| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Roy Mock" |
| Date: |
14 Sep 2003 11:04:13 PM |
| Object: |
Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:dok4mvccp2ddv78ded8phto3rkrpdf1q50@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:52:26 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> in news message
<3f624135$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
How should we objectively verify a person, then?
Are you saying that your GodŽ is a person?
Absolutely.
Then, bring him on. This should be a snap for you to produce evidence
for a person.
Moses asked for similar assurance: "'Show me your glory'. And the LORD said
"... you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live ... I will put
you in the cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed
by ... you will see my back but my face must not be seen" Exodus 33:17-23.
The doubting Thomas also wanted an assurance but when confronted with the
risen Christ, said "My Lord and my God." John 20:28.
That should make it very
easy for you then. You can introduce me and the other members of a.a.
to him personally. We can shake his hand and then he can do GodŽ
things like parting Lake Erie or making the Mississippi River flow
northward for its entire length on command, for example, to prove his
identity. Can you provide that?
Should we establish the ground rules? We normally make ourselves known on
our own terms.
It seems these tests are like a frame-of-reference or benchmarks or
presuppositions. That's not how we check each other's reality.
Certainly it is.
We don't normally check each other's reality from our own frame of
reference.
Meeting someone face to face is primary evidence for
the reality of a person.
Certainly. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
Do you routinely question the existence of
people you have met?
No. I don't know anyone who does.
The miracles that I suggested, of course, would
not apply to any other person except GodŽ since most people don't make
supernatural claims.
No. An observation what God can do with Lake Erie or the Mississippi River,
may not be convincing enough. Even though Moses was a key figure in the
Passover, Red Sea parting, and manna experience, we know he still sought
assurance. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
What if we
came up to you with a series of tests we've come with to satisfy
ourselves
that you exist?
What if you did? As I said, it should be quite easy to determine if I
exist as it is for any person. However, my existence is not in
question, and you still haven't offered any evidence for the existence
for GodŽ. Strange that.
I think we are asking for evidence that fits within our grid and are on our
own terms. So far the established ground rules are; someone who (1) you can
shake hands with
(2) do miracles with bodies of water (3) uses newsgroups. These seem rather
arbitrary.
I'm sure you would want us to know you on your own terms than anyone
else's.
No, any objective test would do.
Moreover, I know you exist because you've somehow revealed yourself by
expressing your thoughts thru this NG.
See, you've already found objective evidence. (I) am making these
posts, therefore (I) exist, whoever that (I) may be. The problem is
that GodŽ doesn't even make usenet posts.
Well, He's already expressed Himself in other ways other than the internet
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times
and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son."
(Hebrews 1:1-2)
In fact, there is no
objective evidence at all that, and therein lies the problem for those
who assert that GodŽ exists.
I'm not so sure of that given that it is not for us to establish the frame
of reference.
That He has expressed Himself through the nation of Israel, should be given
consideration as evidence.
They want to use "special" rules when
dealing with GodŽ. I wonder why?
I'm not so sure of that given that a person makes himself known on his own
terms.
.
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 09:32:29 AM |
|
|
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:dok4mvccp2ddv78ded8phto3rkrpdf1q50@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:52:26 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> in news message
<3f624135$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
How should we objectively verify a person, then?
Are you saying that your GodŽ is a person?
Absolutely.
Then, bring him on. This should be a snap for you to produce evidence
for a person.
Moses asked for similar assurance: "'Show me your glory'. And the LORD said
"... you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live ... I will put
you in the cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed
by ... you will see my back but my face must not be seen" Exodus 33:17-23.
The doubting Thomas also wanted an assurance but when confronted with the
risen Christ, said "My Lord and my God." John 20:28.
Okay, it sounds like they both got the evidence they asked for. When
exactly did the rules change, requiring all requests for evidence to now
get in reply only a torrent of excuses?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 06:16:22 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
Okay, it sounds like they both got the evidence they asked for. When
exactly did the rules change, requiring all requests for evidence to now
get in reply only a torrent of excuses?
I suspect it is the nature or type of material we are willing to accept as
evidence are quite polarised.
Let me try to summarise the positions discussed so far (albeit likely to be
distorted/biased) -
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 09:38:21 PM |
|
|
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
Okay, it sounds like they both got the evidence they asked for. When
exactly did the rules change, requiring all requests for evidence to now
get in reply only a torrent of excuses?
I suspect it is the nature or type of material we are willing to accept as
evidence are quite polarised.
Let me try to summarise the positions discussed so far (albeit likely to be
distorted/biased) -
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 04:40:38 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible
and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
Thanks for the correction, John. But if I read Liz's posture correctly as
an Athiest, objectivity is also important - a fundmental.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
I suppose it's a question of what is taken as authorative.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
Is 'thinks' the operative word here? If a person reveals something about
himself, is this not on a differnt level of what one thinks of him? E.g.
you come across as .John Hattan' irrespective how I think about you.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science
seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures
is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
No, I don't think the Bible has any science in mind. Perhaps that is the
Creation Science approach which I am not comfortable with. (I'm not with
Creation Science) The Bible focus' on behavours or relationships. The
Creation account serves to say Who is behind our phenomenal world and what
He did - rather than when and how.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
I can't speak of the efficacy of the practice but I take it that all the OT
find their fulfulment in Christ (Romans 10:4).
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 07:17:13 PM |
|
|
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible
and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
Thanks for the correction, John. But if I read Liz's posture correctly as
an Athiest, objectivity is also important - a fundmental.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
I suppose it's a question of what is taken as authorative.
Do you consider the Bible to be more authoritative than The Iliad? Why
or why not?
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
Is 'thinks' the operative word here? If a person reveals something about
himself, is this not on a differnt level of what one thinks of him? E.g.
you come across as .John Hattan' irrespective how I think about you.
But if a person describes an experience with a god, he's not talking
about himself, but about the god. A good example would be alt.atheism
regular Georgann, who insists that God exists because she had a funny
feeling in her kitchen several years ago. Like it or not, that's not
objective evidence.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science
seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures
is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
No, I don't think the Bible has any science in mind. Perhaps that is the
Creation Science approach which I am not comfortable with. (I'm not with
Creation Science) The Bible focus' on behavours or relationships. The
Creation account serves to say Who is behind our phenomenal world and what
He did - rather than when and how.
But the creation accounts have nothing to do with "behavours or
relationships". Heck, man isn't even in the picture until day six.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 06:22:45 PM |
|
|
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
<3f68d9c1$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible
and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
Thanks for the correction, John. But if I read Liz's posture correctly as
an Athiest, objectivity is also important - a fundmental.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
I suppose it's a question of what is taken as authorative.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
Is 'thinks' the operative word here? If a person reveals something about
himself, is this not on a differnt level of what one thinks of him? E.g.
you come across as .John Hattan' irrespective how I think about you.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science
seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures
is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
No, I don't think the Bible has any science in mind. Perhaps that is the
Creation Science approach which I am not comfortable with. (I'm not with
Creation Science) The Bible focus' on behavours or relationships. The
Creation account serves to say Who is behind our phenomenal world and what
He did - rather than when and how.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
I can't speak of the efficacy of the practice but I take it that all the OT
find their fulfulment in Christ (Romans 10:4).
That is the belief of some who use these writings as their scriptures.
As you know, others do not accept this claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 06:13:37 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:85rhmv8qhf9uaoajn8tu592p54b9nik7sv@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote in
<3f68d9c1$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>:
[snip]
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect
on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
I can't speak of the efficacy of the practice but I take it that all the
OT
find their fulfulment in Christ (Romans 10:4).
That is the belief of some who use these writings as their scriptures.
As you know, others do not accept this claim.
That's fine by me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 07:32:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:38:21 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
in news message <njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com> wrote:
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[-----]
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
I am perfectly willing to concede that GodŽ ~exists~ subjectively as a
concept in the mind of believers. However, most theists insist that
GodŽ has objective existence independent of the mind of those who
believe. Yet, they offer no objective evidence for this supposed
objective existence.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
It seems that GodŽ reveals himself to believers "on his own terms"
using primarily an oostie feeling accompanied with a subjective
conviction that GodŽ ~must~ exist. And for most believers, this is
enough.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I think that naming your ignorance God and pretending that,
having named it, you have converted ignorance to knowledge
is a sorry approach to the unknown. -- John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 11:34:07 PM |
|
|
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:n8jbmv07fad23urfc9nm8ssjje2dh7g0gc@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[big snip]
Okay, it sounds like they both got the evidence they asked for. When
exactly did the rules change, requiring all requests for evidence to now
get in reply only a torrent of excuses?
I suspect it is the nature or type of material we are willing to accept as
evidence are quite polarised.
Let me try to summarise the positions discussed so far (albeit likely to be
distorted/biased) -
The Atheist evidence revolves around that which is objective, tangible and
quantifiable - even an objective personal experience.
Actually, that's not atheists that require objective evidence. It's
science itself that requires it.
My position was: His Personage is evidenced by His revealing/expressing
Himself as recorded in the scriptures and in His Son.
That's just another way of saying "because this old book says so". Like
it or not, that's not evidence. I can point you to a dozen other old
books that describe other gods or paranormal creatures and/or events in
which you don't believe. Just being in an old book isn't enough.
Have the ground rules changed? Dunno. I'd been thinking that the Atheist
has a prescriptive approach to God (e.g. let's see if He has this or that
property/feature etc.according to a grid or frame-of-reference); but I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
But that's entirely subjective. What you think is something from your
god somebody else thinks came from an entirely different god and a third
person thinks came from a mischievous ghost and a fourth person thinks
came from indigestion.
Perhaps it is the difference between the PREscriptive and POSTscriptive
methodologies that gives the appearance of changing ground rules.
I began my entry into this discussion on Creation saying that science seeks
to understand the when and how of our phenomenal world but the scriptures is
predicated by the Who and why - our relationships. Again, these are
differing approaches.
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured. It was an offering never given until
Christ's day when He healed lepers and sent them to offer the sacrifices
Moses commanded. The sacrifices were a testimony since it would have been
the first time since the law was given that such were offered.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable. The stars are not in the dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by misreading
it ourselves.
Raymond E. Griffith
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 08:23:52 AM |
|
|
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
Now then, please tell me what rubbing a septic mess like that on a sore
can do other than make it worse.
It was an offering never given until
Christ's day when He healed lepers and sent them to offer the sacrifices
Moses commanded. The sacrifices were a testimony since it would have been
the first time since the law was given that such were offered.
Actually the ritual is detailed in Lev 14, which was written centuries
before Christ allegedly did anything.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable. The stars are not in the dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by misreading
it ourselves.
Do you consider a third of stars falling to be a "misread" or a mistake?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "~ * ~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 12:31:55 AM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:fg3emv438k3n7e7u84sjnqap3jrl2hd3gh@4ax.com...
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a
sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
## Yes, that's what Lev 14 claims, then it goes on to lamb's blood. These
cures are the silliest thing I've ever heard of, having worked in the
medical field for years. If any god inspired this Bible, he had no clue
what bacterial diseases were. Putting the blood or birds or animals on
people with sores or wounds was the WORST thing they could do next to
rubbing dung into the sores.
Now then, please tell me what rubbing a septic mess like that on a sore
can do other than make it worse.
## Just reading the old "cures" in the Bible makes a person's skin crawl.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not
exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable.
## PROVING once again it wasn't inspired by any god or creator.
The stars are not in the dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by
misreading
it ourselves.
## But that's what they wrote! It's supposed to be inspired by some
ancient Hebrew god.
Do you consider a third of stars falling to be a "misread" or a mistake?
## They'll once more claim it doesn't mean what it says, that it really
means [fill in whatever sounds reasonable].
--
MiKrobez.......Lilly Wytenpure....
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suckling, ox and sheep, camel and *****. .... this is historically one of
THE FIRST GENOCIDES... commanded supposedly by the merciful GOD!!!!
~~~~ }<((((o> ~~~~ }<((((0> ~~~~ }<{{{{ô> ~~~~ }<((((¤> ~~~~ }<{{{{Ō>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 05:17:14 PM |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.bible,alt.atheism
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect
on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a
sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
No. Here is from Leviticus 14.
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "These are the regulations for the diseased
person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the
priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the
person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, [1] 4 the priest
shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and
hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed.
The person was healed of his skin disease.
Ceremonial cleansing is distinct and separate from physical healing. The
person healed still needed to be cleansed. Remember that such a sickness was
considered a result of sinfulness and a judgment from God. Now, having been
healed, the person brings an offering to be right with God.
Now then, please tell me what rubbing a septic mess like that on a sore
can do other than make it worse.
5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh
water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together
with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the
bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle
the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean.
Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
There were no sores. The man had been healed of his skin disease. The
sacrifice is ceremonial, not medicinal. It has symbolic meaning. Blood was
necessary as a sacrifice since to sin was a mortal offence against God. The
cedar was aromatic and symbolized the passing from a putrid condition to a
healthy condition. Letting the live bird go in the open fields symbolized
carrying away the sins away from the sinner.
And yes, it was a mess. But it was symbolic. These people did not think as
we do, nor are we able to think as they did. We cannot appreciate the
mindset of those who used this symbolism.
It was an offering never given until
Christ's day when He healed lepers and sent them to offer the sacrifices
Moses commanded. The sacrifices were a testimony since it would have been
the first time since the law was given that such were offered.
Actually the ritual is detailed in Lev 14, which was written centuries
before Christ allegedly did anything.
True. But when Christ commanded that the lepers he cleansed go and give an
offering for their cleansing as Moses commanded, He was well aware that no
lepers had ever been cleansed in Israel. He pointed that out in another
place.
By sending the now-cleansed lepers to give such an offering, He was sending
a message that a miracle had occurred. This was such a unique offering that
the message was certain to be heard.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not
exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable. The stars are not in the
dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by
misreading
it ourselves.
Do you consider a third of stars falling to be a "misread" or a mistake?
Scientifically, it was an error. Perhaps John saw meteorites striking the
earth, but in any case, there could not have been a third of them that fell
to earth, either. John wrote his impressions of what he saw, guided by his
understanding of cosmology. His cosmology was in error.
So no, the reference is clear in the Revelation to a third of the stars
falling from heaven. I do not see this as a misread. I do see it as a
scientific error.
Revelation 8:12
The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a
third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned
dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.
Revelation 12:4
His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the
earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth,
so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.
Cheers,
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "~ * ~" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 12:37:08 AM |
|
|
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:yu-cnb9kgumGFPqiU-KYvA@ctc.net...
Revelation 12:4
His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the
earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth,
so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.
======================
Sounds like they had some powerful "drugs" in those days..... or the guy
who wrote the above had some strange nightmares.
--
EvaMarie & Alex ....
Invite them in and sell them on a copy of "Darwin's Theory of
Evolution," after boring them to death for 2 hours telling them Darwin's
good news... there's no killer God to fear after all.
<> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 07:02:01 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 00:37:08 -0500, "~ * ~"
<NothingGood@Watchertowerland.net> wrote:
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote in message
news:yu-cnb9kgumGFPqiU-KYvA@ctc.net...
Revelation 12:4
His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the
earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth,
so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.
======================
Sounds like they had some powerful "drugs" in those days..... or the guy
who wrote the above had some strange nightmares.
If peyote grows in the Middle East, it would explain such things...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 08:01:33 PM |
|
|
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote:
From: "John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.bible,alt.atheism
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect
on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a
sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
No. Here is from Leviticus 14.
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "These are the regulations for the diseased
person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the
priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the
person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, [1] 4 the priest
shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and
hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed.
The person was healed of his skin disease.
So the person is then presumably covered with scabs and/or scar tissue
from many until-recently open sores. Do you think it's a good idea to
rub bird-rolled blood on it?
Ceremonial cleansing is distinct and separate from physical healing. The
person healed still needed to be cleansed. Remember that such a sickness was
considered a result of sinfulness and a judgment from God. Now, having been
healed, the person brings an offering to be right with God.
Why exactly must the "offering" be rubbed on the person?
Now then, please tell me what rubbing a septic mess like that on a sore
can do other than make it worse.
5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh
water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together
with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the
bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle
the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean.
Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
There were no sores. The man had been healed of his skin disease. The
sacrifice is ceremonial, not medicinal. It has symbolic meaning.
So it's pointless.
Blood was
necessary as a sacrifice since to sin was a mortal offence against God.
So leprosy is the result of sin?
The
cedar was aromatic and symbolized the passing from a putrid condition to a
healthy condition. Letting the live bird go in the open fields symbolized
carrying away the sins away from the sinner.
And yes, it was a mess. But it was symbolic. These people did not think as
we do, nor are we able to think as they did. We cannot appreciate the
mindset of those who used this symbolism.
You'd think that a god would put a stop to such practices if they were
nonsense.
It was an offering never given until
Christ's day when He healed lepers and sent them to offer the sacrifices
Moses commanded. The sacrifices were a testimony since it would have been
the first time since the law was given that such were offered.
Actually the ritual is detailed in Lev 14, which was written centuries
before Christ allegedly did anything.
True. But when Christ commanded that the lepers he cleansed go and give an
offering for their cleansing as Moses commanded, He was well aware that no
lepers had ever been cleansed in Israel. He pointed that out in another
place.
By sending the now-cleansed lepers to give such an offering, He was sending
a message that a miracle had occurred. This was such a unique offering that
the message was certain to be heard.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not
exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable. The stars are not in the
dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by
misreading
it ourselves.
Do you consider a third of stars falling to be a "misread" or a mistake?
Scientifically, it was an error. Perhaps John saw meteorites striking the
earth, but in any case, there could not have been a third of them that fell
to earth, either. John wrote his impressions of what he saw, guided by his
understanding of cosmology. His cosmology was in error.
So John wasn't inspired by God when he wrote what he wrote, given that
God made no effort to correct the obvious error, correct?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond E. Griffith" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 08:51:50 PM |
|
|
in article 1dcfmv8p1559bajulkkj2d1iksbiti49u8@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/16/03 9:01 PM:
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote:
From: "John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.bible,alt.atheism
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect
on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a
sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
No. Here is from Leviticus 14.
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "These are the regulations for the diseased
person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the
priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the
person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, [1] 4 the priest
shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and
hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed.
The person was healed of his skin disease.
So the person is then presumably covered with scabs and/or scar tissue
from many until-recently open sores. Do you think it's a good idea to
rub bird-rolled blood on it?
No, the person is *not* presumably covered with scabs. He has been healed of
his infectious disease. Scabs were a prominent part of the disease as
described elsewhere.
And no, the blood was not rubbed in it. Please, do show yourself to be
honest here. We criticize the creationists for their reading problems --
don't be like them.
According to the Scriptures quoted below, the blood was sprinkled, not
rubbed.
Ceremonial cleansing is distinct and separate from physical healing. The
person healed still needed to be cleansed. Remember that such a sickness was
considered a result of sinfulness and a judgment from God. Now, having been
healed, the person brings an offering to be right with God.
Why exactly must the "offering" be rubbed on the person?
Again, please read the Scripture. It says "sprinked", not rubbed.
As for the "why" of the sprinkling, the idea is that the sins of the person
are "covered" by the sacrifice.
Now then, please tell me what rubbing a septic mess like that on a sore
can do other than make it worse.
5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh
water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together
with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the
bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle
the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean.
Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
There were no sores. The man had been healed of his skin disease. The
sacrifice is ceremonial, not medicinal. It has symbolic meaning.
So it's pointless.
Not at all. It might not have a point in today's society, but it had a point
then. The imagery was vivid. The people were portraying a spiritual belief
in a physical manner.
Blood was
necessary as a sacrifice since to sin was a mortal offence against God.
So leprosy is the result of sin?
Sickness was often thought of that way. These people had no idea of germs.
Sanitation was the bare minimum. They really didn't know *what* caused
sickness. So they explained it as the judgment of God.
James reflects this same idea in the New Testament:
James 5:14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church
to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.
15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord
will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that
you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Again, this is not to denigrate their beliefs. Remember they did not have
the advantages we have. And I dare say that any of us growing up in such a
society would have had some ideas that modern day society rejects.
The
cedar was aromatic and symbolized the passing from a putrid condition to a
healthy condition. Letting the live bird go in the open fields symbolized
carrying away the sins away from the sinner.
And yes, it was a mess. But it was symbolic. These people did not think as
we do, nor are we able to think as they did. We cannot appreciate the
mindset of those who used this symbolism.
You'd think that a god would put a stop to such practices if they were
nonsense.
They weren't nonsense. They were a way for the people to connect the world
they did see with the world they didn't. The symbolism and ritual was
necessary to give the people a sense of their place in the world. Remember,
they had no idea of physical laws, or even of cause and effect (except in
the most general way).
God did not give them a science text to change their view of the world
around them. They could never have received it. The peoples around them were
steeped in practices that were even more "nonsense" than the ones they
practiced. Some of them practiced infanticide, hoping to induce the gods so
appealed to give fertility to the crops.
God gave them rituals that, while they did not increase their knowledge of
the world around them, yet ameliorated the worst of the practices around
them and allowed them to move in the world without the constant fear of
malevolent "gods" tormenting them even as these gods fought each other.
It was an offering never given until
Christ's day when He healed lepers and sent them to offer the sacrifices
Moses commanded. The sacrifices were a testimony since it would have been
the first time since the law was given that such were offered.
Actually the ritual is detailed in Lev 14, which was written centuries
before Christ allegedly did anything.
True. But when Christ commanded that the lepers he cleansed go and give an
offering for their cleansing as Moses commanded, He was well aware that no
lepers had ever been cleansed in Israel. He pointed that out in another
place.
By sending the now-cleansed lepers to give such an offering, He was sending
a message that a miracle had occurred. This was such a unique offering that
the message was certain to be heard.
Just so you know.
The Bible has several places where its observations of nature are not
exact,
complete, or (by modern standards) reasonable. The stars are not in the
dome
above the earth, and you won't have a third of them falling to the earth.
But we do not need to make up evidence against the Scripture by
misreading
it ourselves.
Do you consider a third of stars falling to be a "misread" or a mistake?
Scientifically, it was an error. Perhaps John saw meteorites striking the
earth, but in any case, there could not have been a third of them that fell
to earth, either. John wrote his impressions of what he saw, guided by his
understanding of cosmology. His cosmology was in error.
So John wasn't inspired by God when he wrote what he wrote, given that
God made no effort to correct the obvious error, correct?
I won't say that. I would say that inspiration did not extend to making the
words scientifically accurate. Again, John wrote what he saw, or at least
his interpretation of it. And if his words reflect an outdated view of the
universe, perhaps we can look beyond that cosmology to the message
transcending it.
The fundamentalist viewpoint of inspiration as "verbal plenary" seems to me
to be out of line with both the declared and implied purposes of the
Scriptures, both individually and collectively. Different Scriptures were
inspired for different purposes.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Raymond E. Griffith
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 09:39:18 PM |
|
|
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article 1dcfmv8p1559bajulkkj2d1iksbiti49u8@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/16/03 9:01 PM:
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrREVERSE@ctc.net> wrote:
From: "John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.talk.creationism,alt.bible,alt.atheism
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III
"Raymond E. Griffith" <tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> wrote:
in article njtcmvc6lbrupg3igt4oimr8tif68curl1@4ax.com, John Hattan at
john@thecodezone.com wrote on 9/15/03 10:38 PM:
That's because the Bible's attempts at science are an utter failure.
It's been known for hundreds of years that pigeon blood has no effect
on
leprosy, so that part of the Bible is ignored.
Pigeon blood was not presented to effect a cure, but offered as a
sacrifice
when a person so afflicted was cured.
Help me out here. The pigeon-ritual requires a person to drain the blood
out of a bird, roll a live bird in the blood, then rub the blood on a
person who was (apparently recently) suffering from leprosy, which is a
disease characterized by large open sores all over the body.
No. Here is from Leviticus 14.
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "These are the regulations for the diseased
person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the
priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the
person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, [1] 4 the priest
shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and
hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed.
The person was healed of his skin disease.
So the person is then presumably covered with scabs and/or scar tissue
from many until-recently open sores. Do you think it's a good idea to
rub bird-rolled blood on it?
No, the person is *not* presumably covered with scabs. He has been healed of
his infectious disease. Scabs were a prominent part of the disease as
described elsewhere.
And no, the blood was not rubbed in it. Please, do show yourself to be
honest here. We criticize the creationists for their reading problems --
don't be like them.
According to the Scriptures quoted below, the blood was sprinkled, not
rubbed.
Oh gimme a break. You're still putting an infectious agent on a person
who until very recently was suffering from a disease that renders one
very susceptible to infection. Is that a wise thing to do?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 08:25:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 09:16:22 +1000, Roy Mock wrote:
I'd
rather see God as He reveals Himself on His own terms from which we may
observe and describe some of those features.
Which makes no real sense...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
16 Sep 2003 07:21:35 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:04:13 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> in news message
<3f653d59$0$6524$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:dok4mvccp2ddv78ded8phto3rkrpdf1q50@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 07:52:26 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> in news message
<3f624135$0$6525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
How should we objectively verify a person, then?
Are you saying that your GodŽ is a person?
Absolutely.
Then, bring him on. This should be a snap for you to produce evidence
for a person.
Moses asked for similar assurance: "'Show me your glory'. And the LORD said
"... you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live ... I will put
you in the cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed
by ... you will see my back but my face must not be seen" Exodus 33:17-23.
So show me his ***** or his burning bush.
The doubting Thomas also wanted an assurance but when confronted with the
risen Christ, said "My Lord and my God." John 20:28.
I'm not quite sure why you included these quotes in your post. Are
you saying that meeting GodŽ face to face, or rump to face as the case
may be, isn't possible today that it is only a story in ancient
manuscripts.? Why do you believe that the quotes represent a reality
if a physical meeting with GodŽ is no longer possible?
That should make it very
easy for you then. You can introduce me and the other members of a.a.
to him personally. We can shake his hand and then he can do GodŽ
things like parting Lake Erie or making the Mississippi River flow
northward for its entire length on command, for example, to prove his
identity. Can you provide that?
Should we establish the ground rules? We normally make ourselves known on
our own terms.
It is very trivial to prove the existence of a person. I have no
"special" rules that must be met in order to show myself to someone
else. No one needs to ~believe in~ me before they can test for my
reality.
It seems these tests are like a frame-of-reference or benchmarks or
presuppositions. That's not how we check each other's reality.
Certainly it is.
We don't normally check each other's reality from our own frame of
reference.
Yes we do, or at least, I do. At this point, I'm not too sure about
you. I see a person. I meet a person. I read a person's usenet
posts. These checks of existence are from my frame of reference.
Meeting someone face to face is primary evidence for
the reality of a person.
Certainly. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
See my question above.
Do you routinely question the existence of
people you have met?
No. I don't know anyone who does.
Exactly. Yet there seems to be a problem in meeting this GodŽ in the
same way that I could meet any existing person.
The miracles that I suggested, of course, would
not apply to any other person except GodŽ since most people don't make
supernatural claims.
No. An observation what God can do with Lake Erie or the Mississippi River,
may not be convincing enough.
So? It would be a start, but your GodŽ can't even produce that. In
fact, your GodŽ can produce absolutely no physical evidence of its
existence. Imagine that.
Even though Moses was a key figure in the
Passover, Red Sea parting, and manna experience, we know he still sought
assurance. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
And he got his assurance. We on the other hand don't even have a
puddle parted.
What if we
came up to you with a series of tests we've come with to satisfy
ourselves
that you exist?
What if you did? As I said, it should be quite easy to determine if I
exist as it is for any person. However, my existence is not in
question, and you still haven't offered any evidence for the existence
for GodŽ. Strange that.
I think we are asking for evidence that fits within our grid and are on our
own terms. So far the established ground rules are; someone who (1) you can
shake hands with
(2) do miracles with bodies of water (3) uses newsgroups. These seem rather
arbitrary.
They were suggestions only of physical evidence. They were neither
limiting or all inclusive. I'd take any physical evidence, but you
can't produce what I've suggested nor any thing else. Leaving the
field open for ANY physical evidence is hardly arbitrary.
I'm sure you would want us to know you on your own terms than anyone
else's.
No, any objective test would do.
See. I said that "any objective test would do". I didn't limit your
scope of evidence in any way.
Moreover, I know you exist because you've somehow revealed yourself by
expressing your thoughts thru this NG.
See, you've already found objective evidence. (I) am making these
posts, therefore (I) exist, whoever that (I) may be. The problem is
that GodŽ doesn't even make usenet posts.
Well, He's already expressed Himself in other ways other than the internet
"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times
and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son."
(Hebrews 1:1-2)
There are several problems with dependence upon old writings. The
first is that you claim that GodŽ exists (present tense) not that he
existed (past tense). I can show you letters from my father, which
are evidence that he existed at one time, but they are no evidence
that he now exists.
The second is that the reports you list above are not first hand
reports. IOW, GodŽ didn't express himself directly either through
writing a letter as my father did or leaving any tangible sign that he
ever existed. We merely have hearsay from people who believed that
GodŽ existed rather like you believe that GodŽ exists. Yet they nor
you have provided anything other than statement of your beliefs.
The third is that their is no corroboration that the scriptures are
not fiction. It is merely the contention of believers that these
writings represent truth.
In fact, there is no
objective evidence at all that, and therein lies the problem for those
who assert that GodŽ exists.
I'm not so sure of that given that it is not for us to establish the frame
of reference.
This world is the only frame of reference that we have.
That He has expressed Himself through the nation of Israel, should be given
consideration as evidence.
You haven't established that GodŽ even exists, let alone has expressed
himself. You are presupposing your conclusion.
They want to use "special" rules when
dealing with GodŽ. I wonder why?
I'm not so sure of that given that a person makes himself known on his own
terms.
That's simply not true. I have no special rules for people to know
that I exist. It is a trivial task. I do not hide my existence from
others. I am neither invisible, incorporeal, nonphysical, ineffable,
nor transcendent. I can, in fact, actually shake your hand. Your
GodŽ seems not capable of doing even this simplest of actions.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Faith is a method designed to keep a person willfully ignorant of the odds
by arbitrarily assigning certainty where certainty is not justified. - Denis Loubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 07:33:51 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:04:13 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
Are you saying that your GodŽ is a person?
Absolutely.
Then, bring him on. This should be a snap for you to produce evidence
for a person.
Moses asked for similar assurance: "'Show me your glory'. And the LORD said
"... you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live ... I will put
you in the cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed
by ... you will see my back but my face must not be seen" Exodus 33:17-23.
The doubting Thomas also wanted an assurance but when confronted with the
risen Christ, said "My Lord and my God." John 20:28.
You were not asked for bible quotes. You were asked for evidence.
That should make it very
easy for you then. You can introduce me and the other members of a.a.
to him personally. We can shake his hand and then he can do GodŽ
things like parting Lake Erie or making the Mississippi River flow
northward for its entire length on command, for example, to prove his
identity. Can you provide that?
Should we establish the ground rules? We normally make ourselves known on
our own terms.
Sounds like a cop-out to me...
It seems these tests are like a frame-of-reference or benchmarks or
presuppositions. That's not how we check each other's reality.
Certainly it is.
We don't normally check each other's reality from our own frame of
reference.
I suppose that would be hard to do when you live in a fish tank.
Meeting someone face to face is primary evidence for
the reality of a person.
Certainly. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
....and please see my comment about bible quotes, which is also above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 04:36:46 PM |
|
|
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jsbbmvgk1tp5bkklu0t6v8e81l9klsu5u5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:04:13 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
You were not asked for bible quotes. You were asked for evidence.
[snip]
Point taken, VB. However, eyewitness accounts and documents are often
tendered as evidence.
Otherwise, I would have thought that the use of the scriptures is quite
proper to the cross-post NGs, (with the exception of alt.atheism perhaps) -
especially given the subject line. Having said that, it seems a bit odd to
critique material without referencing it. E.g. We'd not be interested in a
movie reviewer who does not see the movies he reviews.
If we were to discount the Bible as evidence, what sort of evidence should
we entertain, VB?
Should we establish the ground rules? We normally make ourselves known
on
our own terms.
Sounds like a cop-out to me...
I hope not.
We don't normally check each other's reality from our own frame of
reference.
I suppose that would be hard to do when you live in a fish tank.
I'm not surprised. I'd be the first to say I'm (1) ignorant by naivity as
well as (2) ignorant by choice - not knowing the realities out there beyond
my experience. I seems to me that to ignor God or the scriptures by choice
makes it even harder to see the big picture.
The problem is; if we take our own experiences as guide for reality, then we
fall into relativism because of differing experiences, and does away with
absolutes altogether.
Meeting someone face to face is primary evidence for
the reality of a person.
Certainly. See Exodus 33 quoted above.
...and please see my comment about bible quotes, which is also above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
15 Sep 2003 06:46:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:36:46 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jsbbmvgk1tp5bkklu0t6v8e81l9klsu5u5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:04:13 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
You were not asked for bible quotes. You were asked for evidence.
[snip]
Point taken, VB. However, eyewitness accounts and documents are often
tendered as evidence.
GUMAFB! Thousands of years after the fact, I doubt that you're going
to have much luck in cross-examining these "eyewitnesses."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 04:09:44 PM |
|
|
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:emjcmvoo68r93669bembhrspq6rltm7hon@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:36:46 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
Point taken, VB. However, eyewitness accounts and documents are often
tendered as evidence.
GUMAFB! Thousands of years after the fact, I doubt that you're going
to have much luck in cross-examining these "eyewitnesses."
I take it that historical researchers make take such materials in account.
"Inasmuch many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that
have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses ... it seemed good to me also, having followed all things
closely for some time past, to write and orderly account ...." Luke 1:1-4.
It's probably no different from a detailed piece in Time or Newsweek
magazine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 04:55:51 PM |
|
|
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:emjcmvoo68r93669bembhrspq6rltm7hon@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:36:46 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
Point taken, VB. However, eyewitness accounts and documents are often
tendered as evidence.
GUMAFB! Thousands of years after the fact, I doubt that you're going
to have much luck in cross-examining these "eyewitnesses."
I take it that historical researchers make take such materials in account.
"Inasmuch many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that
have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were
eyewitnesses ... it seemed good to me also, having followed all things
closely for some time past, to write and orderly account ...." Luke 1:1-4.
It's probably no different from a detailed piece in Time or Newsweek
magazine.
Actually, it's quite a bit different from a detailed piece in Time or
Newsweek magazine.
- The narratives in the Gospels were written decades after the fact,
while Time or Newsweek articles are written hours or at worst days after
the fact.
- The authorship of articles in Time and Newsweek is readily available,
while the "author" names attributed to the Gospels were applied long
after by second-century monks.
- The articles written in Time and Newsweek describe non-supernatural
events in an era of science and videotape. The Gospels describe magical
events during a time when a verbal description of a magical event was
enough for it to be accepted as fact.
- Failure to believe in the veracity of an article in Time or Newsweek
will bring about no adverse consequences. Most believers in the Bible
think that failure to believe in the events described in the Gospels
will result in posthumous and eternal torture.
- Time and Newsweek agree completely in the basic facts of the articles
they describe, and if they don't they can run corrections or updates
later. The Gospels contradict each other as to the basic facts of the
resurrection, and they make no attempt to fix the discrepancies.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Mock" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS-Genesis: Creative day III |
17 Sep 2003 07:09:46 PM |
|
|
"John Hattan" <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:s3lhmv0r9mfvmghpahmvrlancburk3kvtm@4ax.com...
"Roy Mock" <roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:emjcmvoo68r93669bembhrspq6rltm7hon@4ax.com...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:36:46 +1000, "Roy Mock"
<roymock1@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[snip]
It's probably no different from a detailed piece in Time or Newsweek
magazine.
Actually, it's quite a bit different from a detailed piece in Time or
Newsweek magazine.
- The narratives in the Gospels were written decades after the fact,
while Time or Newsweek articles are written hours or at worst days after
the fact.
Yes. But a standard history is often years later ofter the events.
Sometimes adjustedwhen new material come to light.
- The authorship of articles in Time and Newsweek is readily available,
while the "author" names attributed to the Gospels were applied long
after by second-century monks.
I take it we can be sure who wrote the magazine articles because of the
immediacy. You are right that the writers to the gospels are attributed.
- The articles written in Time and Newsweek describe non-supernatural
events in an era of science and videotape. The Gospels describe magical
events during a time when a verbal description of a magical event was
enough for it to be accepted as fact.
Yes, I am aware of the tradition of oral history. My guess is that by the
time the gospels were put to parchment some 70 years or so after the
Crucifixion, some of the important events may still be in living memory or
one knew someone who lived through the events.
I've got someone in my family in her 90's who still remembers some pivital
moments in her early life. Recently, I saw a doco on television recently
regards to the rise of Stalin and Hitler in the 30's where some of the
participants in those movements where interviewed.
- Failure to believe in the veracity of an article in Time or Newsweek
will bring about no adverse consequences. Most believers in the Bible
think that failure to believe in the events described in the Gospels
will result in posthumous and eternal torture.
- Time and Newsweek agree completely in the basic facts of the articles
they describe, and if they don't they can run corrections or updates
later. The Gospels contradict each other as to the basic facts of the
resurrection, and they make no attempt to fix the discrepancies.
I'm sure if we scratch a number of people we may get differing details of an
event. I used to know a screenplay writer who saw that the Gospels could
not be crafted as fiction. And I know a group of AAA grade journalists who
are convinced that the Gospel accounts have that ring of truth.
I sorta think that differences in details may sometimes give credence to an
event otherwise there may be a possibility of collusion.
Having said that; if the oral tradition or writings persisted within living
memory, I would imagine there would be many who would challenge any false
details. I am not aware of any documented objections from the apostolic
period except that Judaism regard Jesus as a miracle worker, and Islam
regard Him as a prophet.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
