielded by Zeus? No somehow the Hebrews wrote something that they said explained the origins of the world, understanding all along it was metaphorical?
Well you tell me! which is more likly, that people told stories because they used them to pass on cultural values and cultural identity or they told stories they knew were made up because they made them up but somehow still believed them to be literally true?
You do a disservice to your ancestors and you prove Plato right when he warned against using myth because simple minded people may take it as literal fact!0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »Really? So the ancient Egyptians didn't believe the sun to be a barge piloted by Ra, despite their writings being just that? The Greeks didn't believe lightning to be a weapon wielded by Zeus? No somehow the Hebrews wrote something that they said explained the origins of the world, understanding all along it was metaphorical?
No the Greeks didn't believe that !0 -
Well you tell me! which is more likly, that people told stories because they used them to pass on cultural values and cultural identity or they told stories they knew were made up because they made them up but somehow still believed them to be literally true?
You do a disservice to your ancestors and you prove Plato right when he warned against using myth because simple minded people may take it as literal fact!
But this isn't Plato telling us who made the world. Once again why should God allow confusion?0 -
No the Greeks didn't believe that !
They did, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus, like the Germans believed Thor was responsible for that.0 -
Well you tell me! which is more likly, that people told stories because they used them to pass on cultural values and cultural identity or they told stories they knew were made up because they made them up but somehow still believed them to be literally true?
You do a disservice to your ancestors and you prove Plato right when he warned against using myth because simple minded people may take it as literal fact!
So at no point in Hebrew history did any of them believe the stories to be true, as they were told? They somehow knew that the stories were fictional, there were no Ken Hams?0 -
The problem with this explanation would be that then the bible doesn't actually say god created the world or universe.Good question, scholars disagree is the best I can offer.
One Jewish version starts with 'in a beginning...' The direct translation of the first words of genesis; 'Bere****' (no sniggering in the back!) is 'in beginning' we assume 'the' from how the phrase is used for describing other beginnings later in the bible. Fro example the start of kings reigns.
Whether this tells us it was intended as literal or metaphorical or myth depends on your starting point as it supports both.
I'm not sure the literal argument holds up though because very little story telling from that far back is intended to be read (or heard) literally, they are stories to express values not facts. Myths in the sense of Joseph Campbell's "metaphorical of spiritual potentiality in the human being,"
Genesis is not what we would now call pseudo science. Or an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true, though it has been through that phase.
The other king is people back then didn't know any better or any way of coming up with a better explanation. I'd be very surprised if most people up until very recently saw the bible as anything other than absolute fact. Up until recently the majority of people were uneducated and didn't have the opportunity to travel, if you told them there was a dragon 100 miles west, they'd have very little reason to doubt you.0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »So at no point in Hebrew history did any of them believe the stories to be true, as they were told? They somehow knew that the stories were fictional, there were no Ken Hams?
Irrelevant, I was only addressing weather genesis was written as myth of as historical fact.
As I said it has been interpreted as myth, as history and revelation, the revealed word of God.
Point of interest, the word used for God in the first part of genesis is Elohem, the Hebrew equivalent of god with a small g, it's later that Yahweh is used, suggesting the writers had a multiplicity of Gods. Yahweh being specifically the God of the Hebrews.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know about the Elohem name. That name and the suggestion of the multiplicity of gods then means it's contradictory with the claim (found most especially in the NT) that there is only the one God (who is somehow three entities...). So what happened with the other gods? Did they too create the world, according to their own individual creation stories.0
-
The problem with this explanation would be that then the bible doesn't actually say god created the world or universe.
The other king is people back then didn't know any better or any way of coming up with a better explanation. I'd be very surprised if most people up until very recently saw the bible as anything other than absolute fact. Up until recently the majority of people were uneducated and didn't have the opportunity to travel, if you told them there was a dragon 100 miles west, they'd have very little reason to doubt you.
Yes, that's an interpretation, it leads to reading the bible as being about gods relationship with mankind. This is how I read it, not saying it's the only way or that it's the only pprism I read it with but it's my starting point.
Don't underestimate the level of sophistication people have, time const make people smarter, it only changes the information and frames of reference they have available.
The Hebrews might have been nomnomadic but that didn't mean they were stupid, they had like most peoples a deep and complex understanding of human nature. They left us one of if not the most enduring set of books ever written in the O.T.
Yes some might have assumed when hearing genesis that it was a literal account of creation but that wasn't what was important about the story, they would have listened to this story told around campfires, read in tetemple's and passed from generation to generation not because they wanted a science or history lesson, the stories value was not that. It's value was social and religious.0 -
Yes, that's an interpretation, it leads to reading the bible as being about gods relationship with mankind. This is how I read it, not saying it's the only way or that it's the only pprism I read it with but it's my starting point.
Don't underestimate the level of sophistication people have, time const make people smarter, it only changes the information and frames of reference they have available.
The Hebrews might have been nomnomadic but that didn't mean they were stupid, they had like most peoples a deep and complex understanding of human nature. They left us one of if not the most enduring set of books ever written in the O.T.
Yes some might have assumed when hearing genesis that it was a literal account of creation but that wasn't what was important about the story, they would have listened to this story told around campfires, read in tetemple's and passed from generation to generation not because they wanted a science or history lesson, the stories value was not that. It's value was social and religious.
What you're forgetting here is the rest of the bible. In the bible we read all sorts of commands and teachings, and all too often, we're told that we're to obey these teachings "because God said so/because who can know better than the creator of the universe" etc.
If you remove the creation account or don't regard the creation story as being an historical event, then the argument as to why people should obey these teachings (because they're from the creator) becomes false. No-one would have accepted such a contradictory line of thinking. They would have heard the story and taken it as a true account, in order to provide a "valid" justification for why they follow the teachings.
What about you tommy? If you regard genesis as being nothing more than a story, then...do you regard the god character from the bible as the actual creator of our actual universe? If so, why? What justification do you have for that?0 -
RikuoAmero wrote: »I know about the Elohem name. That name and the suggestion of the multiplicity of gods then means it's contradictory with the claim (found most especially in the NT) that there is only the one God (who is somehow three entities...). So what happened with the other gods? Did they too create the world, according to their own individual creation stories.
Well nothing happened to them, they never existed :-)
What this shows is that Judaism developed over time, starting with a pantheon of God's, and around the time of Moses (who might also be a myth but that's another story) becoming monotheism. The whole point of the golden calf story if that the Hebrews were returning to old gods and Yahweh was a jealous God.
Possibly the others had creation myths of their own, no record of these exist so argument from silence to speculate. Possibly they were seen as lessor gods with realms of their own, God of spring,God of drunks, God of whatever you need to incorporate into a myth. Again arguing from silence, we know nothing of these gods apart from one was a calf! Yeah I know, strange choice for a deity!0 -
We know nothing of these gods? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
A whole host of gods there.
What about here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic_religion
You'll notice, I hope, that each god in the Canaanite religion link is a hyperlink, indicating that each god has their own page with information about them.0 -
I wouldn't underestimate the people around at the time. There's no such thing as a stupid person in my books, we can do stupid things but we're the thinking animal, by default we're all born smart. But despite those people being physically exactly the same and having the same mental abilities as us people today their brains social programing just wasn't at the level we're at today, it is basically a software problem. We get to benefit from thousands of years of people trying things out, reprograming society. 2 thousand years ago people were still experimenting, still very much at the mercy of their animalistic fears, their sources of food didn't have the guarantees we have today. They discovered processes that worked, more often than not that discovery was accidental, whereas today we have science to be able to understand our world and make predictable changes.Don't underestimate the level of sophistication people have, time const make people smarter, it only changes the information and frames of reference they have available. The Hebrews might have been nomnomadic but that didn't mean they were stupid, they had like most peoples a deep and complex understanding of human nature. They left us one of if not the most enduring set of books ever written in the O.T.
I think it would have been pretty important at the time, why would you listen to the book if it wasn't telling you the facts of the world? I really think people would have believed the texts where fact (the word of god) because if they weren't what was the point in listening to it?Yes some might have assumed when hearing genesis that it was a literal account of creation but that wasn't what was important about the story,0 -
[quote="ScumLord;94109661"
I think it would have been pretty important at the time, why would you listen to the book if it wasn't telling you the facts of the world? I really think people would have believed the texts where fact (the word of god) because if they weren't what was the point in listening to it?[/quote]
Your mistaking asking how the world works with how the world was created. The important information wasn't how it was created, it was how it worked.Remember genesis is only the beginning of the story, all it dose is set the scene, a proposition if you like, the answer would come in the story as it unfolded.
I think genesis may be the first expression of existential angst! It's subject is why do I have the nagging feeling things shouldn't be this hard?
of course all this comes with the usual health warning, I am not a theologian nor do I play one on T.V.. Some unsettling of contents ... :-P0 -
You must be joking Tommy. Genesis or whoever wrote it, had no idea how the world or the Earth worked. That is precisely how you know it was all made up.Your mistaking asking how the world works with how the world was created. The important information wasn't how it was created, it was how it worked.0 -
Hey guys, the mods reminded Festus and myself to continue our discussion here, so I'm going to quote his response to me, and then my response to that.RikuoAmero wrote:You're right. Guess you just have to have faith that I'm telling the truth.Festus wrote:My faith is in God and that He is the only source of truth. There is no evidence that you are telling anything approaching the truth.
Great. You do realise you've just disqualified yourself from the set that 'speaks truth', don't you? This means that, like you don't trust me, now I can't trust you...unless you want to start claiming you're God, that is.
Strange how you're requiring evidence here, but when it comes to God, you don't need it. Well, I can't show me working and studying for ten years. It's not like I recorded myself. Just accept it tentatively.
Also, you never answered my counter-question. Where are your qualifications? Just as you doubt that I've studied, I return the doubt right back at you. By qualifications, I don't mean strictly a third level degree. How long have you studied this? If you reply with X amount of years, what will you do if I reply back saying "I don't believe you"?
Since neither of us can show evidence of our studies, how about we just ignore it and move along?RikuoAmero wrote:As for the forgiveness...when and where did forgiving someone require their permission? I've forgiven people in the past that never once asked for it, even a couple of people who were p*ssed when I told them about it.
Yeah...that they were angry. Doesn't change the fact that I forgave them.Festus wrote:Did their attitude not tell you something? When it comes to sin we must beg forgiveness. God is infinitely merciful to those who seek it, but there is no point in forgiving those who do not want to be forgiven because infinite mercy cannot overcome infinite rejection.
Cannot. Cannot? As in, it lacks the ability to do so? So...no omnipotence then?
Again, it's not infinite mercy if the beings in question are supposedly suffering for eternity and the being with infinite mercy does nothing at all to alleviate that suffering (I've been told many a time that angels reject God, reject being in his presence, and that there is no worse thing than to be apart from him, so that means that being apart from God = infinite suffering).
That has two answersFestus wrote:Is your rejection of God irrevocable?
1) The real-world answer, as in the world that I live in and inhabit and experience every day. In that world, I do not perceive any god. As far as I'm aware, there is no god. Thus, no, I do not reject God or a god. There is no god for me to reject, just like I don't reject Voldemort or Emperor Palpatine.
2) The hypothetical answer. In a hypothetical situation where I find myself experiencing somehow some sort of entity who, when I ask its identity, says "I am the God of the christian bible" (or words to that effect), my response will be pretty much the same as Stephen Fry's answer to Gay Byrne. For the sake of this answer, let's ignore that I'm believing this entity's proclamation of identity without supporting evidence.
In that scenario, knowing myself (my convictions and ideals, my conscience), then yes, I would reject that god. Just like if I were to encounter Palpatine and he confirmed he blew up Alderaan.0 -
Advertisement
-
You must be joking Tommy. Genesis or whoever wrote it, had no idea how the world or the Earth worked. That is precisely how you know it was all made up.
Sorry, for the literal minded among you, when I said how the world worked, I was using the world to refer to society, the interaction between people, this is what is usually ment when 'the world' is used in the bible. If you thought I ment the physically world, planet earth, then consider your self corrected!
I am really getting tired of atheists insisting that their literal interpretation of a book they don't believe in, is the correct one. It's not, deal with it and move on!0
Advertisement