Zone1 YHWH(Jehovah)

[ding]

I didn't ask you.

I know and I don't care. What are you going to do about it?

 

[ding]

How is what I didn't accept, as "evidence" for the existence of the biblical God and the Bible being divinely inspired, actually prove your claim?

When you replied, "None of that is evidence." There is no evidence you will accept for the existence of God.

 

[ding]

You're ding donkey brain is unable to think rationally.

I disagree. This is quite rational.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

What you intend for evil, God is using for good.

 

[ding]

False, there is evidence that I would accept, but the ding-donkey hasn't presented it yet.

Prove it. Tell me what evidence you would accept.

 

[ding]

Another fail for ding donkey, trying to prove the existence of a personal deity, particularly the biblical one.

Actually I was proving that I am rational by explaining my rational.

There is no evidence that you will accept for the existence of God. That is irrational. Clearly you don't understand what evidence means. You seem to be confusing evidence with proof.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't have to prove that there is an error in the bible, it's you who is asserting that the bible was written by human authors who were inspired, and guided, by supposedly the almighty God (i.e. the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity), who created this universe. What evidence do you have for that claim? Why isn't it the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Dhamapada or the Avesta, or the Book of Mormon? All of those holy books are considered divinely inspired by the adherents of those other religions, why is the Christian holy book the inspired word of God and not these other books? How would you even know if a book is divinely inspired?

You're essentiallly an atheist when it comes to Allah, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, Wahe Guru...etc, all of these other deities from other religions. Why are you so rational when it comes to rejecting these other religions and their truth-claims but so illogical when it comes to scrutinizing Christianity?

Would you like to tell me where I said the other books are not inspired?

Is this your way of saying you don't believe the Bible is inspired? Your assessment is fine with me.

I believe in one God, and that down through the ages, cultures, and perspectives, He has been known by many names and many perceptions. Again...do you have a point?

 

[ding]

I would take the time to tell you if you weren't ding-donkey. I don't spend too much time and effort discussing serious matters with donkey-dings.

No. That is incorrect. You can't say what evidence you would accept because there is no evidence you will accept for the existence of God. None,nada, zip.

So you are lying when you say there is evidence you would accept.

 

[Meriweather]

None of that is evidence for the existence of the Christian deity or the Bible being the word of God.

You.will.not.find.evidence. Why waste your time?

 

[Meriweather]

Oh OK, you're an eclectic mystic, a liberal Catholic/new agey, Vatican 2 hippie type. I don't even waste my time debating Liberals. It's no fun. I like debating bible-thumping fundamentalists, Christian triumphalists, who make absurd claims about biblical inerrancy and that Christianity is the only way to God..etc. Fire and brimstone Christians, Those types of nutters, not you. You're actually a closet-atheist or agnostic, maybe at best, maybe, a pantheist.

I am Catholic, but the rest of your conclusions...well, as they say, a conclusion is the point someone stops thinking--which is very evident in the above post. (By the way, I just don't believe, have faith God exists--I know He does, so being any kind of atheist at all is out for me.)

If you ever want to stop playing cat and mouse with fundamentalists and Bible literalists to have a serious discussion about faith and the Bible, I'm your Huckleberry.

 

[alang1216]

I'm claiming that you have not made the linkage to capitalism subordinates religion.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

 

[alang1216]

That these are the sources for socialism has always sought to subordinate religion.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

 

[ding]

ding donkey, ding ding donkey. Donkey ding ding.

 

[alang1216]

You dismissed a book you never read.

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. This same principle has been repeatedly proclaimed in socialist doctrines, beginning with the end of the seventeenth century. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century doctrines are imbued with cold skeptical and ironic attitudes toward religion. If not consciously, then "objectively," they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century and during the course of the eighteenth. The heretical movements of the Middle Ages were religious in character, but those in which socialist tendencies were especially pronounced were the ones that were irrevocably opposed to the actual religion professed by the majority at the time. Calls to assassinate the Pope and to annihilate all monks and priests run like a red thread through the history of these movements. Their hatred for the basic symbols of Christianity--the cross and the church--is very striking. We encounter the burning of crosses and the profanation of churches from the first centuries of Christianity right up to the present day..."

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

 

[ding]

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

I'm pretty sure you prove my point for me too.

 

[ding]

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

This response proves my point.

 

[ding]

So your link is someone's opinion? Someone who isn't even an authority:
Igor Rostislavovich Shafarevich was a Soviet and Russian mathematician who contributed to algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Outside mathematics, he wrote books and articles that criticised socialism and other books which were described as anti-semitic. Wikipedia

Really no better than no link at all.

And this response proves my point.

 

[BS Filter]

Would you like to tell me where I said the other books are not inspired?

Is this your way of saying you don't believe the Bible is inspired? Your assessment is fine with me.

I believe in one God, and that down through the ages, cultures, and perspectives, He has been known by many names and many perceptions. Again...do you have a point?

Don't bother, it's a troll.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't bother, it's a troll.

True, and he is not trolling for me. He wants fundamentalists and literalists for his silly games.

 

[ding]

I respect Christians like yourself, who base their beliefs or "knowing" that God exists, on faith or experience. They're not appealing to reason or some academic, intellectual argument, but to faith, experience, perhaps even witnessing a miracle or being able to actually perform miracles. These are the Christians that actually have faith and something to offer. The bible-thumping fundamentalists, Evangelicals, are constantly appealing, relying on, "rational arguments", and "scientific arguments" for the God of the Bible. They assert that the Bible is without error or any contradictions at all. Malarky.

I ask you where you got your fruit trees because as your neighbor, I want fruit trees too. I see you in the morning, picking fruits from your trees and I want to do that too. So I ask you "where did you get those fruit trees from, did they come with the property?", and you're like "no, I bought them at the plant nursery. Here, let me write you the address". So you hand me a little piece of paper with the written address and later that day I go to the address.

It's not a plant nursery, it's an empty lot with a "for sale" sign. I then look around and a block away I see a big sign that says "WE SELL FRUIT TREES". Well how about that. I walk a block to where the sign is and there is the plant nursery. In front of the plant nursery, there's a barbecue grill called the "Horse Saddle". In your written address, you told me there was a store that sells horse saddles. It's not a store that sells horse saddles, it's a barbecue grill called the Horse Saddle. The written address you gave me had some flaws, it wasn't absolutely perfect, but it still got me to the plant nursery and I now have fruit trees in my backyard, bearing fruit.

You could've given me a perfectly written address, to a store that sells plastic plants and trees for offices and churches. I would've had a perfectly written, inerrant, address but a bunch of dead, plastic trees.

When I told my pastor this analogy or parable, he told me that if I believe that the Bible is like that imperfectly written address, I'm not a Christian. I'm lost, because THE BIBLE IS PERFECT BUBBA. PERFECT.

The Bible can be sufficient, good enough to guide one to paradise, and it doesn't have to be perfect. It can contain errors, even a few inconsistencies, "contradictions" and still guide us into a pattern of thinking and behavior that is conducive for salvation and experiencing the presence of God. But these Evangelicals just don't get it and they keep appealing to "SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS", RATIONAL ARGUMENTS.

Perhaps spiritual truth is supra-rational. It's beyond reason. It can even be "nonsensical", "ridiculous" and still be true. It's the ego that demands empirical, scientific evidence because people want to be able to "prove" their faith with measurable, quantifiable, scientific arguments. There is no rational, scientific evidence that proves Christian dogma, and those who insist otherwise are humiliating and disempowering themselves because this is about faith/experience, a supernatural knowing. A knowledge that doesn't rely on human reasoning, the grey matter in your skull.

Here's a better analogy for YOU. Your neighbor owns a cow. You complain to the local communist authority. He says, "do you want a cow too?" You say, "no, I want you to take my neighbor's cow away from him."

That's you in a nutshell.

 

[Meriweather]

So you hand me a little piece of paper with the written address and later that day I go to the address.

It's not a plant nursery, it's an empty lot with a "for sale" sign. I then look around and a block away I see a big sign that says "WE SELL FRUIT TREES". Well how about that. I walk a block to where the sign is and there is the plant nursery. In front of the plant nursery, there's a barbecue grill called the "Horse Saddle". In your written address, you told me there was a store that sells horse saddles. It's not a store that sells horse saddles, it's a barbecue grill called the Horse Saddle. The written address you gave me had some flaws, it wasn't absolutely perfect, but it still got me to the plant nursery and I now have fruit trees in my backyard, bearing fruit.

I can work with this. Here is a true story. I was an apartment manager for ten years before I was married and then a year after. Our oldest daughter was born and we lived there for three more months. Being a newborn, every evening at about 5:30--just at the time people were arriving home from a day's work--she would start crying inconsolably. Behind our four-plex was a walnut orchard where a few peacocks wandered. Every night I would carry her out for a walk in the orchard where a baby crying would not bother the other residents.

Of course my daughter heard all about this growing up, and twenty years later wanted to go see the place where she was a newborn. She had one of my old novels with that address, so off she went. She came back, puzzled, because she could not find the address. I went with her, drove right up to the familiar four-plex and noticed a few things. First, they had renumbered the street, and the addresses were quite different. The units that had been identified with letters, were now identified with numbers. The orchard was gone--completely leveled and a new sub-division in its place. New streets had gone in; old streets changed. No peacocks, of course.

Now imagine if the language had changed along with the names of the streets!

It is not that the Bible got some things wrong, it is simply that things changed--especially the languages. The Bible is best understood when we go back to the day, the language, the culture, etc. of when it was written. There is a whole other perspective there--and quite accurate.