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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Help me help a friend

1246

Comments

  • #92
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sarky wrote: »
    humanji wrote: »
    She is a creationist. She believes everything in the Bible is true. Trying to prove that the Bible isn't all true is attack her core belief.

    Leaving aside the fact that she chose to indulge her friend of her own free will: So? It's a stupid belief. It SHOULD be challenged. Christ, even philologus doesn't try to defend it.

    Except that I do and have done plenty of times on boards.ie :)

    One doesn't have to be a young earth Creationist to believe that the Bible is true and that it is God's inspired and infallible word.


  • #93
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    I'm gonna buy Cosmos too. something that I never got around to reading and its probably going to be a more enjoyable read than history of the universe.

    Here's a YouTube channel I'm sure you'll like love.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/tdarnell

    He has lots of videos on Astronomy and the cosmos.


  • #94
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    If it's infallible, why does it change :confused:

    It was written by men claiming it was the word of a God, it's absolutely no different to the Torah, Quran, Tipitaka, The Watchtower, The Book of Mormon or any other religious text from the last few thousand years.


  • #95
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Except that I do and have done plenty of times on boards.ie :)
    You defend the bible as true, but true in a very different way to YECs. In fact, I recall in one of our discussions you try and bring YECs around to seeing similar to you - that science and religion don't conflict. I'll take your word for it you do this in real life despite the fact you don't seem interested to try and point it out to people on this forum.

    Perhaps you can refer them to Augustine, or Aquinas or some of the others about how biblical literalism is a new phenomenon. I'd be fascinated by a discussion that could be had there with both sides trying to present which side is a better understanding of scripture.


  • #96
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Ok, ok, you have me there, Phil. You defend the bible as complete truth. You just do it in a more insidious and ruthless and evil manner in a vain attempt to look reasonable about it. Either way, you both lie for Jesus.

    Now I think of it, how come you're not a creationist, Phil? Is their truth true in the wrong way?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sarky wrote: »
    Ok, ok, you have me there, Phil. You defend the bible as complete truth. You just do it in a more insidious and ruthless and evil manner in a vain attempt to look reasonable about it. Either way, you both lie for Jesus.

    Lying presumes that I don't have a sincere belief in the Gospel doesn't it, or that you think I'm a closet atheist? :p
    Sarky wrote: »
    Now I think of it, how come you're not a creationist, Phil? Is their truth true in the wrong way?

    It's not anybody's truth we are discovering when we read the Bible. The Bible isn't mine, it wasn't written by me.

    You can find what I think about Genesis 1 and 2 here, and here.


  • #98
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Cop out answer. Again: Why are you not a creationist?


  • #99
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    philologos wrote: »
    Lying presumes that I don't have a sincere belief in the Gospel doesn't it, or that you think I'm a closet atheist? :p
    Would you have been happier with unintentionally deceitful? :pac:
    You can find what I think about Genesis 1 and 2 here, and here.
    The perfect symmetry between days 1, 2, and 3 of Creation, and 4, 5, and 6 for a start.

    Day 1 - Let there be light. Day 4 - Sun and moon created (they are God's creation, they are not gods to be worshipped)
    Day 2 - The spirit breathed over the waters, Day 5 - Sea creatures created.
    Day 3 - The earth created - Day 6 - Man and other land creatures created.
    I find the above as woeful now as I did back then.
    Sarky wrote: »
    Cop out answer. Again: Why are you not a creationist?
    Because he jumbles around Genesis like a jigsaw till it reads how he'd like.


  • #100
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    Lying presumes that I don't have a sincere belief in the Gospel doesn't it, or that you think I'm a closet atheist? :p



    It's not anybody's truth we are discovering when we read the Bible. The Bible isn't mine, it wasn't written by me.

    You can find what I think about Genesis 1 and 2 here, and here.

    How about some of the trickier bits in the bible that you don't like to defend.

    Particularly the claim that a flood covered the entire Earth and/or covered mountain tops.
    This is clearly impossible and clearly never happened. But you also run into the problem that you clearly can't fob this untruth off as metaphor.

    So can you please explain either 1) why the bible says something that isn't true? or 2) why you don't believe this part of the bible?

    And similarly, why does the genesis account claim that birds came before land animals when we know this is not true?


  • #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sarky wrote: »
    Cop out answer. Again: Why are you not a creationist?

    I've provided you with enough to look at in the two links. It's not a cop out answer to link to posts where I've dealt with the exact same topic before.

    Pushtrak: I'm deeply sorry that you find it objectionable that I care so much about the text that I need to read it closely and consider its original form. Believe it or not I care about reading the Bible carefully :)

    King Mob: You could do with reading the posts I've linked to about the creation account before posting.

    I've also made it clear in previous posts that I believe in a regional flood.
    Pushtrak wrote: »
    Would you have been happier with unintentionally deceitful? :pac:

    Actually, yes. Insofar as it wouldn't look half as silly :)


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    King Mob: You could do with reading the posts I've linked to about the creation account before posting.

    I've also made it clear in previous posts that I believe in a regional flood.

    But those posts do not answer the question.
    And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

    So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
    Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

    And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?


  • #103
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    philologos wrote: »
    I've provided you with enough to look at in the two links. It's not a cop out answer to link to posts where I've dealt with the exact same topic before.

    I've read them. They don't explain why you're not a creationist, so yes, it's a cop-out, and I'll thank you to acknowledge that. You claimed to defend creationism just a few posts back. But you're not a creationist. Why? What's wrong with their belief, that you don't share it? Come on, you keep claiming you love debate but you never, ever enter into it when the other side doesn't already agree with you.


  • #104
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    They very clearly explain the understanding I hold about Creation. The links very clearly show why I disagree with the YEC view of Scripture. Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book. The links show exactly why I think that.


  • #105
    Burt Lancaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 182 ✭✭Burt Lancaster


    King Mob wrote: »
    But those posts do not answer the question.
    And the bible does not say a "regional flood".

    So why does the bible say 1) the flood covered the entire world and 2) claimed to cover mountain tops.
    Do you believe that Noah's flood covered mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of flood?

    And why does the bible claim that birds existed before land animals? Is this a metaphor? If so what for and why does it not look like any sort of metaphor?

    I'd like to see this post answered properly


  • #106
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    philologos wrote: »
    They very clearly explain the understanding I hold about Creation. The links very clearly show why I disagree with the YEC view of Scripture. Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book. The links show exactly why I think that.
    So then why do you regard a later portion as a historical account?
    And then why does that historical account detail something that is impossible and we know didn't happen?

    So again, do you believe that the flood water covered mountain tops as described in the Bible?

    Why do you only believe in a regional flood and not a global flood as it is actually described in the bible?

    And again: Why does the genesis account say that birds came before land animals? What is the metaphorical meaning for this like you think exists for the other bits we know aren't true?


  • #107
    Tin Foil Hat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭Tin Foil Hat


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    I've got a very close friend who is a strong Christian believer. family, friends, the works.

    She's agreed to read a book of my choosing.

    I'm hoping to start with evolution, and stuff like the earth isn't 7000 years old, Adam/eve, universe doesn't give a **** about us etc. Just kinda dispute the all perfect factual Bible stuff, not attack her faith in a god. not yet anyway, that's likely going to take a very long time.

    I've read and own a few Dawkins books, and while good, he's a bit of a condescending D!ck, and assumes you have doubt in your mind already if you get me.

    any suggestions? maybe a more entry level Dawkins that I don't know about?

    Dawkins - "The Ancestor's Tale", would be my suggestion.


  • #108
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,237 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Taking it all out of context King Mob!

    You're not being fair taking it out of context! It's only a metaphor!

    etc etc etc

    Basically the same old nonsense they like to trot out when they've been caught out.


  • #109
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Ah, I see what's going on. You're misinterpreting me so you can spam "yay jebus".

    I said: "[Creationism] is a stupid belief. It SHOULD be challenged. Christ, even philologos doesn't defend it."

    You said: "Except that I do and have done plenty of times on boards.ie :)"

    Then when confronted with this, you launched into an unrelated post about why you think the bible is true, which shows the exact opposite of what you just said. I very much doubt you weren't aware of exactly what I meant, yet you still misinterpreted it to suit your own ends. That's dishonest, you know. You should be able to debate without twisting someone's words.

    Can we conclude that you do in fact condemn young earth creationism as heresy, despite the fact they use nothing but the bible for their doctrines? Or are you going to find a reason to say it's worthy of consideration, despite all the crap you've already written about it?


  • #110
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    philologos wrote: »
    Simply put, the structure of Genesis shows that it was never intended to be regarded as a science book.
    If it wasn't intended to be an accurate description of the world, then why didn't the authors put a line at the top like "This book is frequently wrong"?

    That's a serious question, btw.


  • #111
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    If it wasn't intended to be an accurate description of the world, then why didn't the authors put a line at the top like "This book is frequently wrong"?

    That's a serious question, btw.

    Or at least make it clear from the outset that it wasn't what it appeared to be (an ignorant bronze age creation myth that was to be believed) rather than waiting for people to come up with that idea after we developed the science that would show that all of it was impossible nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    Or at least make it clear from the outset [...]
    If the author was omniscient, then why the hell didn't he/she explain evolution, rather than producing a noticeably second-rate creation myth that so many modern-day nutters believe with an incandescent contempt -- something he must have known would happen, if his/her omniscience were genuine.

    But at this point, what the hell. A kid could see that this is complete claptrap. It's quite embarrassing that a suitably unthinking adult can't.


  • #113
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    If the author was omniscient, then why the hell didn't he/she explain evolution, rather than producing a noticeably second-rate creation myth that so many modern-day nutters believe with an incandescent contempt -- something he must have known would happen, if his/her omniscience were genuine.

    Or if they didn't want people to think that it was a science book or a collection of histories, simply not have any lies and untruths about the origin of the universe and such.
    robindch wrote: »
    But at this point, what the hell. A kid could see that this is complete claptrap. It's quite embarrassing that a suitably unthinking adult can't.
    And most Christians can, as does Philologos. And that's why they need to come up with the excuse that it's just a metaphor, then stick their fingers in their ears when it doesn't work, like in the examples I suggested.

    Phil realises that birds coming before land animals as depicted in the bible, but contrary to reality does not have any metaphorical significance even giving the lax parameters he uses to form his other metaphors.

    Similarly he realises that if he addresses the point about the flood he must either admit that the Bible says something that isn't true (as "covering mountain tops" can't be fobbed off as a mistranslation of "world" like the other quotes), or he would have to admit that he believes that the flood did cover mountain tops which is impossible for any sort of normal flood. And if he believes that impossible thing, there's no reason why he shouldn't then also believe in the equally impossible thing that the flood really was global.

    But Phil knows that the idea of a global flood, or any flood that could match the account in the bible is so ridiculous and clearly not true, he is more comfortable being dishonest and avoiding the point than just admitting what he actually believes.
    Similarly he knows that his excuse for the genesis account breaks down on examples like birds coming before land animals, hence why he avoids the question instead of addressing it.

    And while most christians are reasonable and rational, I think they all run into these little blocks of selective dishonesty or ignorance.


  • #114
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Honestly at this stage I don't even know why people insist of pushing Philogos. He's never once answered a question directly. By engaging and ridiculing his reasoning you actually make yourself look worse to the lurkers.


  • #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Jernal wrote: »
    Honestly at this stage I don't even know why people insist of pushing Philogos. He's never once answered a question directly. By engaging and ridiculing his reasoning you actually make yourself look worse to the lurkers.

    Except I have on numerous occasions. Most of the time people just don't like my opinion, that the Bible can and does make good sense on a number of issues.

    A lot of people get annoyed that I don't fit their preconceived box and that I spend time and effort trying to see what the Bible is saying.

    King Mob: Firstly, it's not dishonest to see that the Hebrew term eretz can also be rendered as land.

    Secondly, I read Genesis 1 and 2 that way because I can see textually the style in which it is written. I can see how the author intentionally wrote the text in that way. It isn't simply a list of details, it is a poetic account.

    I read other passages which are presented as narrative and history in that way, because well, the Bible presents them in that way. I look at commandments presented by God in that way, because the Bible presents them that way.

    robindch: I don't believe Genesis 1 and 2 is false. Just because something is written in a poetic style doesn't mean that it cannot communicate truth. For example, the Psalms are written in a poetic style, yet I still believe that David and the other Psalmists are communicating a clear truth about God. The same is true for Ecclesiastes and Solomon.

    Genesis 1 and 2 make me clearly see that the Lord God is responsible for everything, and that He is all powerful. The sun and the moon were created by Him, rather than being deities in and of themselves as many would have believed at that time. The fundamental beginnings ultimately come back to Him in a Judeo-Christian setting. That's a claim that I regard as true. I just don't happen to regard the world as young, or that it was literally created in 7 days.

    If you do a search for the Hebrew term yom in the Old Testament, you'll find that it is used for longer periods of time in other Scriptures.


  • #116
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,702 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    I'd recommend we need to talk about Kelvin, it's a good read about the universe around us.

    Very easy to read for folk that aren't scientists (like myself for example). I really liked the section about how the universe formed.

    It would be a good book to get your friend to consider the scientific explanation of the universe around us:)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #117
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    koth wrote: »
    I'd recommend we need to talk about Kelvin, it's a good read about the universe around us.

    Nice one, I'll be adding that to the wishlist.


  • #118
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    I'd go with Bart Erhman's Misquoting Jesus. Show's you how the Bible's wrong in a non-in-your-face way.


  • #119
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,954 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    OP, Do you fancy her?


  • #120
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,954 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Tea_Bag wrote: »
    its really interesting that youre an atheist and you were defending her here. respect.

    for fairness, she's given me:

    In Defense of the Faith- Dave Hunt

    the Evidence Bible

    and a couple of CS Lewis books. "The problem of Pain" is an interesting one.

    oh and a Tourist guide to South Africa. that's the most disgusting one. I get violently sick reading it. ugh.

    I would say C. S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity' is probably one of the best arguments for atheism.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Tea_Bag
    Registered Users Posts: 4,983 ✭✭✭Tea_Bag


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    OP, Do you fancy her?
    do I have to because she's female?


Advertisement