A Question For Supernaturalists

92 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
If I could explain my views

If I could explain my views on methodological naturalism as succinctly, I would have authored more than two books. You have some seriously, wonderful writing skills and are always a pleasure to read.

Makes me want to study tensors.

Generally, when people begin using terms unfamiliar to me, I have to hit the Internet and figure out what in the hell they are talking about. Due to your clarity and the logical flow of information in your writing this, "Internet search step," is generally unnecessary.

I am utterly envious of your ability to string concepts together so wonderfully.

Jo's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

I agree with Cognostic on your brilliant and impressive post.

Was the intent of Gen 1 to teach the original audience science? Did Gen 1 break any new scientific ground or present new information about science to the original audience? Isn't it just using their knowledge of science to, as you say, teach an ethic?

I am afraid that your example of tensors provides evidence against your claim. I understood closer to 5% than 50% of your post on tensors. My highest level of education in math was algebra. But my grasp of math is far more advanced than the original audience in Genesis 1. They didn't even have a zero. The 14 billion years covered in Genesis is given using only about 100 words, if you take out all the extraneous words. Your tensor post was close to one thousand words. Could you reduce it to 100 words, write in a way that the original audience in Genesis could understand it, remember it, and accurately pass it on for generations? And it has to be in the form of a poem. As brilliant and learned as you are, I don't think you could do it. Maybe God didn't want to risk detracting from his main point with some new scientific information. It could hinder the mesage he is trying to convey in his writings.

In the area that you live, when a weather report is give, do they say something like "sunrise tomorrow is at 6 AM"? The people giving these reports are probably highly educated in some field of science. Yet they seem to not know that the sun doesn't rise, the earth rotates. Does this make the weather report completely unreliable? Are they just saying it in a way so the main point can be easily understood by all listeners? If someone finds a newspaper from your area thousands of years form now. When they read that the sun will rise at 6AM, should they conclude that the entire newspaper is unreliable?

You seem to be saying that the writer of the Bible should have anticipated science in the 21st century. Written the Bible so people in the 21st century can have evidence that it is reliable. What about an alchemist from 1,000 years ago? They could claim the Bible is unreliable because it does not mention the four elements of earth, water, fire, and air. A scientist 100 years ago could say the Bible is unreliable because it says the universe had a beginning. Why science has known for thousands of years that it is static and eternal, they would say. Why does the Bible have to align perfectly with our present scientific knowledge in order to be reliable?

You are using the same line of reasoning that fundies use. They try to align Genesis 1 with science to provide evidence of the reliability of the Bible. They can give you 26 ways that Gen 1 miraculously matches with science. They will say that the Bible knew the universe had a beginning thousands of years before scientists realized this fact. More proof of God they say. You are reaching a different conclusion but using the same line of reasoning. The notion that the science, history, geography, or psychology in the Bible, can be used to prove or disprove its reliability, is faulty reasoning. What is the purpose of the Bible? To teach science? To prove its reliability by its accurate grasp of science? It is more about God revealing himself to us humans, and his relationship with us humans, than about revealing science to us. If someone tries to turn it into something else, they are missing the point.

Has the ideas God was trying to impart in Gen 1 not survived the millenniums since its writing?

Calilasseia's picture
There are several issues here

There are several issues here.

Issue One. The hypothesis I am proposing, is precisely that - the authors of Genesis merely fabricated a cosmology in order to impose an ethic, in a manner that invited much opprobrium from Nietzsche. The problem with launching into the invention of a cosmology, without having as primary aim getting that cosmology right, but instead to use that cosmology, right or wrong, as a means of imposing an ethic on the universe, is fatally flawed. If one's ethical project depends upon a particular cosmology being correct, that project dies a death the moment said cosmology is found to be wrong. I recall having stated this in previous posts.

Issue Two. The point of my pedagogical exercise was not necessarily to be successful with every person I present it to, merely to be successful with enough people for the requisite understanding to be disseminated. There will always be people who struggle to understand even elementary concepts, let alone a concept as powerful and pedagogically challenging as tensors. Furthermore, I chose this concept specifically because I know from experience, that it causes even undergraduate mathematics students to pause for breath. Consequently, any success in disseminating understanding of that concept is considered a plus in the requisite circles. If I had succeeded with you in this regard, then obviously this would have lent a lot of weight to the postulates i am expounding here, but just because it failed with you, doesn't mean it will fail with anyone else.

Indeed, that's one of the points I was seeking to introduce by this example, namely that [1] only partial success would be needed in order to lay the foundations for further development of understanding, and [2] any properly constituted entity seeking to disseminate understanding would know this in advance. As a corollary, we can dismiss the idea that a properly constituted entity possessing the relevant body of knowledge was behind this text, because such an entity would have sought other ways and means to disseminate that understanding. No mathematics lecturer would expect 100% success when teaching this concept, but would be highly delighted if just one student in 1,000 absorbed the concept to the point of being able to move into research with it. Furthermore, even that limited level of success would still form the basis for further development of understanding, especially if that one student in 1,000 also possessed facility with explaining his thinking to a wider audience. Plus, even an incomplete understanding in the initial stages on the part of the rest of the students, would again form the basis for better understanding at a later stage, and any entity with a proper understanding of basic pedagogy would also understand this, and plan accordingly. No evidence that such planning took place is present in the requisite mythology.

Issue Three. Just because a public presenter uses colloquial language when presenting a topic that has deep science behind it, doesn't necessarily invalidate that presentation, unless the colloquial language involved is actively misleading. Your example fails because the term "sunrise" possesses a basis in observation, namely that at daybreak, the Sun appears to rise upwards from the horizon. That there are intricate celestial mechanics involved in the actual process resulting in that observation, is of course a detail that is taught in basic physics classes throughout the developed world, and as a corollary, no misunderstanding need arise among those thus educated, who recognise "sunrise" as a shorthand for the requisite motions. Astute students in said classes will recognise in addition, that said mechanics were used in the calculation of the time of first appearance of the Sun over the horizon. There is no act of deception involved in your example, merely a recourse to shorthand understood as such by many.

Plus, I also understand that there's an issue involved with respect to the geometry of spherical objects, which complicates the actual calculations. You might find it instructive to determine this issue for yourself.

Issue Four. No, I'm not saying at all that the actual humans responsible for writing that mythology, should have anticipated a body of knowledge 26 centuries before the appearance thereof. Instead, I'm stating that any genuine "creator" of the universe, as asserted to exist in that mythology, should have had access to that knowledge (and more), and found a way of disseminating this to the requisite humans, so that discoverable errors did not appear in any text attributed to that entity. If you were trying to disseminate a message to other people, would you want errors appearing in the text version thereof?

Issue Five. I'm not using the same reasoning as fundamentalists at all, I'm destroying their so-called "reasoning", by pointing out that their assertions of purported scientific compatibility of their mythology are plain, flat, wrong. I'm taking their assertions at face value, and demonstrating why those assertions are woefully incompetent when treated thus. That you appear not to have deduced this yourself, is slightly worrying.

Furthermore, the various individuals reponsible for the requisite text, did not "know" whether or not the universe had a beginning, they merely asserted this. They did not have actual knowledge of the origins of the observable universe and its contents, and demonstrated this amply by littering the requisite text with assertions that are not merely wrong in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but farcical and absurd in that light. This isn't just the case for physics, but for biology too. Furthermore, if you check the actual output of relevant researchers in cosmological physics, they are very careful with respect to their postulates on the matter, not merely in the interests of scientific rigour, but because some of them have seen their work subject to duplicitous misrepresentation by the usual suspects among pedlars of apologetics.

Indeed, every time I see the tiresome "atheists think the universe came from nothing" lie that so many of them love to post on Facebook and elsewhere, I'm reminded of two salient facts flushing this garbage down the toilet where it belongs, namely [1] the question of the origin of the universe doesn't arise from "atheism", but from research in cosmological physics, to which I and others pay attention, and [2] that the universe "came from nothing" is actually the very assertion contained in their mythology, and it is supernaturalists who think the universe came from nothing, via a conjuring trick from their magic man.

In the meantime, I've devoted space elsewhere on this forum to an exposition of two papers by Steinhardt & Turok, in which the implication, explicitly, is that the observable universe in its current form had a "beginning", but that what existed before was eternal. Their proposed mechanism for the instantiation of the observable universe, incidentally, possesses several merits - one, it eliminates the singularity problem from Big Bang cosmology, and two, it generates an observable product we can look for here and now in the observable universe, in the form of a precisely defined power spectrum for primordial gravitational waves. If future gravitational wave detectors return data to the effect that said power spectrum is actually observed to be present, Steinhardt & Turok pick up a Nobel Prize.

Understanding the details of their work, incidentally, not only involves you heavily with tensors, but the intimidating mathematics of the Ricci Calculus, and I don't propose to give a masterclass on that any time soon, because you need about five years' worth of graduate mathematics behind you before you can even begin working with it, let alone pressing it into service in a research paper.

Issue Six. You are committing a fundamental error, by conflating persistence with correctness. Plenty of bad and wrong ideas have been persistent over time among humans, but by definition, those ideas did not survive because of correctness. Bad and wrong ideas have been persistent for several reasons, viz:

[1] The ideas in question enjoy at least some accord with superficial intuition, whilst being wrong when subject to proper analysis (I point you at your own "sunrise" example here);

[2] The ideas in question enjoy support from a politically powerful and motivated lobby (but only persist as long as that lobby persists)

[3] The ideas in question exert a powerful emotional appeal.

In the case of the mythology in question, [2] and [3] above are manifestly at work. First of all, as I've stated elsewhere, the one feature that the Abrahamic religions brought to the landscape of human discourse, was ruthless enforcement of conformity to doctrine, without which, the mythologies in question would have fallen into the same disuse as Greek or Egyptian mythology a long time ago. The ideas contained in those mythologies did not survive because they withstood the tests of proper discourse, rather, they survived because ruthless enforcers of conformity to doctrine (frequently material beneficiaries of the requisite pursuit) placed the arena of discourse in chains for 1500 years. Those ideas are now under diligent scrutiny to an extent that would have terrified the Inquisitors of old, because the arena of discourse has at last been liberated from religious shackles, and the success of science has played a large part in that liberation. The remaining strongholds of those ideas only remain so, due to a willingness on the part of adherents to exhibit discoursive duplicity on a grand scale, combined with the manner in which the simplistic notions arising from those mythologies are emotionally comforting to the gullible and uneducated.

Indeed, one idea I've been warming to, is the idea that genuine intellectual maturity only arrives, when one jettisons these comforting lies, and faces uncomfortable reality with fortitude. Only when one has stared hard at one's own terrifying insignificance on the cosmic scale, and emerged not afraid of it, but rejoicing in the new understanding it bestows, can one truly call oneself a mature adult.

I shall now take another break.

Jo's picture
@ Calilasseia

@ Calilasseia

Issue 1 YOU said "the authors of Genesis merely fabricated a cosmology in order to impose an ethic." The cosmology in Gen 1 was not a fabrication. Gen 1 did not break any new scientific ground or present new information about science to the original audience. It is just using their knowledge of science to, as you say, teach an ethic?
Another statement you made "If one's ethical project depends upon a particular cosmology being correct, that project dies a death the moment said cosmology is found to be wrong." You are the one saying the cosmology in Gen 1 must be in accordance with current scientific knowledge. You are ignoring many key points, such as the original audience, the type of literature, the method of transmission, and the fundamental purpose of the text. It is a treatise on God's purpose and not on astrophysics, biology, geology, and astronomy. That is the straw man argument you are creating about Gen 1.

Your original question went something like this:
"Any genuine "creator" of the universe, as asserted to exist in that mythology, should have had access to that knowledge (and more), and found a way of disseminating this to the requisite humans, so that discoverable errors did not appear in any text attributed to that entity. If you were trying to disseminate a message to other people, would you want errors appearing in the text version thereof?
Here are some answers to the original question you asked:
You are misunderstanding the primary purpose and message of the text.
You are putting requirements on the text that place it in an untenable position.
You are saying that if God had written Gen1, he would have done it differently.
You are saying that for Gen 1 to be reliable it must align with current scientific knowledge.
You are overlooking the fact that its original message and purpose has survived intact, for those who are seeking it.

The last statement you made was very interesting to me. It sounds like a religious text. You should call it Calilasseia's Credo.
"Indeed, one idea I've been warming to, is the idea that genuine intellectual maturity only arrives, when one jettisons these comforting lies, and faces uncomfortable reality with fortitude. Only when one has stared hard at one's own terrifying insignificance on the cosmic scale, and emerged not afraid of it, but rejoicing in the new understanding it bestows, can one truly call oneself a mature adult."
I think that Nietzsche would agree with you. It sounds a lot like the Ubermensch to me.
This "Credo" is based on the assumption that there is no God.

I disagree wholeheartedly that we are terrifyingly insignificant on any scale. I think all people have immeasurable worth, and no life is meaningless or futile. That ultimately there is justice, goodness, and purpose. Of course, all that is based on the assumption that there is a God.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I disagree wholeheartedly that we are terrifyingly insignificant on any scale. I think all people have immeasurable worth, and no life is meaningless or futile. That ultimately there is justice, goodness, and purpose. Of course, all that is based on the assumption that there is a God.

Why are your conclusions (shall we say baseless, unevidenced, assertions) predicated on there being not just 'a' god but a specifically christian god?

Produce evidence for any god and you will convert most of the posters on these pages...but what is the evidence for your christian god?

I have already pointed out there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for the existence of the Jesus godling you prefer, so how about evidence for the rather nasty YHWH?

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Do I have your claim right? If the Jesus of the Bible had existed, contemporary historians would have wrote about him. We don't know of any that did, therefore he did not exist.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Please read my posts about early christian history directed to you again, or maybe for the first time.

I addressed this subject and expressed my opinion on the existence of a jesus figure as described in the gospels: If you remember I said a "magic/divine" Jesus was Improbable.
I gave several reasons for this conclusion, not least of which is the total lack of contemporary corroboration of the much later gospel stories.
That a human jesus figure or amalgam of figures may have existed on which some of the less fanciful/plagiarised NT stories were based is "not proven", it is possible, but then it will be nothing like the divine figure you imagine and have based your faith upon..

So, once again you have my argument wrong.

However my question still stands:

On what basis do you say that justice and so on are predicated on being a specific christian god? You have no evidence for the existence of the Jesus godling, so what evidence do you wish to exhibit for the existence of the nasty YHWH character?

It would benefit you to actually read and research my posts about the 1st century for yourself, . It may pierce the veil of supposition/superstition you have cast over yourself.

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Your opinions about the historical Jesus are not the same as the majority of scholars in the field.
Did any of the writers in antiquity who apposed Christianity question the existence of Jesus?

How do you know that the NT is a "much later gospel stories." Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

Regardless, I think it is irrational to base your faith/believe/opinions on what evidence is available from contemporary corroboration (non Biblical) on the subject from 2,000 years ago.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I already replied in depth in our last conversations. You are in error.

Your opinions about the historical Jesus are not the same as the majority of scholars in the field.

Wrong. Do some research. Dont seek theologians opinions but seek rather historians and historiographers. They tend to look at facts not seek to confirm their supposition.

How do you know that the NT is a "much later gospel stories." Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

No the gospels are written some 50 years after the events they allegedly describe. Later in the case of John. In fact the earliest writings are of "paul" (anonymous in truth) and he does not describe any of the magical events in the gospels...you should learn this stuff if you call yourself a christian.

Regardless, I think it is irrational to base your faith/believe/opinions on what evidence is available from contemporary corroboration (non Biblical) on the subject from 2,000 years ago.

The irony apparent in this paragraph has me reeling in laughter. You have no evidence at all for your jesus figure but my opinion is wrong? LOL....

Still waiting for your evidence of the existence of YHWH...you seem to want to avoid the question.

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

Here is some research on the historical Jesus:
"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. p. 285

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity, ISBN 028106329X p. 61

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 p. 200

Something written 50 years after the events is not contemporary enough? Some eyewitnesses would have still been around and could have been consulted. There may have been accounts and testimonials that could be resourced. If something was written that was inaccurate there would have been those that could have refuted or corrected the text. Here is what Luke said and it sure sounds like an historical account with eyewitness testimony.
Luke 1:1 "Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. 2 They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. 3 Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write an accurate account for you, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

I am going to go with what the experts say and what the text says, instead of what you say.

Not avoiding YHWH, just don't have the time right now.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

And you conveniently only quote those words you think agree with you.

Ehrmann is writing about the probability of a HUMAN jesus figure, if you read his books , he is a historiographer (one who studies texts).
Many specific points by Ehrman concentrate on what may be regarded as the 'embarrassments' and 'failures' of the various depictions of Jesus Christ found in the gospels and the works of Paul which point to an account based on a real person that got embellished rather than a completely made up figure.(Wiki)

Ehrmann also made the point that there is no corroborating evidence for the Jesus described in the gospels, NONE.

Once again you should read his books they may open your eyes and stop you looking such a complete fool.

Similarly with Price, you have merely reworded a small portion Here is what Price actually wrote about In The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems (2011), Price maintains that the Christ myth theory is the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity, giving another overview of arguments:[24] (Wiki)

"almost every story in the Gospels (and Acts) can be plausibly argued to be borrowed from the Greek Old Testament, Homer, or Euripides."
"every detail of the narrated life of Jesus fits the outlines of the Mythic Hero archetype present in all cultures"
"the epistles, regardless of their dates as earlier or later than the gospels, seem to enshrine a different vein of early Christian faith which lacked an earthly Jesus, a Christianity that understood "Jesus" as an honorific throne-name bestowed on a spiritual savior who had been ambushed and killed by the Archons who rule the universe before he rose triumphant over them [...] Christianity eventually rewrote Jesus into an historical incarnation who suffered at the hands of earthly institutions of religion and government."

So you can see both Ehrmann and Price , I agree with. Both those historians (one an ex minister) hold the probability of a Jesus figure as described in the gospels as Ehrmanns case: IMPROBABLE, and in Price's argument NO EXISTENCE

Finally Michael Grant...really? You quoted him? You should read some more....

A quick read of an apologetics website and a google of Wiki does not study make. Look up the meaning of "Contemporary" sometime. You will see why I accurately use that term.

I am going to go with what the experts say and what the text says, instead of what you say.

Obviously not....as you don't know what they say, and that is their writings agree with my studies and verdict.

Do you want to reload and shoot yourself in your other foot? "Living in truth" you certainly ain't!

(Edit, missing words in sentence 1)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Isn't the NT the

Jo - Isn't the NT the contemporaneous accounts our require?

As Old man shouts has pointed out; there are no (known) contemporary sources for the character Jesus, including the Bible. This is a very common false claim presented on this forum by Christians, perhaps the most common.

/e I said no "known" sources because who knows; someone might dig one up someday.

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Why is the NT not a contemporary source?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - Why is the NT not a

Jo - Why is the NT not a contemporary source?

As far as I can tell, no NT author met Jesus (if we exclude "supernatural meetings", like Paul's vision).

Tin-Man's picture
Re: Jo - "Why is the NT not a

Re: Jo - "Why is the NT not a contemporary source?"

Awww... He no wissen so well, do he?

Attachments

Attach Image/Video?: 

Yes
Sheldon's picture
If atheists who are neo-

If atheists who are neo- pagan or New age are supernaturalists. Are the rest naturalists?

What?

"When an adult teaches a young child about complicated things, the child may have difficulty grasping the lesson if the emphasis in on scientific accuracy. So the adult is right to speak to the child at there level of understanding."

Oh no, not this tired old canard. Are adult humans omniscient, are they omnipotent? This is surely one of the most asinine analogies in all of religious apologetics, and that really is saying something. Right up there with a deity that possesses limitless power and knowledge only being able to accurately communicate in Arabic.

Science btw is underpinned by objective evidence, religious claims are not, so these analogies are clearly the most desperate type of rationalisation to avoid confronting the fact that what religions claim is an infallible message from an infallible deity has been exposed as laughably wrong in such a short amount of scientific scrutiny.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo "I think one of the

@Jo "I think one of the main issues is a misunderstanding of the intent of the Bible." For FK SAKE. The bible is a collection of books. It is an ANTHOLOGY. To even begin discussing 'INTENT' you must separate out all the books and look at each one separately. John's Intent - to turn Jesus into a God is no place near Paul's intent . You don't get to collectively talk about "Intent of the Bible without sounding ignorant.

RE: "The Bible is not intended as a document to explain or educate us in science, history, or geography." And yet it does contain information in all these areas and frequently gets the information WRONG! How is anyone to trust such a source in the modern world when the CORRECT information is at our finger tips. You would think a book inspired by the all powerful God and creator of the universe would have gotten a few things right.

RE: "It is more about the reason and purpose." As you are focusing on the book of Genesis, what reason or purpose does god give for the creation of the universe in Genesis? Genesis says nothing at all about "WHY GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE." "NOTHING!" Genesis is in fact an early scientific explanation that explains in ignorant Iron Age scientific terms 'HOW THE UNIVERSE CAME TO BE." There is no "WHY" in Genesis.

RE: FALSE ANALOGY Grandfather is not the same thing as the all powerful and mighty creator of the universe. The mental masturbation you have to do to get her is astounding. You are making the assertion that an all powerful creator god, could not, in 100 words or less, clearly state how and why he made the universe. 1. How do you know that? 2. Why are you limiting god's ability? I LOVE THIS PART " If you had no knowledge of engineering and architecture, and were illiterate. He wouldn't waste words trying to explain precisely when each part was built, how it was built, and what it is made out of. He would focus the information he provides you with, on the purpose and significance." GENESIS SAYS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT PURPOSE OR SIGNIFICANCE.

What does Genesis actually do?
It fucking explains the engineering and architecture to the illiterate Iron Age population of the time. It wastes words trying to explain precisely when each part was built and how it was built and what is made out of. It provides no information about PURPOSE OR SIGNIFICANCE. NONE!!!

1 WHAT HAPPENED: In the beginning [before the creation] God created the heaven [the expanse of empty space] and the earth [the planet earth].
2 HOW DID IT HAPPEN?: And the earth [the planet earth] was without form, and void [empty and dark - there was nothing alive on it, and there was no light of the sun to shine on it]; and darkness was upon the face of the deep [the waters]. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 HOW AND WHAT? And God said, Let there be light [the light of the sun - which he created]: and there was light [the sun shined brightly - on earth].
4 HOW LIGHT AND DARKNESS ARE DIVIDED: And God saw the light [the sun], that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 HOW LIGHT AND DARK GOT THEIR NAMES: And God called the light [the light side of the revolving planet] Day, and the darkness [the dark side of the revolving planet] he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
6 HOW THE FIRMAMENT CAME TO BE: And God said, Let there be a firmament [an expanse of empty space] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters [a gigantic bubble - the vacuum of empty space].
7 HOW THE WATERS WERE DIVIDED: And God made the firmament [the expanse of empty space], and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament [the waters above and below the bubble]: and it was so.
8 HOW THINGS GOT THEIR NAMES: And God called the firmament [the expanse of empty space] Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
9 HOW DRY LAND WAS MADE: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 HOW THE EARTH GOT ITS NAME: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas [the oceans]: and God saw that it was good.
11 HOW GRASS AND SEEDS BEGAN GROWING: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind [each kind of plant makes it's own kind by it's own seed], whose seed is in itself [plants reproduce by replanting and growing their seeds - by wind and water], upon the earth: and it was so [all plants were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the earth - and of course also the oceans and rivers (which are not mentioned)].

THIS IS BORING AS HELL - I HAVE A LOT BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME THAN DEBUNKING IGNORANT THEIST ASSERTIONS. AS FAR AS THIS ONE GOES, YOU ARE THE ABSOLUTE WINNER OF THE MORONIC ASSERTION OF THE YEAR CONTEST, I LOVE THE FACT THAT THIS POST WILL SURVIVE FOR YEARS AND POSSIBLY BE READ BY HUNDREDS OF THEISTS AROUND THE WORLD WHO WILL WAKE FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS STUPORS AND REALIZE THE THINGS THEY BELIEVE ARE UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY NONSENSICAL.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
14 And God said, Let there be lights [the stars, the planets, and the galaxies, etc.] in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years [the constellations and planetary objects - which change form in time, and give us a way to measure the seasons, days, and years]:
15 And let them be for lights [the stars in the night sky] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth [at night]: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights [the sun and moon]; the greater light to rule the day [the sun], and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them [the sun, moon, stars, etc.] in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth [both day and night],
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven [all creatures of the water and sky were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the oceans, rivers and sky].
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth [all creatures who live in water], which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind [each kind of creature is makes it's own kind by procreation], and every winged fowl [birds of the air] after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful [productive], and multiply [have offspring], and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply [have offspring] in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day [as the world turned (figuratively)].
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind [each kind of creature is makes it's own kind by procreation], cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so [all creatures of earth were (created, formed, and made) from the elements in nature, and abundantly filled their place of destination - the dry land].
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us [the Lord as one God] make man in our [the same Lord as one God] image [spirit], after our likeness [holiness]: and let them [the man and woman] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth [man and woman were given power over all living creatures - large or small (nothing could harm or frighten them in any way)].
27 So God created man in his own image [spirit], in the image of God created he him [man and woman]; male and female created he them [both man and woman were created by God (who is one God) in "his" (Gods) "image" which is spirit - therefore like the other creatures; man was formed from dust, made alive, but man alone was given the spirit of God upon him on the condition of obedience to his word].

NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE!!!!!!

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

You are right that there are a lot of "how's" in Genesis and I did not do good job of explaining my point. I should have said that when I mention the Bible I was primarily referring to the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

Yes, there are a lot of "how's" in Genesis 1, but is the main point to teach a lesson in cosmology? Just to explain scientifically how everything came to be? What is the theme or what is the story leading up to? One of the primary themes it is leading up to is why all this was done. Genesis 2:8 "Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden in the east, and there he placed the man he had made."

The theme is that God prepared a paradise for us to live in and to have a relationship (communion) with him. This theme is repeated in other stories in other books of the Bible, such as in the Tabernacle, the Temple, and as Jesus "God with us" living and communing with us. The ultimate goal is to make this complete as in Rev 21:3+4. ... "God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”

The theme is more about God preparing a paradise for us to live in, to be part of his family, and to commune with him. It is not to just teach science or history. There are a lot of how, when, and wheres in Genesis, but they are given as groundwork towards a larger theme and not just to give facts.

Cognostic's picture
@Jo

@Jo
"Genesis 2:8 New International Version (NIV)
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." And then he planted two trees and forbade the man to eat of one of them, (and he did all that without indicating a reason or purpose) And then he created Eve who he knew full well would eat from one of them. And then he threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil. Just like he knew he would because he is omniscient. "Why" is not there.

Why do you get to stop here? There is no indication that this is the reason "why" God did anything. Perhaps he did it all so Cane could kill Able. Your claim is just not justified. Any point can be picked as the reason why. God did all this so he could throw the man and woman out of Eden. (My assertion is just as valid.)

The ultimate goal is to make this complete as in Rev 21:3+4 NOW YOU ARE CHANGING BOOKS and skipping around. Back to Genesis my friend. There is one book we are discussing, Genesis. Either Genesis says "Why god created everything or it does not." I am fully aware of at least 10 verses that indicate why the world was made. NONE IN GENESIS. It's not there.

The theme is about God preparing a paradise. Agreed. It is a story about how the first man and woman came to be.Agreed. At no point does God indicate why. (a reason or purpose) Genesis is a story about what happened and how it happened. No place is it indicated "Why."

God is omniscient, he could have done it all so he could later kill everyone in a flood. But then I would be referring to a source outside of Genesis as well. So, back to Genesis.,

I fully get Theists believe there is a why, a reason and purpose, in Genesis. But if you look for it, it just isn't there.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Jo's picture
@ Diotrophes

@ Diotrophes

If it ever was "ethnocentric" it stopped being that 2,000 years ago.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Once again your lack of knowledge puts you at a disadvantage: Matthew 10 5-6 5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

In fact all the early christians before 'Paul' became jews by conversion, the rite of circumcision and observance of the Law.

In fact Paul started his ministry in the same manner, and only after he realised that only women and slaves were joining him, he unilaterally changed the rules. Which got him in all sorts of strife with the Temple in Jerusalem. Circumcision for an adult is a messy and painful business and not attractive, never mind the deep rooted Graeco Roman antipathy to bodily mutilation.
So Paul had a very convenient (for him) revelation (we are expected to believe) that allowed him to preach and convert the gentile to christianity without the need to convert to Judaism. Within a very short time gentiles (naturally) outnumbered jewish Christians although some sects to this day still practise infant and adult circumcision, or genital mutilation as it should be termed.

Nowhere in the Matthew version does Jesus directly command his disciples to preach to the gentiles. Many apologists bend various verses to justify their missions but Jesus was pretty much adamant if we believe the reports of Matthew.

Are you closer to living your life by truth yet Jo? Reading your conversations you seem intent on being an apologist instead of taking a clear eyed look at yourself and your beliefs.

(Edit to reflect meaning and explicatory additions re Paul)

Talyyn's picture
@Old man shouts...

@Old man shouts...

I like the "very convenient" revelation, how people can be so gullible that the claim for a revelation, that as far as we know happens only in the mind of the person in question.7

Same thing for the arabian bedouin who meet angels in a cave... alone...

Jo's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

I agree that all the early Christians were Jews.

Didn't Jesus grant the request of the Canaanite women, when he was in her land (not Israel). Wasn't the Roman centurion also granted his wish in Matt. Didn't he tell his disciples in Matt 28:19 to make disciples in all nations.

Diotrephes's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Hi instructions to his disciples were very clear. No gentiles, no Samaritans (a jewish sect). Please do not bring isolated examples of his own rule breaking to the table and then use that as an argument.

The unspoken instruction to the centurion was to become jewish and then follow him. As ALL those who lived by the Law had to do. Think of context and the times Jo. The ONLY christians were jewish, they had to convert to judaism, obey the laws, observe the holidays and only then could they accept Jesus as a messiah.
He first called the Canaanite woman a 'dog' and only when completely humiliated did he grant her request to heal her daughter.
Again the subtext in context is convert to Judaism and "follow me"

The meaning of the verse in Matthew 5-6 is clear. Jews only.

You seem to be more and more an apologist Jo, where is the acknowledgement of truth you said you craved? Why are you avoiding this question?

Cognostic's picture
@Jo Jo Jo.... You are a lying

@Jo Jo Jo.... Your statements are the lies of Christians who want to select bits and pieces of the bible to justify their prejudicial beliefs and condemnation of all non-believers, even those among their own families.

Do not turn Angry Jesusyour steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6, NJB.)

I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel” (Matt. 15:24, NJB.)

“And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matt. 6:7–8, NJB.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- This one is a bit long -----------------
He left that place and set out for the territory of Tyre. There he went into a house and did not want anyone to know he was there, but he could not pass unrecognized. A woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard about him straight away and came and fell at his feet. Now the woman was pagan, by birth a Syrophonecian and she begged him to cast the devil out of her daughter and he said to her ‘the children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the house dogs’. But she spoke up ‘Ah yes sir’ she replied ‘but the house dogs under the table can eat the children’s scraps’. And he said to her ‘for saying this, you may go home happy; the devil has gone out of your daughter.’ So she went off to her home and found the child lying on the bed and the devil gone” (Mark 7:24–30, NJB.)

Jesus was drawing an analogy. The children were his fellow Jews, who were to be fed first. Gentiles were referred to as dogs, (when Jews wished to insult someone they often referred to them as dogs) whom Jesus would rather not help. Jesus hesitated before healing jesus do you reallye girl because her mother was not Jewish. The woman had to remind Jesus that he should love his neighbour.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 7:6 - Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them
under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24). Matthew 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21 (Deliver up your own non-believing family members. Jesus is a fucktard.)

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34-36

YOU ARE BEING DISINGENUOUS AND DISHONEST, OR YOU ARE JUST COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH THE BIBLE. JESUS WAS A BIGOT. HE WAS NOT ALL LOVING. HE GAVE NOT A SHIT ABOUT NON-BELIEVERS.

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. BIGOT!

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic
@ Old Man Shouts
@ Others who have addressed my posts on this subject

I am pretty sure I am not understanding the question or the point of your posts. I think you are addressing my assertion that Christianity is not just for the Jews. Is that what you are saying, that the Bible has only ever been for one group, the Jews? That in order to be a Christian you also have to become a Jew and keep the law? I am trying to understand what specific issue I am being asked to address . Is it about ethnocentrism or bigotry in the Bible? That God only cares about Jews or believers? That only Christian who were practicing Jews were accepted into the kingdom. I am not trying to be dishonest, I really don't understand what charge I being asked to respond to.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo
You made this statement:

@ Diotrophes, If it ever was "ethnocentric" it stopped being that 2,000 years ago

I am pointing out that that was not the intention of your prophet figure.

It may be that subsequent political developments by other figures led to a more inclusive place, but that was not the original intent of your jesus figure.

How far do you go to deny his alleged words before you cease to be what you claim?

Once again you made a claim about your religion that is in error.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.