Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Nick Soapdish]

Sorry, like most of what Christians think they know about their religion, this is probably not true. The idea that Peter and Paul were martyred is only a legend invented by Tertullian over a century after his death. The same is true of Philip, except that nothing was written about him for another century. These are just legends, not history.

How do you know that is "probably not true"? What is that based on? I don't have time to look into all of the apostle's death, but St. Peter's death is evidenced in these sources:

• St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
• Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
• Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
• St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
• Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
• St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

You know it because you believe it? And remember, this all makes sense to you.

It depends on how you define knowledge. I know it by faith. Admittedly, that is not the same thing as knowing something by experience.

Oh really? Do you really want me to start listing the pages upon pages in the OT that describe nothing but genocide and commandments to commit genocide?

You can do that but I am betting that it would encompass less than 1% of the Bible.

Slaughtering other people is a major OT theme. Basically, God rescued the Israelites from Egypt, brought them into Canaan, and commanded them to annihilate everyone in sight. Amalekites, Jebusites, Perrizites, and around twenty or thirty other --ites. It gets tedious, and by the time you get to Joshua they just start listing all the destroyed and decimanted tribes, one per sentence. Often God emphasizes the importance of killing the babies, as in this passage:
. Remember, the point of all this is that this makes sense to you. That's why you believe it, because this theology makes sense. And the being that commands His followers to be sure to kill all the babies is your God, the Being that the whole thing is about, all-powerful and all loving.

This, like many atheist arguments, is boiling down to bad things happen therefore God does not exist. I don't claim to know all of the reasons for war, famine, and natural disasters. However, I believe God will reconcile all things after death and that it is all part of a deep, powerful story of the human race.

But remember, the whole point of this is that it make so much sense to you, right now. That's why you believe it! Because it makes so much sense!

Yes it makes sense to me that I don't understand the mindset of cultures from 3000 years ago.

If it made such good sense, why does Jesus have to correct it? Remember, Jesus is the Being who commanded His people to take care not to leave the babies out when they are committing genocide. Because Jesus is God. And this is the religion you have chosen because it makes so much sense!

Different times, different cultures, different purpose, different covenant.

Look, let's say I'm a sinner. And let's say Jesus was crucified. Why would it make any difference to my sin what Jesus did? In my world-view, I'm responsible for my own actions, and only I can do anything about them, including atoning for them. How does it make perfect sense for someone else to atone for my sin?!? That's just weird.

Christianity is fairly unique among religions in that salvation is not by acts but by faith alone. It is not about being good all of the time and never "messing up", but rather an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty and repenting for one's sins.

Just in any relationship, if you know someone is loyal to you (even if they have sinned against you at some point), you will be with them. However, if you know someone is against you, they have chosen to not be with you. That seems like God's position.

Why not create us free, but good? I'm just asking.

How is that possible? Being "good" means acting according to God's will. If we are to be free, it must be possible to act contrary to His will.

Do you disagree? Again, you've been arrested and charged with murder. How would you like the jury to decide your guilt? Divine revelation, or evidence? Which one works?

Not doubt evidence works.. I think I have been through this 100 times. However, you missed my challenge. You said "it is the only thing that does [work]". How do you know this?

 

[Autodidact]

I don't believe the purpose of this Universe is spinning galaxies. The material world is a stage for us. To me, its immense size and greatness represents God's power. His infinite power is able to subjugate the entire Universe, including each and every particle.

Are you ignoring my point, or did it go past you? It's not about the vastness of the universe or its purpose, if any. It's about your theology, and the tremendous interest that the creator of all of this takes in how one member of one species on one electron plays with his nether regions.

The real purpose of this Universe is for us to build relationships. Everything else, as immense and beautiful as it is, is just a backdrop. We have matter, energy, physical bodies, and laws of physics that allow us to negotiate our freewill and interact with each other. But it is our relationships with each other that is of central importance.

AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW???

I believe Israel is the nest prepared for Christ's arrival. God's plan included Him being a physical part of this Universe and He used Israel to prepare for His coming.

Why would I be interested in what you believe, unless you have some support or evidence for it? People believe all kinds of odd things.
Again, you chose to ignore my point. Whatever you think your God was up to, it makes such sense to you that without any evidentiary basis you have adopted this belief system, that the Lord and Author of all creation couldn't find anything better to discuss with us than an obscure wrestling rule???? That was sufficient to persuade you that this, of all world-views, is the one that best describes and explains our existence? Because believe me, Nick, if that wasn't enough for you, there's a lot more where that came from. The Bible is just chock full of the silliest nonsense, porn, random violence, inexplicable cruelty, and bizarre commandments. Here, I'll pick one: why do you think your God thought it was extremely important to let us know where we could buy our slaves? Not to tell us that slavery was maybe not the best system, but just to clue us in as to who we can own (foreigners) and who we can't. (Israelites) Not whether that is moral or immoral--it's obviously horribly immoral--but that world view makes so much sense to you that you base your life on it, despite their being no evidence whatsoever in its favor. You believe it just because it makes so darned much sense! Does that make sense to you???

I do not know the fate of those that never have heard of Jesus. Perhaps in the afterlife they are given an opportunity for salvation. I just don't know. But it is clear that God made certain vessels for destruction (as Paul discussed in Romans), which many Christians (including myself) have difficulty with. We have to accept that none of us deserve or are entitled to anything more than eventual death.

What are you blathering on about? You said this theology made sense to you. So much sense that you believe it is the word of God. It makes sense to you that God, who could have revealed Himself to all, chose only to chat with a tiny group, like, I don't know (bad at math) .0000-1% of the people? I'm not asking you to explain it--it is inexplicable. I'm not asking you what happens to everyone else--obviously the authors of the Bible were not concerned with anyone else, and leave you to make it up as best you can. My point, which you are ignoring, is: Does that system make sense to you? And please don't retreat to God's mysterious and unknowable nature, because the whole basis for you belief is that this all makes sense to you.

Have you read the New Testament? This is exactly what it is about. It is a book of wisdom, of how to live our lives ethically and how to relate to others and to God.

Really? Because I was unable to find that passage that tells us who is and is not a neighbor. Likewise, I found nothing about developing compassion for all living things, unlike say the holy texts of the Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. That makes a lot more sense to me. Come to think of it, the Tao Te Ching makes a lot more sense to me than the NT. Have you read it?

The Bible doesn't teach us how to cook either. It is not meant to be a physics book and to do so would undermine its purpose. People don't need to know how quantum particles work to live ethically.

So you believe that it's ethical to keep slaves, but not for two men to love each other?

[quoteIn my opinion, you spend way to much time on the brutal aspects of the Old Testament and you ignore the "he who is without sin cast the first stone" parts. And yes it does make sense to me, once I accept an infinite being that seeks glorification through His creation.[/quote] I'm sure that like most Christians you skip over those parts lightly. But that's not the point. The point is that this book makes sense to you. It makes sense to you that God commanded his people to slaughter everyone in sight. It makes sense that God takes great pains to teach them exactly how to sacrifice which animals, only to later cancel those instructions. O.K. explain it to me. How does this sort of thing (there are page after page like this) make sense?

Leviticus: 'If his offering is a goat, he is to present it before the LORD. 13 He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 14 From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 15 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 16 The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD's.

and for those who think you don't have to follow these rules any more, why did God make sure to say:

This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.

At a minimum, it's an odd way to let you know he would cancel this rule later. Again--this makes sense????

 

[Autodidact]

Not sure I agree with this. Might as well throw the majority of philosophy out the window if that is the case.

You think philosophy is based on intuition? Are you sure you don't mean reason? They're quite different.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Are you ignoring my point, or did it go past you? It's not about the vastness of the universe or its purpose, if any. It's about your theology, and the tremendous interest that the creator of all of this takes in how one member of one species on one electron plays with his nether regions.

You're right, your point went past me and still is. Why wouldn't God be interested in us?

AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW???

Good grief this is tiresome. I am explaining my faith to you. What does screaming at me "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?" solve? If I can't prove to you the truth of my faith doesn't make it not true.

I have already conceded that faith is no substitution for knowledge based on evidence, and that I can't prove my faith to you. Let's try and move the conversation forward.

Why would I be interested in what you believe, unless you have some support or evidence for it? People believe all kinds of odd things.

Because if I needed evidence for everything I believed in, I would have a pretty shallow belief system. I am pretty sure I would be living a meaningless, hopeless life.

Again, you chose to ignore my point. Whatever you think your God was up to, it makes such sense to you that without any evidentiary basis you have adopted this belief system, that the Lord and Author of all creation couldn't find anything better to discuss with us than an obscure wrestling rule???? That was sufficient to persuade you that this, of all world-views, is the one that best describes and explains our existence? Because believe me, Nick, if that wasn't enough for you, there's a lot more where that came from. The Bible is just chock full of the silliest nonsense, porn, random violence, inexplicable cruelty, and bizarre commandments. Here, I'll pick one: why do you think your God thought it was extremely important to let us know where we could buy our slaves? Not to tell us that slavery was maybe not the best system, but just to clue us in as to who we can own (foreigners) and who we can't. (Israelites) Not whether that is moral or immoral--it's obviously horribly immoral--but that world view makes so much sense to you that you base your life on it, despite their being no evidence whatsoever in its favor. You believe it just because it makes so darned much sense! Does that make sense to you???

What are you blathering on about? You said this theology made sense to you. So much sense that you believe it is the word of God. It makes sense to you that God, who could have revealed Himself to all, chose only to chat with a tiny group, like, I don't know (bad at math) .0000-1% of the people? I'm not asking you to explain it--it is inexplicable. I'm not asking you what happens to everyone else--obviously the authors of the Bible were not concerned with anyone else, and leave you to make it up as best you can. My point, which you are ignoring, is: Does that system make sense to you? And please don't retreat to God's mysterious and unknowable nature, because the whole basis for you belief is that this all makes sense to you.

Really? Because I was unable to find that passage that tells us who is and is not a neighbor.

With each post your cynicism and hatred of Christianity and the Bible is becoming more evident. I apologize if I am mis-characterizing you, but that is how you are coming across. Like any prejudice you only see in the Bible that which incites your hatred. I have never heard anyone cynical enough to criticize the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself".

The parts of the Bible you talk about represent less than 1% of it contextually, yet they occupy 100% of your perception of it. You have not ever offered that it has anything good to offer, that there is any wisdom in it, or that it has any value.

Likewise, I found nothing about developing compassion for all living things, unlike say the holy texts of the Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs. That makes a lot more sense to me. Come to think of it, the Tao Te Ching makes a lot more sense to me than the NT. Have you read it?

No I haven't but I am sure there is much wisdom to gain from it.

So you believe that it's ethical to keep slaves, but not for two men to love each other?

No I don't think it is ethical to keep slaves. It is hard to hold the same principles in our society than what occurred in the social dynamics and economy of 1500 BC.

As far as homosexuality, I have several gay friends. I think homosexuality is sinful, but then I think all my friends are sinners. It doesn't bother me. Everyone deserves love and respect.

I'm sure that like most Christians you skip over those parts lightly.

As a Christian I am not supposed to follow those commandments.

But that's not the point. The point is that this book makes sense to you. It makes sense to you that God commanded his people to slaughter everyone in sight. It makes sense that God takes great pains to teach them exactly how to sacrifice which animals, only to later cancel those instructions. O.K. explain it to me. How does this sort of thing (there are page after page like this) make sense?

Leviticus: 'If his offering is a goat, he is to present it before the LORD. 13 He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it in front of the Tent of Meeting. Then Aaron's sons shall sprinkle its blood against the altar on all sides. 14 From what he offers he is to make this offering to the LORD by fire: all the fat that covers the inner parts or is connected to them, 15 both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the covering of the liver, which he will remove with the kidneys. 16 The priest shall burn them on the altar as food, an offering made by fire, a pleasing aroma. All the fat is the LORD's.

and for those who think you don't have to follow these rules any more, why did God make sure to say:

This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.

At a minimum, it's an odd way to let you know he would cancel this rule later. Again--this makes sense????

Yeah, I am actually off to my churches annual slaughter the heretics gathering and after that I plan on sacrificing several sheep.

Seriously though, what makes sense to me is that we live in a broken world. It is not paradise. It is ugly and desperate. This is revealed in many parts of the Bible, including some parts that you have quoted. War is the norm and not the exception in history. My faith teaches me how to live ethically in this ugly world, how to be a responsible citizen, to respect authority and to raise a strong family. It gives reasons for many puzzles that nature can't answer. It gives me hope and joy in difficult times. I belong to a Sunday School class and it is inspiring what a really great group of people they are -- people who are really trying to do the right thing.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

You think philosophy is based on intuition? Are you sure you don't mean reason? They're quite different.

You are right--philosophy is also based on reason.

 

[fantome profane]

We cannot even have an intelligent discussion if our arguments are based solely on our intuitions.

Not sure I agree with this. Might as well throw the majority of philosophy out the window if that is the case.

You are right--philosophy is also based on reason.

Does this mean that you have reconsidered and that you now agree with my statement that arguments cannot be based solely on our intuitions?

What I am saying is that it is very nice if our intuitions correspond in some way, and then you can say “wow, that is exactly how I feel”. But what if our intuitions don’t match? Then you need reason and evidence. As you said it is possible that one intuition is correct and the other is wrong, but you can’t just turn around and say your intuition is correct because your intuition tells you so. If you wish to convey the correctness of your intuition, if you wish to have an intelligent conversation regarding matters where our intuitions do not match, you then need reason and evidence.

It is nice having you explain your faith, it is all very interesting. But when there is no reason or evidence to support that faith then the conversation tends to run dry very quickly. If it is you intention to have an intelligent discussion then Autodidact’s question “how do you know this” is a perfectly reasonable question.

I have been enjoying reading your conversation with her, but remember that this thread is in the debate section and the original topic was creationism – something that pretends to be science. A call for reason and evidence is perfectly valid.

 

[Autodidact]

How do you know that is "probably not true"? What is that based on? I don't have time to look into all of the apostle's death, but St. Peter's death is evidenced in these sources:

• St. Augustine, de Consense Evangelistarum, Book 1.
• Eusebius, Chronicon 71, a Christo nato.
• Paul Orosius, History, Book VIII.
• St. Maximus, Sermon v on the Birthday of the Apostles.
• Origen, Book III on Genesis, as stated by eusebius, HIstory, Book III, ch. 2.
• St. Jerome, Book of Illustrious Men.

The first person to write about Peter was Clement, Bishop of Rome, in 95 C.E. He wrote:

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

No mention of martyrdom. The first person to allege martyrdom was Tertullian, over a century later, who said, "Peter endures a passion like his Lord's..." In brief, we don't know how Peter died, and the rest is all legend.

It depends on how you define knowledge. I know it by faith. Admittedly, that is not the same thing as knowing something by experience.

It is not the same thing as knowing at all. That's my main point. Faith is not knowledge, it's belief. To say "I know it by faith" is "I know it because I believe it." Obviously that's backward. Believing something doesn't help you know it; knowing it causes you to believe it.

Otherwise, how do you deal with everyone else's faith, which is entirely different from yours? Heck, how do you deal with my faith that there is no God? Why is yours any better? That's why I keep asking you how you know--you don't.

You can do that but I am betting that it would encompass less than 1% of the Bible.

Don't know, and what difference does it make? What percentage of the Bible is "Love they neighbor," .01%? Does that mean it's not important? As I said, there is a lot of genocide in the OT. Have you read it lately? You'd be surprised.

This, like many atheist arguments, is boiling down to bad things happen therefore God does not exist. I don't claim to know all of the reasons for war, famine, and natural disasters. However, I believe God will reconcile all things after death and that it is all part of a deep, powerful story of the human race.

No, it doesn't. My argument is that the God that you believe makes so much sense commands bad things. Not once in a while, a lot. Remember, these are the only people, out of billions of us, that He ever talked to. And what He thought it was really important to tell them was, when killing the neighboring tribe, to be sure to include the babies. And the reason that you believe in Him is that this makes sense to you. Can you make it make sense to anyone else?

So, when it stops making sense, the faith just kicks in, and you just believe that God will sort it all out after we die? Any particular reason you believe that? Because, as I said, if you don't have some basis for your belief, how is it relevant?

Yes it makes sense to me that I don't understand the mindset of cultures from 3000 years ago.

This is not about the Israelites, but about your God. This is what your God commanded and thought was important. Out of the thousands of faiths to choose from, you have chosen this one because it makes sense. How much sense does it make that the way God has dealt with us is to choose a couple of us to talk to, and to tell us to kill a woman who grabs her husband's wrestling opponent's testicles. How does this religion make sense?

Different times, different cultures, different purpose, different covenant.

Same God. As I said, Jesus commands infanticide. Jesus is love. Love is killing babies? It makes sense to you that loving babies means killing them?

Christianity is fairly unique among religions in that salvation is not by acts but by faith alone. It is not about being good all of the time and never "messing up", but rather an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty and repenting for one's sins.

Except for the many Christians who believe that salvation is by acts, or acts and faith.

Not doubt evidence works.. I think I have been through this 100 times. However, you missed my challenge. You said "it is the only thing that does [work]". How do you know this?

Do you disagree? As I said, you're on trial for murder: evidence, or divine revelation? This is why I keep asking you how you know. How do you know when "divine revelation" is true and when it isn't? They can't all be true, since they contradict each other. How do you tell the difference between divine revelation and insanity?

 

[Autodidact]

You're right, your point went past me and still is. Why wouldn't God be interested in us?

Remember--we're living on an electron. There are millions of species, of which we're one. And the Source of all gets upset if you pleasure yourself. And that makes sense to you.

Good grief this is tiresome. I am explaining my faith to you. What does screaming at me "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS?" solve? If I can't prove to you the truth of my faith doesn't make it not true.

No good at all, if you can't answer it. I didn't ask you to prove anything. As I said, proof is rare. All I asked if for a good reason to believe. And if you can't come up with one, then why do you? Is it your practice to believe things for no good reason?

I have already conceded that faith is no substitution for knowledge based on evidence, and that I can't prove my faith to you. Let's try and move the conversation forward.

It's no substitute for knowledge at all. Do you agree that millions, billions of people have had very strong faith in things that were just wrong? Two words: suicide bomber. Very strong faith there. So, if faith can be wrong as easily as right, how can you base your beliefs on it?

Because if I needed evidence for everything I believed in, I would have a pretty shallow belief system. I am pretty sure I would be living a meaningless, hopeless life.

You couldn't be more mistaken. I find reality to be an excellent foundation for a complex, meaningful, challenging, engaged life. The most important part is my family and love relationships. That's because I'm a human being.

With each post your cynicism and hatred of Christianity and the Bible is becoming more evident. I apologize if I am mis-characterizing you, but that is how you are coming across. Like any prejudice you only see in the Bible that which incites your hatred. I have never heard anyone cynical enough to criticize the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself".

If you can't deal with my points, you can always attack me. That's what you call an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't do anything to refute my points. For example, if, of all of the world's religions, the reason you chose this one is that it makes so much sense, why it makes sense to you that He thought it was important to let you know which people are eligible to serve as your slaves?

The parts of the Bible you talk about represent less than 1% of it contextually, yet they occupy 100% of your perception of it. You have not ever offered that it has anything good to offer, that there is any wisdom in it, or that it has any value.

The nice parts of the Bible aren't really relevant here, but there is some nice poetry in there, and even the occasional nugget of wisdom. It's got the Book of Mormon beat all to hell. But per page, there are other holy texts with much more wisdom per pound. But that avoids the point, which is, nice or nasty, it doesn't make sense. And the only reason you believe it is that it makes sense to you.

Think of all the stuff I didn't mention! Talking snakes! Light before sun! Whale swallows man! Kill children for teasing bald man! Talking donkeys! Man rises from dead! God makes woman pregant! Flood, ark, etc. Well, I could go on and on.

No I haven't but I am sure there is much wisdom to gain from it.

Are you telling me that you have decided that your holy book is the most sensible, intuitive, and wise, without reading any of the others? Don't you think you should check them out? Want some suggestions?

No I don't think it is ethical to keep slaves. It is hard to hold the same principles in our society than what occurred in the social dynamics and economy of 1500 BC.

But your religion, the one that makes sense to you, your ethical guide, does. I thought Jesus lived around 4-36 C.E.? He didn't have a problem with slavery.

As far as homosexuality, I have several gay friends. I think homosexuality is sinful, but then I think all my friends are sinners. It doesn't bother me. Everyone deserves love and respect.

How come all of a sudden it's not so hard to hold the same principles on our society than what occurred in the social dynamics of 1500 B.C.? Homosexuality is sinful, and slavery isn't. This makes sense to you as an ethical system.

As a Christian I am not supposed to follow those commandments.

First of all, that's not what I asked you. Our topic is: Does your religion make sense? My point is, God shows up only to the ancient Israelites. That's odd. What does He think is important enough to tell them? What animals to sacrifice, and how. btw, this is not a tiny part of the Bible. Animal sacrifice is a major OT theme. It takes up huge chunks of Leviticus. Check it out. You think this makes sense. I think it's transparently an ancient, quasi-pagan, tribal system of myth and superstition. This particular aspect has to do primitive superstitious beliefs that bad things happen because Gods get angry, and it is necessary to propitiate them with sacrifices and rituals of various kinds. Most tribal peoples believe this. We have moved away from this into a more scientific view of misfortune. Does this Bronze Age view make sense to you?

Yeah, I am actually off to my churches annual slaughter the heretics gathering and after that I plan on sacrificing several sheep.

No you're not, because...(wait for it)...IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! And that, Mr. Soapdish, was my point. The only reason you believe in this particular religion (without having studied others) is that it makes sense to you. Except when it doesn't, in which case you ignore it. You don't stone heretics, you don't slaughter sheep, you don't keep slaves, and you don't believe that there was light before the sun.

I submit that the reasons you have chosen this religion have very little to do with whether it makes any sense.

In fact, some Christian apologists have argued that we know Christian theology is true, because no one would make up something so weird! (I believe, because it is absurd.)

Seriously though, what makes sense to me is that we live in a broken world. It is not paradise. It is ugly and desperate. This is revealed in many parts of the Bible, including some parts that you have quoted. War is the norm and not the exception in history.

Especially when God commands it. Which He does. A lot. And don't forget, this is the only time he visited with us personally, and one of the few subjects he cared to address. It's not a minor theme, it's one of the major themes of the OT: This land which I gave to you, kill everyone in it.

My faith teaches me how to live ethically in this ugly world, how to be a responsible citizen, to respect authority and to raise a strong family. It gives reasons for many puzzles that nature can't answer. It gives me hope and joy in difficult times. I belong to a Sunday School class and it is inspiring what a really great group of people they are -- people who are really trying to do the right thing.

It does? Then why do you think slavery is wrong? You sure didn't get that from your faith.

Are you implying that the rest of us aren't trying to do the right thing? Ask me about my life sometime.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Nick Soapdish,

How do you know that is "probably not true"? What is that based on? I don't have time to look into all of the apostle's death, but St. Peter's death is evidenced in these sources:

None of your sources were contemporaries of the apostles. In fact, none of them were even born until hundreds of years after the apostles bones had dried. Whatever they have to say about the deaths of the apostles, therefore, is mere hearsay, and should not be taken too seriously. I am assuming that you hold your sources up to similar standards that a historian or anthropologist might, however.

You can do that but I am betting that it would encompass less than 1% of the Bible.

Before making a statement such as this you should go back and re-read the OT. I think you might be surprised.

Christianity is fairly unique among religions in that salvation is not by acts but by faith alone

Actually, the Bible contradicts itself on this point. Jesus says that faith alone is needed to acheive salvation, but St. Paul says that you need good works in addition to faith. You could argue that whatever Jesus says trumps whatever anyone might have to say, but on the other hand, the entire Bible is supposedly divinely inspired, which means that nothing in the Bible is wrong. If it is true that what St. Paul says is wrong, what else might be wrong?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It depends on how you define knowledge. I know it by faith. Admittedly, that is not the same thing as knowing something by experience.

I appreciate the honesty. But even here there is a problem, and it is precisely the problem that the scientific method seeks to address by insisting, not on personal experience, but on intersubjectively verifiable evidence. I'd be interested in hearing how you would distinguish between knowledge and belief - between "to know" and "to believe".

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Hi Everyone (Hi Cerdiwen),

Lots of stuff to respond to... I will try to address shortly.

"I'm taking off the kid gloves, and putting on the very mad gloves!" - The Tick

 

[Autodidact]

Oh no, not the very mad gloves! I better put on the very smart hat.

 

[Autodidact]

Christianity is fairly unique among religions in that salvation is not by acts but by faith alone. It is not about being good all of the time and never "messing up", but rather an acknowledgment of God's sovereignty and repenting for one's sins.

Actually this is one of the things that does not make sense to me. (Setting aside the whole idea that you think you know what is going to happen to people after they die, without any good reason for such belief) Because according to Christianity, people like Mahatma Gandhi, Guatama Buddha, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Helen Keller are burning in eternal torment (or whatever Hell is to you; lately I'm hearing just separation from God) while Jeffrey Dahmer is sitting at the right hand of his savior in everlasting bliss. And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Does this mean that you have reconsidered and that you now agree with my statement that arguments cannot be based solely on our intuitions?

What I am saying is that it is very nice if our intuitions correspond in some way, and then you can say “wow, that is exactly how I feel”. But what if our intuitions don’t match? Then you need reason and evidence. As you said it is possible that one intuition is correct and the other is wrong, but you can’t just turn around and say your intuition is correct because your intuition tells you so. If you wish to convey the correctness of your intuition, if you wish to have an intelligent conversation regarding matters where our intuitions do not match, you then need reason and evidence.

It is nice having you explain your faith, it is all very interesting. But when there is no reason or evidence to support that faith then the conversation tends to run dry very quickly. If it is you intention to have an intelligent discussion then Autodidact’s question “how do you know this” is a perfectly reasonable question.

I have been enjoying reading your conversation with her, but remember that this thread is in the debate section and the original topic was creationism – something that pretends to be science. A call for reason and evidence is perfectly valid.

I undertand what you are saying, but reason does not just ally with evidence. Philosophical arguments about God, freewill, consiousness, ethics, etc, there may be plenty of intuition and reason, but not much evidence.

The problem is that evidence will not lead us to a world view. We hold certain assumptions about the world, such as whether or not there is a purpose to things that happen, or if they are part of nature's indifferent mechanisms. Some arguments will resonate with some people and not with others, based on what their assumptions are.
You are right, "how do you know" is a fair question. However, when it is asked over and over again with the expectation that anything to be believed must be evidence based (when everyone knows it is faith-based), it gets tiresome.

Also, beliefs based on faith are not without reason. It is my finding that Christian theology is very deep and heavily based on reason. Try reading Romans; it is the best example of systematic theology in the NT.

 

[Random]

And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I imagine there are many such things that don't make sense to you, however, that doesn't mean they don't make sense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The first person to write about Peter was Clement, Bishop of Rome, in 95 C.E. He wrote: No mention of martyrdom. The first person to allege martyrdom was Tertullian, over a century later, who said, "Peter endures a passion like his Lord's..." In brief, we don't know how Peter died, and the rest is all legend.

This is not anything unsual about ancient history. Many of our historical documents are copies that are many centuries older than either the original document, or a the events covered.

This topic doesn't seem very productive unless you have a significant reason to believe he was not martyred.

It is not the same thing as knowing at all. That's my main point. Faith is not knowledge, it's belief. To say "I know it by faith" is "I know it because I believe it." Obviously that's backward. Believing something doesn't help you know it; knowing it causes you to believe it.

Don't we all have faith in something?

Otherwise, how do you deal with everyone else's faith, which is entirely different from yours? Heck, how do you deal with my faith that there is no God? Why is yours any better? That's why I keep asking you how you know--you don't.

We each have to figure that out for ourselves. My faith tells me to love those who are not Christian believers, give a defense for what I believe and do not treat them as foolish.

I can tell you why I believe what I believe, why it satisfies my intuition and why my personal experience has strengthened my faith. But that doesn't mean it is going to resonate for you, but there are people that it may.

Which is better? We are not given the tools to resolve this. We may find out at the end of times...

Don't know, and what difference does it make? What percentage of the Bible is "Love they neighbor," .01%? Does that mean it's not important? As I said, there is a lot of genocide in the OT. Have you read it lately? You'd be surprised.

Good point. Although I would content that over 50% of the NT discusses ethics and expounds on what it means to "love ones neighbor".

But to your point, because it is on the OT it is significant. I don't have all of the answers, but one way of looking at it is that God often wipes out communities because they are barbaric and exremely immoral in order to keep that community from spreading. It may be for the betterment of future generations. Sort of analogous to wiping out cancer.

In order to look at things from the perspective, one has to recognize the authority of God and His dominion over our lives and deaths.

No, it doesn't. My argument is that the God that you believe makes so much sense commands bad things. Not once in a while, a lot. Remember, these are the only people, out of billions of us, that He ever talked to. And what He thought it was really important to tell them was, when killing the neighboring tribe, to be sure to include the babies. And the reason that you believe in Him is that this makes sense to you. Can you make it make sense to anyone else?

They may be considered "bad things" to you, however, we do not have God's perspective and responsbility in how He manages His creation.

So, when it stops making sense, the faith just kicks in, and you just believe that God will sort it all out after we die? Any particular reason you believe that? Because, as I said, if you don't have some basis for your belief, how is it relevant?

Because I believe God is just.

Same God. As I said, Jesus commands infanticide. Jesus is love. Love is killing babies? It makes sense to you that loving babies means killing them?

Wow, what an extrordinairy distortion of scripture. You make it sound like I have some directive to kill babies as part of my loving them.

Except for the many Christians who believe that salvation is by acts, or acts and faith.

True

Do you disagree? As I said, you're on trial for murder: evidence, or divine revelation? This is why I keep asking you how you know. How do you know when "divine revelation" is true and when it isn't? They can't all be true, since they contradict each other. How do you tell the difference between divine revelation and insanity?

I have faith I can tell the difference...

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Remember--we're living on an electron. There are millions of species, of which we're one. And the Source of all gets upset if you pleasure yourself. And that makes sense to you.

I still don't follow. What difference does it make how big the Universe or how many species there are? God is not limited in what he can contemplate.

No good at all, if you can't answer it. I didn't ask you to prove anything. As I said, proof is rare. All I asked if for a good reason to believe. And if you can't come up with one, then why do you? Is it your practice to believe things for no good reason?

Not just reason, you have been asking for evidence. You have made many points of special revelation vs. evidence. And I given many reasons why I believe what I do, they just don't seem to matter to you.

It's no substitute for knowledge at all. Do you agree that millions, billions of people have had very strong faith in things that were just wrong? Two words: suicide bomber. Very strong faith there. So, if faith can be wrong as easily as right, how can you base your beliefs on it?

I don't think all faiths are equal. You keep arguing "how do you know you are right if there are a lots of people that believe something different", as if it doesn't apply to you as well. You talk as if you are on the intellectual high ground, yet there are many things that you believe that don't make sense with me.

You couldn't be more mistaken. I find reality to be an excellent foundation for a complex, meaningful, challenging, engaged life. The most important part is my family and love relationships. That's because I'm a human being.

Define meaningful.

If you can't deal with my points, you can always attack me. That's what you call an ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't do anything to refute my points.

I was not attacking you, I'm sorry if you took it that way. I was telling you how you were coming across to me. It's relevant because we all need to be introspective of whether we are being objective or if our emotional engagement is staining our point of view.

Think of all the stuff I didn't mention! Talking snakes! Light before sun! Whale swallows man! Kill children for teasing bald man! Talking donkeys! Man rises from dead! God makes woman pregant! Flood, ark, etc. Well, I could go on and on.

You are assuming I take all of these things literally.

Are you telling me that you have decided that your holy book is the most sensible, intuitive, and wise, without reading any of the others? Don't you think you should check them out? Want some suggestions?

Why are you assuming what I have and have not read? I guess I am just a brainwashed, uneducated Christian ...

I think Christian theology makes a lot more sense than believing I am a programmed, automaton organism, that self-replicating, evolving enzymes managed to accidently form themselves out of muck, and that the Universe, in all its order, mystically popped into existence for no reason.

But your religion, the one that makes sense to you, your ethical guide, does. I thought Jesus lived around 4-36 C.E.? He didn't have a problem with slavery.

How come all of a sudden it's not so hard to hold the same principles on our society than what occurred in the social dynamics of 1500 B.C.? Homosexuality is sinful, and slavery isn't. This makes sense to you as an ethical system.

I find it strange that you don't see how the social and economic differences between now and 1500 BC doesn't change what makes sense for society and what doesn't. There are some principles that always hold true: do not murder, steal, etc. Those obviously do not change with time. However, there were cultures where slavery was actually beneficial for the slave. In some cases in allows them to live in a wealthy household instead of living in poverty. The Bible explicitly states that you are to love those that you have authority over, and that was the intended ethics with slavery. That was not always the case (like when the jews were enslaved in Egypt, and God made it clear their treatment was unethical).

First of all, that's not what I asked you. Our topic is: Does your religion make sense? My point is, God shows up only to the ancient Israelites. That's odd. What does He think is important enough to tell them? What animals to sacrifice, and how. btw, this is not a tiny part of the Bible. Animal sacrifice is a major OT theme. It takes up huge chunks of Leviticus. Check it out. You think this makes sense. I think it's transparently an ancient, quasi-pagan, tribal system of myth and superstition. This particular aspect has to do primitive superstitious beliefs that bad things happen because Gods get angry, and it is necessary to propitiate them with sacrifices and rituals of various kinds. Most tribal peoples believe this. We have moved away from this into a more scientific view of misfortune. Does this Bronze Age view make sense to you?

In a way it does. Livestock was central to the economy and sacrificing an animal always had an economic consequence. It was a sacrifice to the person's livelihood. It demonstrated their priorities (spirituality over materialism), and hence enboldened their relationship to God.

It makes no sense in today's world, but I am certain if you lived in 1500 BC. this would all make sense to you.

No you're not, because...(wait for it)...IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! And that, Mr. Soapdish, was my point. The only reason you believe in this particular religion (without having studied others) is that it makes sense to you. Except when it doesn't, in which case you ignore it. You don't stone heretics, you don't slaughter sheep, you don't keep slaves, and you don't believe that there was light before the sun.

Your depiction of it doesn't makse sense, and that is what I was joking about.

Wow, no one has ever called me Mr. Soapdish.

I submit that the reasons you have chosen this religion have very little to do with whether it makes any sense.

I submit that it does not make sense to you and that you have a very different filter for how your interpret things than I do.

In fact, some Christian apologists have argued that we know Christian theology is true, because no one would make up something so weird! (I believe, because it is absurd.)

What is your source? I would bet they mean "unexpected", not "non-sensical".

Especially when God commands it. Which He does. A lot. And don't forget, this is the only time he visited with us personally, and one of the few subjects he cared to address. It's not a minor theme, it's one of the major themes of the OT: This land which I gave to you, kill everyone in it. It does? Then why do you think slavery is wrong? You sure didn't get that from your faith.

You really have an excellent talent at mis-representing scripture.

Are you implying that the rest of us aren't trying to do the right thing?

Are you being cynical again? I never said that no one else tries to do the right thing, or that this is exclusive to Christians. My point was that I was inspired be how they are living their lives.

Ask me about my life sometime.

I would like it if you told me about your life, how you live it and what you believe.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nick Soapdish,

None of your sources were contemporaries of the apostles. In fact, none of them were even born until hundreds of years after the apostles bones had dried. Whatever they have to say about the deaths of the apostles, therefore, is mere hearsay, and should not be taken too seriously. I am assuming that you hold your sources up to similar standards that a historian or anthropologist might, however.

True; but as I mentioned before this is not unusual for many of our oldest documentation of ancient history. Our contemporary text books were thousands of years after the events they discribe. Does this invalidate them?

Before making a statement such as this you should go back and re-read the OT. I think you might be surprised.

I stand by my estimate, if anyone cares to catalog all of them.

I certainly don't have time to do that.

Actually, the Bible contradicts itself on this point. Jesus says that faith alone is needed to acheive salvation, but St. Paul says that you need good works in addition to faith. You could argue that whatever Jesus says trumps whatever anyone might have to say, but on the other hand, the entire Bible is supposedly divinely inspired, which means that nothing in the Bible is wrong. If it is true that what St. Paul says is wrong, what else might be wrong?

Are you sure you are not confusing your apostles? Here is what Paul said:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” -Ephesians 2:8,9

On the other hand, this is what James said:

“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” -James 2:14

This is often used to argue that works are required for salvation. My interpretation is that if a person truly has faith, then they will devote themselves to produce good fruits.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I appreciate the honesty. But even here there is a problem, and it is precisely the problem that the scientific method seeks to address by insisting, not on personal experience, but on intersubjectively verifiable evidence. I'd be interested in hearing how you would distinguish between knowledge and belief - between "to know" and "to believe".

Talk about tough questions. I can say that belief, or faith, is to commit yourself to an idea, even if you do not have "introspectively verifiable evidence" to its truth. The definition of knowledge is tougher. Given a big enough dose of skepticism there isn't much you can't question. I tend to be a stern realist, however, and believe that what we evidence is generally objective truth, and not merely subjective perceptions.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Actually this is one of the things that does not make sense to me. (Setting aside the whole idea that you think you know what is going to happen to people after they die, without any good reason for such belief) Because according to Christianity, people like Mahatma Gandhi, Guatama Buddha, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Helen Keller are burning in eternal torment (or whatever Hell is to you; lately I'm hearing just separation from God) while Jeffrey Dahmer is sitting at the right hand of his savior in everlasting bliss. And that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

First off, I don't believe Dante's divine comedy is a Biblical depiction of hell.

Also, I don't profess to have any knowledge of who is separated from God and who is not. I personally believe that Jesus ministers to souls that die, and perhaps they are given an opportunity for salvation. I find it hard to believe that someone who truly serves humanity and appeals to a higher power will end in destruction.