It's time to update the Bible

[Weatherman2020]

God's word doesn't evolve, moron

Don't be a dick. Of course it does. God Himself changes and evolves right in His Word. In Genesis God is hanging out with talking snakes, turning women into salt, incinerating entire cities, and commanding the Jews to slaughter children. By the end of the Old Testament, God is safely ensconced in Heaven and desires mercy, not vengeance.

It is hard to fathom the enormous damage fundamentalists have done with their insistence that, while mankind has made breathtaking progress in Science and Art, in Religion--the most important and complex way in which humans express rationality--we locked into the final and permanent understanding 2000 some years ago and that was that because "it is written".

It is hard to fathom the enormous damage fundamentalists have done with their insistence that, while mankind has made breathtaking progress in Science and Art, in Religion--the most important and complex way in which humans express rationality--we locked into the final and permanent understanding 2000 some years ago and that was that because "it is written".

I was hoping in all that someone could finally inform us to the downside of Christianity and Judaism. Oh well.

 

[keepitreal]

I can not wait to get off from work ^

Wow, you have time to post on a message forum at work, seems to me you are stealing from your employer.

Um, ever heard of lunch

 

[Brynmr]

You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number.

I don't think there's another possibility other than the 2 choices presented. If you can think of another choice I'd like to hear it.

Our existence could be explained by the circularity of time acting from a central ubiquity.

Think of it this way. Imagine you are a smart, intellectually curious person living in the 16th Century and for the the second time in your life you witness the ravages of an influenza epidemic. You gather information from far and wide and notice that both epidemics seemed to explode one day, gallop across the continent, then just as quickly disappear. Now, since neither you nor anyone else on the planet has ever considered the idea of germs, explaining this is tough. But something has to be causing it, though, and you notice that both epidemics occurred in the winter, and some research indicates historically that that's when they occur, and because the epidemics cover such wide distances so quickly you deduce they must come from someplace high up, or whatever (this is off the top of my head), and you determine that it must be true that warmth from the sun passing through ice in the atmosphere unlocks poisonous vapors that settle on the populations below, triggering influenza.

And say your theory was the only one anyone in the world had ever been able to come up with.

One day, you are arguing with your neighbor about the cause of flu epidemics and you say either my theory is correct or epidemics are caused by demons. Which do you believe. And your neighbor says, well define demons. And you say, no, those are your two choices. Knowing what we know now about germ theory, what is the most correct position your neighbor can take?

So you can't come up with another choice. Ok.

 

[cnelsen]

Dude, it is too early to do metaphysical battle with a sentence fielding three generations of subordinate reflexive clauses! I'll start with the grandson: on what do you base your assumption space and time were "created"? Aren't you just falling into the ol' anthropomorphism trap?

No. Let's start with you only have two choices; beings that know and create were created through a creative act of God or they arose through natural processes. Which one do you believe?

What do you mean when you say "God"? If you take the word to mean something like "Father in Heaven, Supreme Creator", then you are asking me whether I believe Our Creator created us. That is why I asked you to say what you mean by the word "God".

Dodge all you want the question remains. There are only two choices. Which is it?

Please. Who's dodging? You claim my logic is flawed, but won't say how. You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number. On top of that, you specify what the two possible answers can be. But that still isn't enough. Between the two answers (to the biggest question there is) you've limited me to, when I ask you to define the terms, you refuse to do even that.

And I'm the one ducking the question? More likely you are ducking the answer.

You don't trust your own position enough to truly engage in an open and mutual search for understanding. Because of the primitive state of our religious understanding, the tactic probably mirrors your own internal thought process. Potentially very dangerous.

We need a religious revolution like we had a scientific revolution--shift the foundations, as it were. Here's one possible shift: perhaps the question of universal existence isn't a religious question at all.

Then it's settled. You don't believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes. You believe in a creative act of God. Gotcha.

This isn't a contest, I hope. I woulda dusted off my old copy of Origin of Species. But I believe I managed to escape your clutches nevertheless. Your question, whether I believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes or whether I believe in a creative act of God isn't a substantive question. Even though you won't say what you mean when you say the word "God" (a puzzler worthy of some self-reflection, maybe?), you apparently mean it to include something along the lines of "not nature". Your question amounts to: Do you believe knowing and creating beings are from God or or from not God. We haven't learned anything.

 

[cnelsen]

You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number.

I don't think there's another possibility other than the 2 choices presented. If you can think of another choice I'd like to hear it.

Our existence could be explained by the circularity of time acting from a central ubiquity.

Think of it this way. Imagine you are a smart, intellectually curious person living in the 16th Century and for the the second time in your life you witness the ravages of an influenza epidemic. You gather information from far and wide and notice that both epidemics seemed to explode one day, gallop across the continent, then just as quickly disappear. Now, since neither you nor anyone else on the planet has ever considered the idea of germs, explaining this is tough. But something has to be causing it, though, and you notice that both epidemics occurred in the winter, and some research indicates historically that that's when they occur, and because the epidemics cover such wide distances so quickly you deduce they must come from someplace high up, or whatever (this is off the top of my head), and you determine that it must be true that warmth from the sun passing through ice in the atmosphere unlocks poisonous vapors that settle on the populations below, triggering influenza.

And say your theory was the only one anyone in the world had ever been able to come up with.

One day, you are arguing with your neighbor about the cause of flu epidemics and you say either my theory is correct or epidemics are caused by demons. Which do you believe. And your neighbor says, well define demons. And you say, no, those are your two choices. Knowing what we know now about germ theory, what is the most correct position your neighbor can take?

So you can't come up with another choice. Ok.

Doesn't prove there aren't other choices, choices better than God or not God (however God is defined).

 

[cnelsen]

God's word doesn't evolve, moron

Don't be a dick. Of course it does. God Himself changes and evolves right in His Word. In Genesis God is hanging out with talking snakes, turning women into salt, incinerating entire cities, and commanding the Jews to slaughter children. By the end of the Old Testament, God is safely ensconced in Heaven and desires mercy, not vengeance.

It is hard to fathom the enormous damage fundamentalists have done with their insistence that, while mankind has made breathtaking progress in Science and Art, in Religion--the most important and complex way in which humans express rationality--we locked into the final and permanent understanding 2000 some years ago and that was that because "it is written".

It is hard to fathom the enormous damage fundamentalists have done with their insistence that, while mankind has made breathtaking progress in Science and Art, in Religion--the most important and complex way in which humans express rationality--we locked into the final and permanent understanding 2000 some years ago and that was that because "it is written".

I was hoping in all that someone could finally inform us to the downside of Christianity and Judaism. Oh well.

Well, they both have to sit out Ramadan.

 

[ding]

No. Let's start with you only have two choices; beings that know and create were created through a creative act of God or they arose through natural processes. Which one do you believe?

What do you mean when you say "God"? If you take the word to mean something like "Father in Heaven, Supreme Creator", then you are asking me whether I believe Our Creator created us. That is why I asked you to say what you mean by the word "God".

Dodge all you want the question remains. There are only two choices. Which is it?

Please. Who's dodging? You claim my logic is flawed, but won't say how. You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number. On top of that, you specify what the two possible answers can be. But that still isn't enough. Between the two answers (to the biggest question there is) you've limited me to, when I ask you to define the terms, you refuse to do even that.

And I'm the one ducking the question? More likely you are ducking the answer.

You don't trust your own position enough to truly engage in an open and mutual search for understanding. Because of the primitive state of our religious understanding, the tactic probably mirrors your own internal thought process. Potentially very dangerous.

We need a religious revolution like we had a scientific revolution--shift the foundations, as it were. Here's one possible shift: perhaps the question of universal existence isn't a religious question at all.

Then it's settled. You don't believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes. You believe in a creative act of God. Gotcha.

This isn't a contest, I hope. I woulda dusted off my old copy of Origin of Species. But I believe I managed to escape your clutches nevertheless. Your question, whether I believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes or whether I believe in a creative act of God isn't a substantive question. Even though you won't say what you mean when you say the word "God" (a puzzler worthy of some self-reflection, maybe?), you apparently mean it to include something along the lines of "not nature". Your question amounts to: Do you believe knowing and creating beings are from God or or from not God. We haven't learned anything.

Of course it was a substantive question. Your answer would prove how stupid your belief that the laws of nature didn't predestin beings that know and create. We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will arise given enough time and the right conditions.

 

[ding]

No. Let's start with you only have two choices; beings that know and create were created through a creative act of God or they arose through natural processes. Which one do you believe?

What do you mean when you say "God"? If you take the word to mean something like "Father in Heaven, Supreme Creator", then you are asking me whether I believe Our Creator created us. That is why I asked you to say what you mean by the word "God".

Dodge all you want the question remains. There are only two choices. Which is it?

Please. Who's dodging? You claim my logic is flawed, but won't say how. You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number. On top of that, you specify what the two possible answers can be. But that still isn't enough. Between the two answers (to the biggest question there is) you've limited me to, when I ask you to define the terms, you refuse to do even that.

And I'm the one ducking the question? More likely you are ducking the answer.

You don't trust your own position enough to truly engage in an open and mutual search for understanding. Because of the primitive state of our religious understanding, the tactic probably mirrors your own internal thought process. Potentially very dangerous.

We need a religious revolution like we had a scientific revolution--shift the foundations, as it were. Here's one possible shift: perhaps the question of universal existence isn't a religious question at all.

Then it's settled. You don't believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes. You believe in a creative act of God. Gotcha.

This isn't a contest, I hope. I woulda dusted off my old copy of Origin of Species. But I believe I managed to escape your clutches nevertheless. Your question, whether I believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes or whether I believe in a creative act of God isn't a substantive question. Even though you won't say what you mean when you say the word "God" (a puzzler worthy of some self-reflection, maybe?), you apparently mean it to include something along the lines of "not nature". Your question amounts to: Do you believe knowing and creating beings are from God or or from not God. We haven't learned anything.

If you didn't believe this was a contest you would have answered the question.

 

[jon_berzerk]

 

[cnelsen]

What do you mean when you say "God"? If you take the word to mean something like "Father in Heaven, Supreme Creator", then you are asking me whether I believe Our Creator created us. That is why I asked you to say what you mean by the word "God".

Dodge all you want the question remains. There are only two choices. Which is it?

Please. Who's dodging? You claim my logic is flawed, but won't say how. You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number. On top of that, you specify what the two possible answers can be. But that still isn't enough. Between the two answers (to the biggest question there is) you've limited me to, when I ask you to define the terms, you refuse to do even that.

And I'm the one ducking the question? More likely you are ducking the answer.

You don't trust your own position enough to truly engage in an open and mutual search for understanding. Because of the primitive state of our religious understanding, the tactic probably mirrors your own internal thought process. Potentially very dangerous.

We need a religious revolution like we had a scientific revolution--shift the foundations, as it were. Here's one possible shift: perhaps the question of universal existence isn't a religious question at all.

Then it's settled. You don't believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes. You believe in a creative act of God. Gotcha.

This isn't a contest, I hope. I woulda dusted off my old copy of Origin of Species. But I believe I managed to escape your clutches nevertheless. Your question, whether I believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes or whether I believe in a creative act of God isn't a substantive question. Even though you won't say what you mean when you say the word "God" (a puzzler worthy of some self-reflection, maybe?), you apparently mean it to include something along the lines of "not nature". Your question amounts to: Do you believe knowing and creating beings are from God or or from not God. We haven't learned anything.

If you didn't believe this was a contest you would have answered the question.

 

[cnelsen]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. I take that back. Arguing with a fundamentalist is destined to be fruitless--for both parties.

 

[ding]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. I take that back. Arguing with a fundamentalist is destined to be fruitless--for both parties.

I'm not a fundamentalist. You are choking on one word, "predestined." The reality is that the potential for beings that know and create existed through the laws of nature when space and time came into existence. That is fact. Given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create arose through natural processes controlled by the laws of nature, thus the universe became a self referential system. These are facts. Your only other option to explain our existence is a special act of God. So which one do you believe happened?

[1506.04952] The ultimate tactics of self-referential systems

 

[cnelsen]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. Btw, is God in Nature?

 

[ding]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. Btw, is God in Nature?

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

 

[BreezeWood]

What do you mean when you say "God"? If you take the word to mean something like "Father in Heaven, Supreme Creator", then you are asking me whether I believe Our Creator created us. That is why I asked you to say what you mean by the word "God".

Dodge all you want the question remains. There are only two choices. Which is it?

Please. Who's dodging? You claim my logic is flawed, but won't say how. You pose a question and then limit the possible answers to two without saying why that number. On top of that, you specify what the two possible answers can be. But that still isn't enough. Between the two answers (to the biggest question there is) you've limited me to, when I ask you to define the terms, you refuse to do even that.

And I'm the one ducking the question? More likely you are ducking the answer.

You don't trust your own position enough to truly engage in an open and mutual search for understanding. Because of the primitive state of our religious understanding, the tactic probably mirrors your own internal thought process. Potentially very dangerous.

We need a religious revolution like we had a scientific revolution--shift the foundations, as it were. Here's one possible shift: perhaps the question of universal existence isn't a religious question at all.

Then it's settled. You don't believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes. You believe in a creative act of God. Gotcha.

This isn't a contest, I hope. I woulda dusted off my old copy of Origin of Species. But I believe I managed to escape your clutches nevertheless. Your question, whether I believe beings that know and create arose through natural processes or whether I believe in a creative act of God isn't a substantive question. Even though you won't say what you mean when you say the word "God" (a puzzler worthy of some self-reflection, maybe?), you apparently mean it to include something along the lines of "not nature". Your question amounts to: Do you believe knowing and creating beings are from God or or from not God. We haven't learned anything.

Of course it was a substantive question. Your answer would prove how stupid your belief that the laws of nature didn't predestin beings that know and create. We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will arise given enough time and the right conditions.

.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that beings that know and create will arise given enough time and the right conditions.

no time required, the laws of nature are the right conditions ... all beings know and create.

.
.

 

[cnelsen]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. Btw, is God in Nature?

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

That's the classic error of pre-modern thinking, the teleological view of the world. It's the Aristotelian view that shackled western science for two millennia until Francis Bacon pointed out science doesn't concern itself with motive. A dog doesn't grow legs for the purpose of walking any more than rain falls because it wants to make the crops grow. Rain is a function of evaporation and condensation and gravity; we can make predictions about rain by observing those phenomena, not by ascertaining a rain cloud's desire to help farmers.

The primitive mind wants to see purposes and destinies. To the primitive, if there is a time of drought, it's because the tribe didn't throw enough virgins in the volcano and the rain god wants to punish it. Or, because the farmer didn't tithe enough at church, and God is punishing him. We see this frequently after a hurricane, some fundy preacher somewhere will claim God was pissed at the area's homos so He sent the hurricane as punishment.

We need a Sir Francis Bacon of religion to help guys like you modernize your religious views. Just like primitive scientists were hobbled by approaching the physical world from the position that a dog grows legs so it can walk, religious primitives approach the question of God from the position of what the purpose of a God would be.

Well, obviously, He should be the Creator of the universe, because how we got here is a big huge question we'd like answered.
​

But, you don't seem like an honest debater interested in wrestling with the eternal questions to gain real understanding. It's like you are just trying to score points so that "your side" can win, and I'm not interested in that.

 

[Brynmr]

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

I'd say everything happens as a result. Btw the Christian God would be outside cause and effect. That's problematic.

 

[ding]

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

I'd say everything happens as a result. Btw the Christian God would be outside cause and effect. That's problematic.

Not for me it isn't.

 

[ding]

Destiny is neither cause-and-effect, nor random chance. Nothing is "destined" in nature. Btw, is God in Nature?

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

That's the classic error of pre-modern thinking, the teleological view of the world. It's the Aristotelian view that shackled western science for two millennia until Francis Bacon pointed out science doesn't concern itself with motive. A dog doesn't grow legs for the purpose of walking any more than rain falls because it wants to make the crops grow. Rain is a function of evaporation and condensation and gravity; we can make predictions about rain by observing those phenomena, not by ascertaining a rain cloud's desire to help farmers.

The primitive mind wants to see purposes and destinies. To the primitive, if there is a time of drought, it's because the tribe didn't throw enough virgins in the volcano and the rain god wants to punish it. Or, because the farmer didn't tithe enough at church, and God is punishing him. We see this frequently after a hurricane, some fundy preacher somewhere will claim God was pissed at the area's homos so He sent the hurricane as punishment.

We need a Sir Francis Bacon of religion to help guys like you modernize your religious views. Just like primitive scientists were hobbled by approaching the physical world from the position that a dog grows legs so it can walk, religious primitives approach the question of God from the position of what the purpose of a God would be.

Well, obviously, He should be the Creator of the universe, because how we got here is a big huge question we'd like answered.
​

But, you don't seem like an honest debater interested in wrestling with the eternal questions to gain real understanding. It's like you are just trying to score points so that "your side" can win, and I'm not interested in that.

I don't see it like that and that's not even close to what I am discussing. I don't live in pre-modern times and I am not constrained by what you have read in a book. Everything is connected through cause and effect. There are equal and opposite reactions. Cycles do exist. Consciousness is evolving just as all the other phases of the evolution of matter has evolved before it. Just because you are any of the books you have read don't see it or understand it does not mean it isn't happening or doesn't exist. The reality of the situation is that the natural physical laws and natural moral laws do exist. I am more than happy for you to be oblivious to your normalization of deviance.

 

[Brynmr]

Everything is cause and effect. There has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything happens for a purpose.

I'd say everything happens as a result. Btw the Christian God would be outside cause and effect. That's problematic.

Not for me it isn't.

It is if your claiming everything is cause and effect.