Logic dictates that there is a God!

[2dimes]

2dimes what the hell are you waffling on about?

Waffles? Strawberries in syrop or blue berries or saskatoon berries or mixed berries, with whipped cream please.

I think what the can thing is pointing out is that carbon dating might estamate the age of the material use to make the object instead of the object. Also carbon dating anything older than provable recorded aged objects assumes the decay of the carbon is linear as well as not effected by the objects storage inviroment.

[got tonkaed]

2 dimes....i feel like we are more in line on the issue of the bible than i suppose i would have previously assumed. Certainly the bible is written by a collection of authors, and upon further examination, probably more than most people would typically think as it somewhat unlikely that paul wrote nearly as much of the NT as is attributed to him.

I suppose some minor things to go on still, however they are a bit more tangential if you dont believe in an inerrant bible: i think we would have to agree to disagree about social context to an extent. As much as i heavily weigh importance on social context due to my background in sociology, i struggle reconciling the incredible difference between them and a notion of an omnipresent god. For me this is one of the biggest arguments against a God that created and resides over us and the biggest argument for social forces affecting our understanding of divine.

The fact that peoples social setting can allow them to be inclined toward hoping there is a god looking over them tells me more about social settings and dissatisfaction when one looks at history rather than telling us anything of an actual Creator God imo.

[2dimes]

I don't have a problem believing that Paul wrote all that is credited to him. It all has a pretty consistant vibe. But if he didn't I can't personally say "Oh noes it ruins everything".

By Omnipresent God are you reffering to the old testament suggestion that the priests had a near physical audience with God, or something else?

[WL_southerner]

that guy and the burning bush he probley was stoned
the more i think about it the more surer i am

[2dimes]

that guy and the burning bush he probley was stoned
the more i think about it the more surer i am

Interesting theses, especially because it fails to mention what kind of bush it was.

[got tonkaed]

though im probably misusing words, cause i fumble them from time to time, im taking omnipresent as a God who is always there sort of the alpha and omega type of thought. If God is always there one would expect their to be general consistencies in how he is percieved, which to some degree there are, but i ultimatley feel this is due to greater anthropolgical and sociological consistencies than an omnipresent God.

[WL_southerner]

thats true there a few bushes that can burn with out damage
but i more thinking almo fire cause though a mould that you get on rye and barley bread common name lsd

[2dimes]

though im probably misusing words, cause i fumble them from time to time, im taking omnipresent as a God who is always there sort of the alpha and omega type of thought. If God is always there one would expect their to be general consistencies in how he is percieved, which to some degree there are, but i ultimatley feel this is due to greater anthropolgical and sociological consistencies than an omnipresent God.

I think I'm following allong here.

There's certain consistencies through out all the seperate concepts of God I'm farmiliar with. But I consider most of the seperate groupings of people through history fairly different. So is it somewhat a case of "People are people."?

[Chad22342]

i gotta say im still thinking aliens

[got tonkaed]

Essentially the argument that social thinkers that i tend to agree with put forward is that, humanity has certainly social conditions that are related to a variety of factors (economically based if you follow the Marx line), that cause people to be oppressed. Since we all want to believe theres something more than this world in our times of distress, there is a subconcious effort to create some sense of assurance that there is some greater power over us who is going to right things by the end of things.

What this mind set leads to, is groups and individuals taking the things that it considers the highest of moral quality and attaches them to a divine creation, hence making the human divine. However, this process becomes codified in the form of religion, through much of history for a variety of different reasons, but mostly because we just didnt understand how the world works like we do now, although this varied from setting to setting.

Its important to point out of course that not all religions hold up the same things as the highest value, and as a result create somewhat different images of God. here some of the thinkers who id be inclined to follow would argue that this is because the material conditions are different from area to area, but the desire to alleviate oppression is the same. Therefore the consistency is more often than not a reflection of a consistent suffering and desire to alleviate it by humanity, which gets most often reflected in a religious sphere, since traditionally it is the arena where humanity goes to rediscover the truths that it has upheld as the ideal.

[2dimes]

Right now we have a rise in worship of material possesions, no?

We have a period of time when a majority of the population is being somewhat oppressed by corperations. But I'm fairly happy if I can have a beverage with friends and play computer games of some type, even better when I can do it on a cool looking phone that impresses the opposite gender, sitting in my car with 21" spinners.

Not that I'm totally against this sort of thing myself, I would like an airplane and $7billion.

I also think most if not all religions are at some level used to make their followers the oppresors.

[got tonkaed]

Im actually writing a paper for one of my undergrad soc writing classes on the relationship between globalization and religious fundamentalism. It will probably end up being trash but part of the argument is essentially that the globalization that occurs will cause some of the traditional integraters of culture to change or die essentially in the face of the quick paced social structure that occurs as a result of globalization. In the face of such a face paced world, religious structures along side some other things in society are forced to change and dont have as much authority as they normally have in less fluid social settings. In order to combat this, in the face of demand side religious economics, fundamentalism becomes a very viable alternative for people who are nervous because of aspects of globalization and cant understand a world were 10 percent of the world can have 90 percent of the income.

[2dimes]

Hasn't it all ways been 90% of the wealth is held by a small percent of the people, I think it's less than 10%.

I suppose it might be more noticable with a single currency, I actually think it might seem less noticable though.

[got tonkaed]

really as capitalism has become more frozen and reach the high capitalism state, the majority of wealth has been in a small portion of the global population.

Really the distressing thing should be the fact that the divide continues to grow despite the fact that the globalized system should in theory be more open than any system that preceded it.

[2dimes]

Yeah but how am I supposed to set up shop in rural China to take advantage of the global economy if I can't make my car payments? The guy with some start up shekels is going to be way ahead.

Heh heh, highjack succesfull.

[unriggable]

Religion is somewhat tied to where the money goes - religion satisfies the ego, and so we use the religion as a reason to take. Since everybody has that excuse, only the strong are able to get what they want. And they keep getting it...

Science =/= faith.

[got tonkaed]

lol true story pretty decent hijack outta nowhere

really though you wont need too many shekles if you arent worried about the capital controls that china caused that absurd sell off that we are going through as a result yesterday.

[2dimes]

Since everybody has that excuse, only the strong are able to get what they want. And they keep getting it...

Science =/= faith.

pffft the strong work for the rich.

And I'll need to study that last paragraph there totonka.

[AAFitz]

that guy and the burning bush he probley was stoned
the more i think about it the more surer i am

more importantly hes the only one who saw it...further...he was up there plenty of time to carve out the tablets himself

now if there were 100 people sitting around...and a bush exploded and tablets appeared...that would be a believable story....but for one man to climb of a mountain after how ever many days, tell everyone he heard god speak and that he gave him the commandments...seems a little suspicious to say the least

Moses was obviously a great man, with great insights. He knew that his people needed some guidelines to follow so he risked his reputation and delivered them to his people for the good of the people.

Can I prove this? no, of course not...but its at least as easy to believe as his story. And you cant knock the guy for doing it...He helped many of his people, and made the world a better place....the fact that he had to be a little creative to do it is irrelevant

and of course his story is still possible....theres no way to know...but the only one who ever knew for sure was him in the entire world....Jay wont believe the concensus of hundreds or thousands of top scientists..but has no problem believing Moses's somewhat suspicious story

[Guiscard]

more importantly hes the only one who saw it...further...he was up there plenty of time to carve out the tablets himself

now if there were 100 people sitting around...and a bush exploded and tablets appeared...that would be a believable story....but for one man to climb of a mountain after how ever many days, tell everyone he heard god speak and that he gave him the commandments...seems a little suspicious to say the least

Moses was obviously a great man, with great insights. He knew that his people needed some guidelines to follow so he risked his reputation and delivered them to his people for the good of the people.

Can I prove this? no, of course not...but its at least as easy to believe as his story. And you cant knock the guy for doing it...He helped many of his people, and made the world a better place....the fact that he had to be a little creative to do it is irrelevant

and of course his story is still possible....theres no way to know...but the only one who ever knew for sure was him in the entire world....Jay wont believe the concensus of hundreds or thousands of top scientists..but has no problem believing Moses's somewhat suspicious story

To be honest I don't think you have to disprove Moses, the burning bush and the tablets any more than you have to disprove the miraculous events of the religions worshipped by other tribes at the time. A certain amount of mythology always surrounds the early stages of any religion - it sort of gets added later my followers as traditions get exaggerated, or adopted from older religions.

Early (pre-mosaic) Hebrew religion was polytheistic, with Abraham worshipping 'Elohim' (plural) rather than 'El' (single), and began as an animistic religion which eventually evolved into an anthropomorphic one, with God given human qualities such as anger... Remember that at this time 'Elohim' was still very much a tribal God, and there were other Gods worshopped by the Hebrews. It was during the exodus that the Hebrews 'became' the israelites and adopted the 'Yahweh' God on the slopes of mount Sinai. This was probably the God (or one of several) of the Midians, in whose territory the mountain was located and with whom Moses had spent some 40 years (although Christian scholars tend to disregard this). An Egyptian inscription refers to "Yhw in the land of the Shasu" as a tribe or people living in what would later become Midianite territory...

There are enough holes in the biblical account of the beginnings of the Yahweh religion anyway, without having to prove burning bushes and suchlike.

[jay_a2j]

You said that the translation in the Bible was incorrect. So ... is it correct or isn't it?

When?

[Aradhus]

Ask any expert Bible Scholar, including the cloth heads who believe that the Bible is the word of god, if there are any errors or contradictions in the bible and they will all unequivocally reply with a "yes".

Jay is just a twat.

Go look up Genesis. First book in the bible. There are two origin stories, the second one contradicts the first.

[jay_a2j]

Ask any expert Bible Scholar, including the cloth heads who believe that the Bible is the word of god, if there are any errors or contradictions in the bible and they will all unequivocally reply with a "yes".

Jay is just a twat.

Go look up Genesis. First book in the bible. There are two origin stories, the second one contradicts the first.

No they won't say yes.


Really? Please be more specific.

[MR. Nate]

Ask any expert Bible Scholar, including the cloth heads who believe that the Bible is the word of god, if there are any errors or contradictions in the bible and they will all unequivocally reply with a "yes".

Or your could look up the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and realize a lot of "cloth heads" don't beleive there are errors or contradictions in the Bible.

[AlgyTaylor]

You said that the translation in the Bible was incorrect. So ... is it correct or isn't it?

When?

(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

This is most definitely an error. "Tempted" shows there to be a contradiction within the Bible.

As you correctly pointed out, "Tested" removes this contradiction. However, that implies that parts of the Bible are not translated properly, ie contain errors!

So therefore, there's either an error in the Bible or it contradicts itself - which then infers that there is an error anyway!



Which ever way you try to argue it, Jay, there IS an error in the Bible - either through translation or through the original scriptures. I would go on to suggest that if God isn't that bothered about enforcing the translation of 'his word' from Hebrew (or whatever the original Bible was written in - I assume it's Hebrew) to English, then he probably would be equally as nonchalent about the translation from his word when written down in the first place!

Or more to the point ... during the miriad of copies made by scholars in the years prior to the KJV being first published. Surely you have to admit that those scholars (monks) have a vested interest in making God seem as powerful as possible, even if they didn't abuse their position.