Atheist misconceptions of Christianity

[WaterBreather]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.

<< 2 Peter 3:8 >>
Don't forget this fact, dear friends: With the Lord a single day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a single day.
So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first.
:jaw-dropp

[Shalamar]

Perhaps you should let Christians know this? They're the ones claiming that the earth is only 6000 years old, and therefor all science is wrong.

Atheists are quoting THOSE people, not making direct interpretations of the bible, which many many of them have actually read.

[Cavemonster]

Lurk around a bit Waterbreather.
Many members of the forum are VERY biblically literate.
I have yet to meet an atheist on these boards who is not aware that Christians hold a range of views about the age of the earth.

We have read the bible.
Have you read this forum?

[quixotecoyote]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.


So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first.
:jaw-dropp


Heh heh, you're funny. That's not where the 6000 comes from.

Even if it was, it's amusing to see you scrabble to find a verse in the New Testament in a completely different context to explain Genesis.

[Twiler]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.


Hnh? How does formless mean half-formed?

So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

I don't understand what you mean.

[Cavemonster]

As an FYI Waterbreather,

The figure of 6 thousand years or so comes from a few sources, counting the "days" of Genesis is not typically one of them.

Most use the biblically presented genealogy from Adam to Jesus:

http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis/six-thousand-years.html

Here is some more pseudoscience attempting to prove a young earth
http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html

[Nogbad]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/key-age-of-earth

Surely it these people you need to talk to.

That said, I fully accept that the bulk of Christians do not take this stance and have no difficulty with an old earth or evolution.

[X]

Tell that to the Creationists who insist on a 6,000 year-old Earth and 6 literal days for its creation.


Creationist groups like Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2006/01/06/dinosaurs-dating-age-of-earth)
[The Earth is] About 6,000 years old if you add up the ages given in the genealogies in the Bible from Adam to Christ and factor in certain other timeframes given in the Bible (and of course, add in the five days prior to Adam (since he was made on Day 6)).
bolding mine


And Mr. Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism (http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=55)
Creationists already have the Truth; the earth was created roughly 6,000 years ago1. Evolutionists wish to construct their own truth; the earth formed slowly over billions of years. Both of these are subject to the same scientific method. When we observe the outpourings of data rendered from the science, we can see that the evidence greatly supports the idea of a young-earth (6,000 years old).
bolding mine


And don't forget the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/article/1137/)
However, lest we be too concerned, every honest attempt to determine the date, starting with a deep commitment to the inerrancy of God's Word, has calculated a span of just a few thousand years, most likely close to 6000 years, since creation.
bolding mine



Stating that some Christians (Young Earth Creationists, specifically) believe the Earth to be 6,00 years old is not a misconception. It's truth.

[Madalch]

We have read the bible.
Have you read this forum?

Are you kidding? I have seen very few signs that he reads the responses to the threads he starts.

[Silentknight]

In the UK, according to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism), Young Earth Creationists make up about 10% of the population.

In the US, unfortunately, the numbers are much higher (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm). Note that I'm counting those who believe in a 10,000 year age as YECs as well. Read it and barf.

[Nogbad]

In the UK, according to The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism), Young Earth Creationists make up about 10% of the population.

In the US, unfortunately, the numbers are much higher (http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm). Note that I'm counting those who believe in a 10,000 year age as YECs as well. Read it and barf.

I had a look at that second one - the respondents to the Gallup Poll appear to believe in evolution and the 10,000 year thing - talk about hedging your bets.

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm an atheist, and I realize that most Christians do not regard the Earth as 6000 years old. I realize that the Genesis account is not meant to be taken literally, and as far as I know, the first people to adhere to it took it as metaphor, with the literal interpretation coming along later, much like the concept of a fiery Hell. Piggy would probably be able to elaborate here:).

[Aerik]

It's Christians that take the bible literally, and then we criticize them. We're not mischaracterising or misunderstanding the beliefs of Christians when they actually tell us that's exactly what they believe. You're a liar.

Even so, I don't know if you've noticed, but english Bibles are not written in any such way as to convey that the content is metaphor. It's written in quite literal, even if nonsensical, prose.

[Foster Zygote]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.
This is not an atheist misconception. It is a misconception of many, but not all, Christians.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.


So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first.
:jaw-dropp

Did you mean to title this thread "Christian Misconceptions of the Bible"?

[Safe-Keeper]

Don't forget this fact, dear friends: With the Lord a single day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a single day. So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.A nonsensical claim. The statement about a thousand years is in a completely different part of the Bible and referring to something different entirely. In context:

1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
The Bible speaks about how, to an eternal being, even a thousand years is a short time. It doesn't mean God has some sort of divine time measurement system that He uses throughout the Bible to give a fallacious impression of how long things take.

[Damien Evans]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.


So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first.
:jaw-dropp

I guess you've never heard of Bishop Ussher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Ussher

[Tricky]

Atheists here, for the most part, only react to those making claims about Christianity. We are all quite aware of the fact that there are many many Christians and they do not all agree on the creation story, nor about a lot of other things in the bible.

But we do have the occasional Young Earth Creationist here. Search for posts by Edge, particularly those dealing with the "great flood".

It is not a mistake to say that our views of Christianity are based on our experience with a variety of Christians.

I am glad you don't buy the Creation myth, WaterBreather. Do you feel that there is more of the bible that is fables and myth as well? The flood? Joshua making the sun stand still? Jonah being swallowed by the great fish? The Hebrew children in the fiery furnace?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it's a valid point to note that only a small minority of contemporary Christians are young Earth creationists or Biblical literalists.

I do believe most of us atheists know this.

I think the moderate Christian position on these matters is nearly as problematical. Throughout most of the history of Christianity, the majority of Christians did take a lot of these myths as being the truth about the natural history of the Earth (Creation and the Flood, for examples). Their sacred text was handed down by people who mostly believed what is now the minority position.

Do they think all these people had it wrong?

[Dancing David]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

So the book starts with the Earth already half-formed.


So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first.
:jaw-dropp

Sorry dude, you haven't been to the Bible Belt, have you?

The people who disagree with you are your Xian bretheren. Sorry.

[Lonewulf]

HIt and run posting. Troll tactic.

[RandFan]

If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I've read the Bible and I've followed websites that make YEC claims (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/YEC) and websites that critisize and debunk YEC (http://www.talkorigins.org/).

[paximperium]

The title should definately be corrected to:
"Christian misconceptions of Christianity"

[temporalillusion]

HIt and run posting. Troll tactic.

Or certainly not very interesting, to post a thread then run away.

[Foster Zygote]

Or certainly not very interesting, to post a thread then run away.

To be fair, Water Breather has responded in other threads, and we aren't very far into this one.

[Lonewulf]

To be fair, Water Breather has responded in other threads, and we aren't very far into this one.

True. He might be used to message boards in which posting is slower.

I retract my original statement; I called troll too soon, I think.

[temporalillusion]

Well he's replied to the threads, but I wouldn't say he's responded in any meaningful way in response to my or others' posts. Though I do grant that when it's "one on many" it's more difficult to respond.

[Foster Zygote]

True. He might be used to message boards in which posting is slower.

I retract my original statement; I called troll too soon, I think.

That's OK, I called it too late on Yrreg.

[Jimbo07]

Six hours.

No response.

[six7s]

Major Misconception:
The Earth is 6000 years old.You seem to have difficulty in writing subject lines...

This ought to be Christian misconceptions of reality

FYI: being an atheist is, apart from one subtle yet significant difference, the same as being a christian... we just believe in one less god than you do :)

Something else you might have overlooked in your rush to put the world to rights: although there are many atheists here, this is a critical thinking forum and, again, there are many subjects that, like theism (except regarding the particular cult/sect/etc itself, of course), critical thinking demands that claims are rejected... but only until supportive evidence is forthcoming

For example, below is a list (with thanks to www.skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com/contents.html)) of things that I have - so far - no reason to accept unreservedly

abracadabra spells
acupuncture
alien abduction
allopathy
Amway
angels
animism
aromatherapy
astrology
auras
Ayurvedic medicine
Bach flower therapy
the Bermuda triangle
bunyips
cellular memory
chakras
chelation therapy
chemtrails
chi
chiropractic
clairaudience
clairvoyance
colloidal minerals
contrails
craniosacral therapy
cryptozoology
crystal power
déjà vu
determinism
devadasi
dolphin-assisted therapy
dowsing
ectoplasm
ESP
exorcism
fairies
fakirs
feng shui
flying saucers
the Flying Spaghetti Monster
fortune telling
free energy machines
ghosts
glossolalia
god
haunted houses
holistic medicine
homeopathy
hypnosis
incantations
Indian rope tricks
intelligent design
IQ and race correlations
iridology
jamais vu
karma
laundry balls
leprechauns
levitation
ley lines
the Loch Ness monster
magick
magnet therapy
massage therapy
meditation
men in black
mentalists
mesmerism
miracles
morphic resonance
multi-level marketing
Myers-Briggs Type Indicators
naturopathy
the Nazca lines
near-death experiences
neuro-linguistic programming
New Age therapies
the New World Order
Noah's Ark
Nostradamus
numerology
occultism
osteopathy
out-of-body experiences
palmistry
pantheism
papyromancy
parapsychology
pareidolia
penile plethysmographs
pentagrams
placebo effect
prana
prayer
prophecy
psychics
pyramid schemes
quackery
Rama
reflexology
reiki
reincarnation
remote viewing
repressed memories
runes
saints
Santa Claus
Sasquatch
Satan
Scientology
séances
shamanism
sixth sense
sorcery
souls
speaking in tongues
spirit photography
spiritualism
spontaneous human combustion
stigmata
superstition
synaesthesia
tarot cards
telekinesis
telepathy
teleportation
the Ten Commandments
theism
therapeutic touch
Thor
transubstantiation
UFOs
unicorns
urine therapy
vampires
vitalism
voodoo
warlocks
werewolves
Wicca
witches
wizards
woo
xenoglossy
Yetis
yin-yang
zombies

If any evidence is forthcoming for any of the above, I am more than happy to re-evaluate my stance, on a case-by-case basis

Can you, honestly, say the same?

If not: why are you here, on this forum?

If so: which of the above do you 'believe in'/reject? Is there a discernible and logical pattern to your choices?
If not: why are you here, on this forum?

[cbish]

Looks like we have another 'post & run'.


....did anyone get the license plate?

[articulett]

I think I saw a Chupacabra sailing away with it down a wormhole...

[Safe-Keeper]

HIt and run posting. Troll tactic.It's probably pretty intimidating to be a believer on a forum like the JREF. Take this into consideration.

[quixotecoyote]

It's probably pretty intimidating to be a believer on a forum like the JREF. Take this into consideration.

True. At the same time, remarks like "If you are going to make comments about a book, its a good idea to actually read it first." are going to draw attention, some of which will be in the same spirit.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You seem to have difficulty in writing subject lines...

This ought to be Christian misconceptions of reality

FYI: being an atheist is, apart from one subtle yet significant difference, the same as being a christian... we just believe in one less god than you do :)

Something else you might have overlooked in your rush to put the world to rights: although there are many atheists here, this is a critical thinking forum and, again, there are many subjects that, like theism (except regarding the particular cult/sect/etc itself, of course), critical thinking demands that claims are rejected... but only until supportive evidence is forthcoming

For example, below is a list (with thanks to www.skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com/contents.html)) of things that I have - so far - no reason to accept unreservedly

abracadabra spells
acupuncture
alien abduction
allopathy
Amway
angels
animism
aromatherapy
astrology
auras
Ayurvedic medicine
Bach flower therapy
the Bermuda triangle
bunyips
cellular memory
chakras
chelation therapy
chemtrails
chi
chiropractic
clairaudience
clairvoyance
colloidal minerals
contrails
craniosacral therapy
cryptozoology
crystal power
déjà vu
determinism
devadasi
dolphin-assisted therapy
dowsing
ectoplasm
ESP
exorcism
fairies
fakirs
feng shui
flying saucers
the Flying Spaghetti Monster
fortune telling
free energy machines
ghosts
glossolalia
god
haunted houses
holistic medicine
homeopathy
hypnosis
incantations
Indian rope tricks
intelligent design
IQ and race correlations
iridology
jamais vu
karma
laundry balls
leprechauns
levitation
ley lines
the Loch Ness monster
magick
magnet therapy
massage therapy
meditation
men in black
mentalists
mesmerism
miracles
morphic resonance
multi-level marketing
Myers-Briggs Type Indicators
naturopathy
the Nazca lines
near-death experiences
neuro-linguistic programming
New Age therapies
the New World Order
Noah's Ark
Nostradamus
numerology
occultism
osteopathy
out-of-body experiences
palmistry
pantheism
papyromancy
parapsychology
pareidolia
penile plethysmographs
pentagrams
placebo effect
prana
prayer
prophecy
psychics
pyramid schemes
quackery
Rama
reflexology
reiki
reincarnation
remote viewing
repressed memories
runes
saints
Santa Claus
Sasquatch
Satan
Scientology
séances
shamanism
sixth sense
sorcery
souls
speaking in tongues
spirit photography
spiritualism
spontaneous human combustion
stigmata
superstition
synaesthesia
tarot cards
telekinesis
telepathy
teleportation
the Ten Commandments
theism
therapeutic touch
Thor
transubstantiation
UFOs
unicorns
urine therapy
vampires
vitalism
voodoo
warlocks
werewolves
Wicca
witches
wizards
woo
xenoglossy
Yetis
yin-yang
zombies

If any evidence is forthcoming for any of the above, I am more than happy to re-evaluate my stance, on a case-by-case basis

Can you, honestly, say the same?

If not: why are you here, on this forum?

If so: which of the above do you 'believe in'/reject? Is there a discernible and logical pattern to your choices?
If not: why are you here, on this forum?



You don't accept allopathy? Or Amway? I can understand not wanting to be involved with Amway, but not being unaccepting of its reality. And allopathy? What do you have against medicine?

[godless dave]

I think it's a valid point to note that only a small minority of contemporary Christians are young Earth creationists or Biblical literalists.


I'm not sure it's that small, at least in the US, but even here it's a minority.

[quixotecoyote]

You don't accept allopathy? Or Amway? I can understand not wanting to be involved with Amway, but not being unaccepting of its reality. And allopathy? What do you have against medicine?

Many things on that list exist, the Ten Commandments for instance.

Amway can be rejected for it's scammy nature and allopathy can be rejected as an invalid frame for modern medicine.

[Elizabeth I]

What's not to believe in about the Nazca lines? As I understand it, there really are some great big line drawings laid out on the plains down there in South America. No?

[quixotecoyote]

What's not to believe in about the Nazca lines?

Well, for a start:

http://www.philipcoppens.com/nazca.html

[fishbob]

. . .
So obviously, the 7 days of creation are not meant as a week. And its not meant as 7000 years either. It states 'like', not 'is'.


Existential Willie sez: I guess that depends of what the definition if 'is' is.

[arthwollipot]

*sigh*

When will there be a thread about Christian misconceptions about atheism?

Actually, scratch that. There already have been several.

[six7s]

You don't accept allopathy?Nope... simply cos I am still largely ignorant about it... ignorant in the sense that I don't know what it is... not ignorant in the sense that I'll regard it as innocent until proven guilty. Allopathy is but one of a few items on that list that are "things that I have - so far - no reason to accept unreservedly"

Or Amway? Scamway? No thanks

Many things on that list exist, the Ten Commandments for instance.Yep... as does the Nicene Creed, the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Mao's Little Red Book and 101 ways to Cook Tofu... doesn't mean they describe - let alone prescribe - my approach to LTUAE :)
What's not to believe in about the Nazca lines?I while back, Skeptigirl posted her thoughts from a trip to the area: Skeptigirl's Magical Mythery Tour of Peru (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123891); I read it and, like I said in the post above "if any evidence is forthcoming ... I am more than happy to re-evaluate my stance, on a case-by-case basis"

[Lonewulf]

Nope... simply cos I am still largely ignorant about it... ignorant in the sense that I don't know what it is... not ignorant in the sense that I'll regard it as innocent until proven guilty. Allopathy is but one of a few items on that list that are "things that I have - so far - no reason to accept unreservedly"
From Wikipedia:

Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. In the United States the term "allopathic" has been used in contexts not related to homeopathy,[1] but it has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves.[2][3]

In the United States, allopathic medicine can sometimes refer to the medical training that leads to the degree Doctor of Medicine rather than the degree Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. See comparison of MD and DO in the United States.[4][5]

Generally, allopathic medicine refers to "the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, scientific medicine, or modern medicine,"[6] with varying degrees of acceptance by medical professionals in different locales. See medicine.

[six7s]

From Wikipedia:Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel HahnemannAhhhhhh... teh penny drops...
I used to know a homoeopath
Hahnemann, huh?

from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering
= So-Called Alternative Malpractice

Thanks for the reminder

I can now revise my stance

Allopathy: an item on the list that I can reject unreservedly until compelling counter-evidence surfaces or hell freezes over

:)

[Nick227]

Allopathy: an item on the list that I can reject unreservedly until compelling counter-evidence surfaces or hell freezes over

:)

I thought "allopathy" was a generic, new-age term for conventional medicine. That's how it usually gets used. Maybe you mean you can unreservedly reject the word, not the practice.

Nick

[Nick227]

If any evidence is forthcoming for any of the above, I am more than happy to re-evaluate my stance, on a case-by-case basis

Can you, honestly, say the same?

If not: why are you here, on this forum?

If so: which of the above do you 'believe in'/reject? Is there a discernible and logical pattern to your choices?
If not: why are you here, on this forum?

determinism

hypnosis

repressed memories

These don't look so terrible to me. I mean, it's not a well-constructed list, kind of CT level writing really. If I were a skeptic I wouldn't associate myself with something so feebly presented. Presumably, the writer disputes the existence of some entries, and the effectiveness of others.

Nick

[Radrook]

It's Christians that take the bible literally, and then we criticize them. We're not mischaracterising or misunderstanding the beliefs of Christians when they actually tell us that's exactly what they believe. You're a liar.

Even so, I don't know if you've noticed, but english Bibles are not written in any such way as to convey that the content is metaphor. It's written in quite literal, even if nonsensical, prose.

Your generalization is totally innacurate. Have you read the Bible? If you had then you would know or at least should know that it varies in its approach from literal to metaphorical. Since ypu obviously haven't, why do you attempt to say these things?

[CurtC]

Have you read the Bible? If you had then you would know or at least should know that it varies in its approach from literal to metaphorical. Since ypu obviously haven't, why do you attempt to say these things?I've read the Bible, at least most of it. It sure does seem to me that pretty much all of it is written literally, but Christians pick and choose what they like, and the parts they don't, they declare to be metaphors.

Was the story of Adam and Eve a metaphor? What about Abraham and Isaac? If that was a metaphor (or allegory), what the hell were we supposed to learn from it? How about the Exodus story?

The only obvious metaphor I can think of is at the last supper when Jesus told his disciples that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood. The funny thing is, this obvious metaphor is actually taken literally by vast numbers of Christians!


from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering
= So-Called Alternative Malpractice

Hey, "CAM" is already used by them to mean "complementary and alternative medicine." Mark Crislip (of the excellent Quackcast podcast) adds "supplements" to the beginning to get the same acronym.

[six7s]

I thought "allopathy" was a generic, new-age term for conventional medicine. :confused: Why not use the term 'medicine'?

Oh, right... cos then the wooists would have to acknowledge that they really are nothing more than Morally Bankrupt Charlatans Hawking Bovine-excrement

That's how it usually gets used.

Usually?

Seems not

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 313,000 for allopathy (http://www.google.com/search?q=allopathy)

Misuse of the Term "Allopathy"
William T. Jarvis, Ph.D (http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html)
Although many modern therapies can be construed to conform to an allopathic rationale (eg, using a laxative to relieve constipation), standard medicine has never paid allegiance to an allopathic principle. The label "allopath" was considered highly derisive by regular medicine. A 1902 book intended for new medical graduates reveals just how vehemently Medical Doctors once opposed and resented the label:

Remember that the term "Allopath" is a false nickname not chosen by regular physicians at all, but cunningly coined, and put in wicked use against us, in his venomous crusade against Regular Medicine by its enemy, Hahnemann, and ever since applied to us by our enemies with all the insinuations and derisive use the term afford. "Allopathy" applied to regular medicine is both untrue and offensive and is no more accepted by us that the term "Heretics" is accepted by the Protestants, or "*******" by the Blacks [1]. The terms "allopath" and "allopathy" are often used in reference to Medical Doctors and standard medicine by medical writers. Such use generally reflects an alternate definition of allopathy: "a system of medical practice making use of all measures proved of value (emphasis added) in treatment of disease." [2] This definition accurately describes modern, science-based medicine, but is inconsistent with its root words "allos" and "pathos." The duplicity of the term aids those who wish to misrepresent medicine as ideologically allopathic (i.e., symptom suppression). NCAHF recommends that these terms not be used in reference to standard medicine or MDs.

Significance of a Misnomer.

Although medicine never accepted the label of allopathy, nonmedical practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths regularly misrepresent physicians as "allopaths." This is usually done in order to make differences between their practice guilds appear based upon conflicting philosophies rather than ideology versus science. Opponents of medicine claim that they treat the underlying causes of disease, while MDs treat only the symptoms. Further, they claim that medicine suppresses the symptoms, thus interfering with the body's inherent healing processes. A close examination reveals that this line of reasoning is only clever rhetoric. Source: www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html (http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html)


Maybe you mean you can unreservedly reject the word, not the practice.And maybe I simply mean what I wrote :mad:

[Nick227]

:confused: Why not use the term 'medicine'?

Oh, right... cos then the wooists would have to acknowledge that they really are nothing more than Morally Bankrupt Charlatans Hawking Bovine-excrement

Drifting OT...

Well, I think there's quite a bit of room for middle ground here. Certain treatment paradigms lend themselves to objective verification and others don't. This does not necessarily mean that the former actually work any better than the latter. It just means that they need to rely for the most part on subjective reporting, with all its attendant problems.

Here in the UK, a lot of "alternative" treatments are increasingly accepted, including a few from your skeptics list. My girlfriend works for one of the more prestigious addiction treatment centres in the UK and they just sent her on an ear acupuncture course because it's a standard treatment. Likewise therapeutic massage.

It's also one thing to be skeptical on a discussion group, quite another if it comes to you actually overcoming a serious illness. I've nothing against conventional medicine, but so many people who use it seem to be constantly ill. I mean, it seems patently obvious to me that the majority of medications exist primarily to make pharm companies very rich, and arguably as a means of killing off those in society too feeble-minded to do anything else but stick meds down their throat. Not that meds aren't sometimes the only way, but there's a lot of bs in conventional medicine. </rant>

Nick

[Pardalis]

In the book of Genesis (1:1) it states
'When God created the universe, the Earth was formless and desolate"

Does this mean that the Earth already existed when god created the Universe? :confused:

[six7s]

I've nothing against conventional medicine, but so many people who use it seem to be constantly ill. Yeah... and maybe you have noticed that it seems that only dirty people wash


I mean, it seems patently obvious to me that the majority of medications exist primarily to make pharm companies very rich, and arguably as a means of killing off those in society too feeble-minded to do anything else but stick meds down their throat. Not that meds aren't sometimes the only way, but there's a lot of bs in conventional medicine.And you have the gall to suggest that I write like a CT-ist?

Don't make me laugh!

[Darth Rotor]

Does this mean that the Earth already existed when god created the Universe? :confused:
I am not certain which Genesis Waterbreather is referring to.
Here is KJV
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

English Standard Version
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

American Standard Version
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Young's Literal Translation might be a hint at Water Breather's angle
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
Fluttering? WTF? Not sure what he's quoting. One translation says God was a maritime helicopter pilot. :D
From both the New Living Translation and the NIV
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep waters. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
To fly is avian, to hover divine. ;) (Thus, God is a hummingbird? Confused am I. )

DR

[Nick227]

Yeah... and maybe you have noticed that it seems that only dirty people wash

But, I mean, it is not healthy to be chucking so many meds constantly down you. Just look at most of these people. You can see it on them.

Objectivity is a mixed blessing in medicine if you ask me. Only those treatment strategies that can be objectively evaluated get to the majority of people. Thus objective evaluation here is it's own little evolutionary algorithm operating in healthcare and governing what people get as treatment.


And you have the gall to suggest that I write like a CT-ist?

Don't make me laugh!

I didn't say that. I said that the author of the site you quoted wrote like one. I've nothing against CTs per se. I'm happy to examine them. I'm not twitchy about the subject and unable to deal emotionally with the possibility a CT might be true, which is where I see an awful lot of skeptics coming from.

It's just that a lot of CTs are crap.

Nick

[Pardalis]

And he created everything in the dark... That's probably why the Earth was formless, he created it by feeling and at one point decided this was ridiculous he needed some light to finish the job properly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I

[quixotecoyote]

It's just that a lot of CTs are crap.

Nick

But not the ones where pharmaceutical companies produce medicine that either have no effect or are intentionally designed to kill the less worthy.

It's good to know where the line is.

[Elizabeth I]

What's not to believe in about the Nazca lines? As I understand it, there really are some great big line drawings laid out on the plains down there in South America. No?

Well, for a start:

http://www.philipcoppens.com/nazca.html


I while back, Skeptigirl posted her thoughts from a trip to the area: Skeptigirl's Magical Mythery Tour of Peru (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123891); I read it and, like I said in the post above "if any evidence is forthcoming ... I am more than happy to re-evaluate my stance, on a case-by-case basis"

But the lines exist, right? It's just all the mystical B.S. interpretation that's woo...

[quixotecoyote]

But the lines exist, right? It's just all the mystical B.S. interpretation that's woo...

Well yeah, but lots of things on that list exist. I started with the Ten Commandments as an example. six7s ran with it:



Yep... as does the Nicene Creed, the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Mao's Little Red Book and 101 ways to Cook Tofu...

[Radrook]

I've read the Bible, at least most of it. It sure does seem to me that pretty much all of it is written literally, but Christians pick and choose what they like, and the parts they don't, they declare to be metaphors.

You can't arbitrarily declare something in the Bible metaphor without having biblical justification for doing so. If you do then you can be accused of twisting scriptures and be proven to be twisting scripture.



Was the story of Adam and Eve a metaphor? What about Abraham and Isaac? If that was a metaphor (or allegory),

There is no biblical justification for treating or understanding it that way.


what the hell were we supposed to learn from it? How about the Exodus story?

Both were understood by the prophets Jesus and his Apostles as literal historical events. Although that doesn't prevent us from learning valuable lessons from those events such as the value of faith and the inadvisability of disobedience.


The only obvious metaphor I can think of is at the last supper when Jesus told his disciples that the bread was his body and the wine was his blood.



If that's the only symbol that you remember Jesus using then you need not just to read but to study the Gospels. In the case of parables as the parable of the wheat and weeds, Jesus used symbols followed immediately by the interpretation. Wheat are the true worshippers of God while the weeds are the false. The sower of these is Satan and the gatherers are angels while the harvest is the end of the world.

He uses a house with a weak foundation as a symbol of a person with weak faith. He speaks of Israel as a tree that is to be cut down. Uses fruits symbols for behavior. Light as a symbol of his goodness, bread as the word of God, darkness as evil, ravens as agents of Satan, cornerstone as an organizational foundation, pigs as unworthy people, pearls as precious spiritual truths, white garments as moral purity, finger as the power of God, sleep as death, heart as the seat of motivation, wolves as enemies of God and his people, flock as church, sheep as teachable persons, shepherd as spiritual teacher, road as a way of life, ad infinitum





Proverbs and Psalms are ripe with symbolic language as well.



The funny thing is, this obvious metaphor is actually taken literally by vast numbers of Christians!

Jesus himself said that his reference to eating and drinking his blood were spiritual sayings and not literal. He said this in response to the reaction of those who became offended because they understood it as literal. So there is really no biblical justification for taking it that way. At least not from Jesus' own point of view.

BTW
Your statements are not a replica of the ones to which I responded so what I said cannot be addressing the points you bring up. I was responding to the statement that the Bible is written in a nonsensical way and doesn't contain a diversity of language usage such as metaphor, simile, hyperbole, irony, sarcasm, personification, parables, poetic conventions, and symbols which stand for ideas. These are plentiful in the Bible and anyone claiming otherwise comes across as not being familiar with it. The Song of Solomon, in which he praises the beauty of the Shulamite maiden is another. Then we have Revelation which is almost totally symbolic and we are told it in its introduction.

Many of the prophecies given in the book of Daniel contain symbols such as trees, rocks, mountains, and beasts standing for governments. We know that they are because first the symbols are used followed by their interpretation. So when someone makes a statement saying that the Bible is a book predominantly of one style it's only natural to assume that the person isn't familiar with the book he has chosen to criticize.

BTW
If this post is a bit disorganized its because AOL is asking me if I want to remain on line but when I look for the option to say yes there is nothing. So in order to prevent getting cut off I had to write it piecemeal fashion.

[arthwollipot]

You can't arbitrarily declare something in the Bible metaphor without having biblical justification for doing so. If you do then you can be accused of twisting scriptures and be proven to be twisting scripture.Oh, please explain to us which parts of the Bible are supposed to be metaphor and which are not! Please.

:popcorn1

[Safe-Keeper]

Jesus himself said that his reference to eating and drinking his blood were spiritual sayings and not literal. He said this in response to the reaction of those who became offended because they understood it as literal.
I've read the passage. Didn't see this anywhere in there.

[Nick227]

But not the ones where pharmaceutical companies produce medicine that either have no effect or are intentionally designed to kill the less worthy.

It's good to know where the line is.

A company's primary concern is to make profits for its shareholders. This is not a conspiracy. It's laid down in the Articles of Association made on forming a company. Running a pharmaceutical corp your primary concern is to make money, through developing medications. So there's obviously potential for a conflict of interest between developing effective medications and making money.

Anyway, this isn't a thread on pharma. But for me there are two potentially corrupting algorithms running when one looks at medications development - one the need for objective testing and ratification, two the need to make profit.

Nick

[Darth Rotor]

Jesus himself said that his reference to eating and drinking his blood were spiritual sayings and not literal.
You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find the Baltimore Chatechism, among others, in disagreement with you. Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed and eaten at Passover, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional. (There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that.

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different. They are chowing down on Jesus, once a week.

DR

[Sefarst]

You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find that the Baltimore Chatechism, among others, in disagreement with you. Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional. (There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that.

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different.

DR

Wouldn't the fact that he handed them bread and wine rather than his actual body and blood suggest that he was using it as a metaphor?

[Darth Rotor]

Wouldn't the fact that he handed them bread and wine rather than his actual body and blood suggest that he was using it as a metaphor?
Taken at face value, yes, and that is why my Methodist friends do as they do. The Catholics, and the Eastern and older (see Armenian and other) churches seem to dig a bit deeper into what Jesus was doing during that Passover meal, and that whole Passover weekend.

This is why I am curious as to Radrook's supporting statement. I don't see Jesus saying "this is symbolic" in my various versions of the Bible, which is what Radrook stated.

Christians have of course been pissing and moaning at one another about this detail for some years, I doubt I'll solve it here. :D Just want to see Radrook's support for his statement.

DR

[Silentknight]

There is no biblical justification for treating or understanding it that way.

Sure, if you ignore the obvious poetic verse Genesis 1 was written in, the literary symmetry of the six days, the merging of two separate traditions describing the creation, or the inclusion of details such as outer space being made of water or plants being able to live without a sun.

[Safe-Keeper]

Plants are able to live without sun for a day or two, you kno-- oh, wait, the "days" were each thousand years long, I forgot:p.

[Radrook]

Radrook, would you please cite the scriptural support that Jesus allegedly made this differentiation? I'd be very interested. My Methodist friends celebrate communion as a memorial, as a spritual and symbolic demonstration of His instructions to His disciples. My Catholic friends, and family, something quite different.

First it's good to keep in mind that eating blood was forbidden under the Mosaic Law. Neither were Noah and his descendents ever given permission to eat human flesh or blood.

Genesis 9:3-5

3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat



Deuteronomy 12:16
Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.

So Jesus could not have been encouraging the breaking of both the Noachian Covenant nor the Mosaic law while that law was still in effect. That would have been sinful and Jesus is described as morally spotless. So that alone disqualifies the literal interpretation.

Here is the scripture where Jesus tells his disciples that his words are spiritual.

John 6 (King James Version)

47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

48I am that bread of life.

49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The folowing scriptuires are also pertinent.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

[Pardalis]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot. :con2:

[Silentknight]

"I only drink the blood of my enemies. And occasionally a stawberry yoohoo. Or a sasparilla. Grenadine, straight from the can. Deeelicious."

[Shalamar]

Lots and lots of Bible quotes.


Hmmm.... What other quotes are there?

Oh yes.

BTW
Whipping out a Bible and quoting doesn't constitute a refutation.

But you sure do it a lot, Radrook. Can't practice what you preach?

[arthwollipot]

Hmmm.... What other quotes are there?

Oh yes.



But you sure do it a lot, Radrook. Can't practice what you preach?Fair go, Shalamar. Radrook was specifically asked to provide scriptural justification for a statement that he had made. You can't fault him for providing what was asked of him.

[Shalamar]

Fair go, Shalamar. Radrook was specifically asked to provide scriptural justification for a statement that he had made. You can't fault him for providing what was asked of him.

Hmm.. true enough. My bad, and I do apologize, Radrook. I'll try not to jump the gun so much in the future.

[Jeff Corey]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot. :con2:

Otherwise, he would have merely said, "Bite me!'

[Radrook]

You ought to support that statement with scriptural back up. I think you will find the Baltimore Catechism, among others, in disagreement with you.

I am aware that Catholics disagree.

BTW
Origen took Jesus' statements about chopping off body members if they cause one to sin literally and castrated himself. Later he admitted his mistake. That's why the Catholic Church refuses to canonize him.

Jesus did not complete the ritual Hebrew Passover supper, of which the Last Supper was a part. He offered himself up as the last course, the lamb traditionally sacrificed and eaten at Passover, and did not drink the last wine as was traditional.

Jesus was instituting a ritual top replace the Passover as part of the New Covenant. As the mediator of that Covenant he wasn't required to eat or drink. Especially since he wasn't entering into that covenant as a beneficiary of forgiveness of sins but as the sacrifice making the forgiveness possible.


(There is more, I need to find my notes on that.) The Eucharist, as practiced by some of the old school church, and the modern Catholics, is the repetitive completion of that Passover meal, (aided by the Holy Spirit, Triune God model, of course, or the Transubstantiation can't happen.) And so on. The Catholic On Line Encyclopedia is a fine resource for getting into the details of that....

If Transubstantiation does happen then it should be detectable via the senses. Unfortunately, scientific examination of the bread and wine will reveal that the wine doesn't transform itself into human blood nor the bread into human flesh. So transubstantiation is a claimed miracle that unlike other biblical miracles can never be observed nor detected. Which of course makes it suspect of being an unscriptural figment of the imagination.

[six7s]

So transubstantiation is a claimed miracle that unlike other biblical miracles can never be observed nor detected. Which of course makes it suspect of being an unscriptural figment of the imagination.I think I'm on R's ignore list, so I'll be much obliged if someone else would ask for examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'

[arthwollipot]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

[Lonewulf]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well.

[Agatha]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'. Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well. Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea :D

[Ladewig]

Radrook, six7s, who thinks he is on your Ignore list, would like some examples of 'other biblical miracles that can be observed and detected'.

Just in case arthwollipot's in the ignore list as well.

Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea :D

Is this a private parade or can anyone march along.

. . . . . . . .
ETA: to be fair, that part of the post really struck me as needing some explanation, too.

[Radrook]

Just in case Lonewulf... you get the idea :D


The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't.


BTW

Since you go out of your way to make asides:

Anyone not liking my ignore modus operandi is as free to place me on the ignore list as I am in placing them on mine. So the playing field is very level here. Neither do I just place anyone on the list. Only those who consistently evade the subject matter and prefer to attack the person or are prone to heckle jeckle and in an effort to get a rise by all means possible. It should be no skin off anyone's nose since the heckler's are free to continue along the same line. The only difference being that I don't see it. Which should be of little importance as long as they can heckle an jeckle to their heart's content.

[Silentknight]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't.
Nice hamster wheel argument. The Bible is the source of the claim, therefore it can't be used as proof for its own claim. We already know the Bible mentions such miracles, but I'm pretty sure the question was about miracles that could be observed in the scientific sense of repeatable testing and experimentation. You're claiming special pleading for what amounts to a story in a book.

Anyone not liking my ignore modus operandi is as free to place me on the ignore list as I am in placing them on mine. So the playing field is very level here.
What, and give up an endless source of amusement?

Neither do I just place anyone on the list. Only those who consistently evade the subject matter and prefer to attack the person or are prone to heckle jeckle and in an effort to get a rise by all means possible. It should be no skin off anyone's nose since the heckler's are free to continue along the same line. The only difference being that I don't see it. Which should be of little importance as long as they can heckle an jeckle to their heart's content.
Wrong, you've ignored people who have simply disagreed with your beliefs or have had opinions and interpretations that differ from yours in the slightest. Also, attacking the arguer is against the Membership Agreement, so anyone who did this as often as you claim would have been suspended. I suggest you take a look at your own posting methods before hypocricially condemning others for offending you. Of course, those who are incapable of distinguishing between a disagreement and a personal attack are the ones who are most likely to use personal attacks to state disagreements themselves.

"Your arguments suck" =/= "You suck"

[Radrook]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot. :con2:


Good point!

Also, he knew that his words would be offensive to certain people and expected them to reject him for it. It was a test of their sincerity in a way since all they had too do if indeed they were interested was to ask for an explanation as his disciples did. When asked if they too were going to abandon him they responded:

"Where would we go? You have sayings of everlasting life!"

[Safe-Keeper]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present.No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death, or that he walked onto a snowy plain and made all the snow melt by waving his hand.

And even if it is true that people saw Jesus walk on water, turn water into wine or feed people with limited amounts of bread... well, when I was little, I saw, on TV, David Copperfield do wondrous things in front of huge audiences. If conjuring tricks weren't a common part of our society, people might actually have been able to perform simple conjuring tricks, mind reading, cold reading or predictions on stage and have people believe they have psychic abiliti-- oh, wait:rolleyes:.

Radrook - I, a perfectly regular, perfectly mundane homo sapien male of 23 years old with no supernatural abilities whatsoever, have a pretty good idea on how I could take a wine bottle, demonstrate how it was empty by turning it upside down, filling it with water, and turn it upside down again to produce wine. I further think that with some training, I could make it look very, very believable. Likewise with taking a basket of bread and giving enough food from it to feed a huge bunch of people.

As for walking on water, there's a dozen possible explanations for this, too. One is that the conditions of the area were such that there could have been a sheet of ice of some size floating just below the water surface, and that Jesus simply walked on it. The point of it all is, Radrook, that when you see someone do something extraordinary, do you think "wow, cool magic trick, how did you do that?" or do you immediately recognize him as a god?

Where's your burnt offering to Randi, 'rook?

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't."No, I'm not preventing debate by my childish and evasive stance because no one is preventing you from doing the same thing". How incredibly juvenile.

[The Drain]

leprechauns


which of the above do you 'believe in'/reject?


Like every other believing Irish householder, I leave a saucer of milk outside the back door each night for the 'little people', and by morning it's been drunk. That's what I call convincing evidence.

[bpesta22]

I think atheists underestimate just how many xtians believe in YEC.

According to a Pew survey (2008) 32.9% of Americans believe the bible is literally true; 24.2% believe that theirs is the one true faith.

Slightly different questions from flat out asking about belief in YEC, but to me, these numbers are staggering.

[six7s]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. Ahhh... the sort of 'other biblical miracles that can't be observed and detected'...

Fairy Nuff

[SirPhilip]

No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death.. That must have been one hell of a ride.

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper
No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death..

No, I am referring to the nature of the claimed miracle in question. You are shifting to whether the miracles I offer as counterexamples happened or not-which is an entirely different subject. For example, no one can say that he saw the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood. While people can say they saw the other miracles occur.

In a court of law testimonies, whether written or verbally delivered in person are admissible as evidence. So there is nothing unusual in giving credence, especially when those giving the testimony have proven trustworthy and have a high moral standard in reference to honesty. Furthermore, the existence of UFOs is an established fact based totally on such testimonies.

In contrast, your accusations that there is no ID in all reality has no basis in observation. It's merely wishful thinking. Why? Well, because the statement that there is no God assumes omniscience-something that physicists clearly are not since they are still trying to figure out if multiple universes or multiple dimensions exist or not and freely admit that they don't know what lies beyond what they are able to detect with their frail instruments. You on the other hand already know that there are no other dimensions, know what lies beyond the observable, and don't need all the instruments, such as a Hadron collider which will soon reveal whether there are other dimensions or not, to be sure. Neither are you in a quandary as they are about the existence of multiple universes whether they be branes or spherical structures or occupying our same universe but beyond our present ability to reach. You already know it all because-umm, there is no God in all existence whether detectable or not because you say so. I find that kind of reasoning tantamount to magical chanting.

BTW
Unlike the biblical source the sources for all the wild claims in reference to Sung have a well-known reputation for lying via political propaganda. So the analogy is false.


Sung
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geumDz.S9Jmx0BtARrCqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBvdmM3bGl xBHBndANhdl93ZWJfcmVzdWx0BHNlYwNzcg--/SIG=1305p34jr/EXP=1227967347/**http%3a//www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40505-2003May10%3flanguage=printer

[Silentknight]

No, I am referring to the nature of the claimed miracle in question. You are shifting to whether the miracles I offer as counterexamples happened or not-which is an entirely different subject. For example, no one can say that he saw the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood. While people can say they saw the other miracles occur.
No, you're using miracles the story claims people observed in order to prove that all other miracles are true. It's still circular logic.

In a court of law testimonies, whether written or verbally delivered in person are admissible as evidence. So there is nothing unusual in giving credence, especially when those giving the testimony have proven trustworthy and have a high moral standard in reference to honesty. Furthermore, the existence of UFOs is an established fact based totally on such testimonies.
When it comes to investigating a crime, eyewitnesses tend to be the least reliable source of evidence, because in the midst of a traumatic event people can get emotional, forget things, or make stuff up. Ten people can witness the same crime and give ten different stories. Forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in every court of law. In addition, you have yet to establish the trustworthiness of these witnesses that you're relying so heavily on, at least not without making yet another circular argument.

I'm not sure what the comment about UFOs was supposed to prove, unless it was to shoot the legs out from under your own argument. You're welcome to argue that UFOs exist based solely on what eyewitnesses have said, but you're not going to get very far.

In contrast, your accusations that there is no ID in all reality has no basis in observation. It's merely wishful thinking. Why? Well, because the statement that there is no God assumes omniscience-something that physicists clearly are not since they are still trying to figure out if multiple universes or multiple dimensions exist or not and freely admit that they don't know what lies beyond what they are able to detect with their frail instruments. You on the other hand already know that there are no other dimensions, know what lies beyond the observable, and don't need all the instruments, such as a Hadron collider which will soon reveal whether there are other dimensions or not, to be sure. Neither are you in a quandary as they are about the existence of multiple universes whether they be branes or spherical structures or occupying our same universe but beyond our present ability to reach. You already know it all because-umm, there is no God in all existence whether detectable or not because you say so. I find that kind of reasoning tantamount to magical chanting.
Pure idiocy. The burden of proof is on the one claiming God exists to provide evidence that he exists. Saying that God must exist because no one has proven otherwise is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Do you fail to realize that literally anything fanciful or imaginary could exist out there, by your reasoning? All of the deities from every religion must exist, because you have yet to rule them out. Before you object, by your logic you must be omniscient in order to rule out these competing gods. Since you aren't, you can't, therefore they exist.

You have provided zero evidence for intelligent design. All you've come up with are strawman attacks on evolution and cosmology. Attacking what you perceive to be the opposing viewpoint does not prove your claims true, and it's the same line of reasoning conspiracy theorists use. Again, what forces does God use? What types of matter and energy are involved? What is the process or mechanism God uses to intervene? How do you propose we experimentally test this? Unless you can answer those, you've got nothing.

[articulett]

The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Frank Kotsonis

Yet for every believer of woo it's solid evidence of whatever it is they've been brainwashed to believe in.

[cj.23]

*sigh*

When will there be a thread about Christian misconceptions about atheism?

Actually, scratch that. There already have been several.

I was actually just about to start one, based on my experience of hanging out on a very popular atheist forum, and watching some of the bizarre things a few of my co-religionists say! :) Oh well!


cj x

[Radrook]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

[cj.23]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

Dawkins type 7? Sure, agreed. Only an omniscient being can know absolutely there is no God, as in any other case God can be outside of their knowledge.

cj x

[temporalillusion]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

That's why even Dawkins qualifies his atheism depending on which God you are talking about.

If there was a god who's holy writings said if you said "Pudding please" there would always be pudding, then it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist about that god because it'd be easy to disprove the claim.

Any atheist would adjust their degree of atheism if you proposed a god that was just there but never directly interacted with anything from strong to more weak.

[articulett]

Dawkins type 7? Sure, agreed. Only an omniscient being can know absolutely there is no God, as in any other case God can be outside of their knowledge.

cj x

Sure, and only an omniscient being can know there are no fairies or no demons or whether a real Zeus ever existed. Only an omniscient being can know if the reincarnation of Buddha or Jesus walks amongst us or if anyone really has experienced alien abductions.

But...

[cj.23]

Sure, and only an omniscient being can know there are no fairies or no demons or whether a real Zeus ever existed. Only an omniscient being can know if the reincarnation of Buddha or Jesus walks amongst us or if anyone really has experienced alien abductions.

But...

Yes. I remain cautiously agnostic on these matters. :)

cj x

[articulett]

"Cautiously agnostic" --why not?
"cautiously optimistic"-- I don't think so.

[Safe-Keeper]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.I already addressed this. If you didn't like my reply to you, feel free to tell me why. I don't like to be ignored.

Again, Radrook: have you searched every cubic meter of Norwegian mountain? If no, are you still 100% certain that there are no trolls?

[arthwollipot]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.There's an atheist claim to omniscience? Please, who makes this claim and why?

[Mashuna]

There's an atheist claim to omniscience? Please, who makes this claim and why?

Radrook makes the claim that atheists make this claim.

[Safe-Keeper]

There's an atheist claim to omniscience? Please, who makes this claim and why?Radrook thinks one must be omniscient to not believe in God, the same way he is omniscient and thus doesn't believe in Zeus and trolls.

[X]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizarre.


Keep in mind that this depends on the description of "god".

It is entirely possible (and frequently done) to describe a "god" that is impossible. Normally be making it self-contradictory.
Like being invisible and pink, at the same time.

You don't need to be omniscient to know a god is impossible. And if the god is possible, it cannot exist. No omniscience needed.
However, for the vacuous and vague descriptions favored by many of the more liberal set, I'll grant you the point.

[RandFan]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare. Ignorance. Not new and certainly it has been dispatched years ago.

Russell's teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

[fuelair]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot. :con2:
Well, if you say "Eat me!!" without a context...........:)

[Radrook]

I understand all the arguments so far postulated. However, there is something which physicists say that keeps coming to mind when people mention the impossibility of certain things existing because they seem to be self contradictory. That is their recent penchant and tendency to theorize about multiple dimensions where anything is possible due to their infinite variety of laws within those universes. One type of universe is the one which mimics ours but with differing histories. This one is based on observations of subatomic particles which have the habit of being in different locations at the same time and disappearing and appearing at randomly. The question is whether they are serving other duties in other dimensions something the Hadron Collider will strive to answer. Another is the idea that our universe is part of just one of an infinite number of branes and that collision between branes causes Big Bags and the emergence of new universes on regular basis. This would create a sea of bubble universes each with its own distinct set of natural laws making things impossible in one universe possible in another. All this is an effort to take physics beyond the moment of the Big Bang, into areas previously considered beyond scientific hypothesizing and theorizing.

Now, within that framework which physicists are now delving into, I see no difficulty whatsoever in imagining a being located in one of those other universes [heaven]? having great power like the Q in Star Trek and going about creating universes and even seemingly contradicting himself in human eyes and forcing some humans to reject him because they can't seem to understand his way of thinking.

BTW
I have heard physicists discussing this subject speculate the possibility of such things as the existence of elves, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons. What they never speculate about is the existence of God because if they did then all academe would come down on their heads like and avenging sword.

[Radrook]

Keep in mind that this depends on the description of "god".

It is entirely possible (and frequently done) to describe a "god" that is impossible. Normally be making it self-contradictory.
Like being invisible and pink, at the same time.

You don't need to be omniscient to know a god is impossible. And if the god is possible, it cannot exist. No omniscience needed.
However, for the vacuous and vague descriptions favored by many of the more liberal set, I'll grant you the point.


You are ignoring the possibility that what seems contradictory to you might not seem that way to the entity in question. In short, you are limiting possibilities in order to exclude such an entity because that entity might be said to be God. Right?

[Radrook]

That's why even Dawkins qualifies his atheism depending on which God you are talking about.

If there was a god who's holy writings said if you said "Pudding please" there would always be pudding, then it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist about that god because it'd be easy to disprove the claim.

Any atheist would adjust their degree of atheism if you proposed a god that was just there but never directly interacted with anything from strong to more weak.


So the entity you demand has to be and entity that doesn't interfere with mankind. Reality doesn't work that way. At least if we are to take the current physics seriously it doesn't.

[Radrook]

Dawkins type 7? Sure, agreed. Only an omniscient being can know absolutely there is no God, as in any other case God can be outside of their knowledge.

cj x

Perhaps he's outside of their knowledge because they find the thought a God telling them what to do and not do repulsive. You know, like Adam and Eve and the entity called Satan are said to have found it. Is that possible?

[Safe-Keeper]

Radrook, for the third time: Have you searched every cubic meter of Norwegian mountains? If no, why are you 100% sure trolls do not exist?

Perhaps it is that you find the idea repulsive?

[Silentknight]

Radrook, for the third time: Have you searched every cubic meter of Norwegian mountains? If no, why are you 100% sure trolls do not exist?

Perhaps it is that you find the idea repulsive?

Come now, you're making a circular argument as well by proposing to introduce a troll into the Norwegian mountain habitat in order to prove that trolls live there. :D

[Tubbythin]

I understand all the arguments so far postulated. However, there is something which physicists say that keeps coming to mind when people mention the impossibility of certain things existing because they seem to be self contradictory. That is their recent penchant and tendency to theorize about multiple dimensions where anything is possible due to their infinite variety of laws within those universes. One type of universe is the one which mimics ours but with differing histories. This one is based on observations of subatomic particles which have the habit of being in different locations at the same time and disappearing and appearing at randomly. The question is whether they are serving other duties in other dimensions something the Hadron Collider will strive to answer. Another is the idea that our universe is part of just one of an infinite number of branes and that collision between branes causes Big Bags and the emergence of new universes on regular basis. This would create a sea of bubble universes each with its own distinct set of natural laws making things impossible in one universe possible in another. All this is an effort to take physics beyond the moment of the Big Bang, into areas previously considered beyond scientific hypothesizing and theorizing.
AFAIA, the primary purposes of the LHC are (possibly not in primary order) to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson, look for supersymmetric particles and other WIMP candidates, study symmetry breaking in order to search for the answer to the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe, study quark-gluon plasmas at unprecedented "temperatures" and do detailed studies of the top quark.


Now, within that framework which physicists are now delving into, I see no difficulty whatsoever in imagining a being located in one of those other universes [heaven]? having great power like the Q in Star Trek and going about creating universes and even seemingly contradicting himself in human eyes and forcing some humans to reject him because they can't seem to understand his way of thinking.
The problems being, among other things:
Its conjecture without any evidence. It doesn't answer the question of where said God came from in the first place. It bares no resemblance to the Christian God (or any other God that I've ever heard of). It doesn't solve anything whatsoever.


BTW
I have heard physicists discussing this subject speculate the possibility of such things as the existence of elves, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons. What they never speculate about is the existence of God because if they did then all academe would come down on their heads like and avenging sword.
Got any references for this? I'm curious.

[articulett]

Come now, you're making a circular argument as well by proposing to introduce a troll into the Norwegian mountain habitat in order to prove that trolls live there. :D
:fg:



Got any references for this? I'm curious.

I suspect the source may be his sphincter...

[zooterkin]

Perhaps he's outside of their knowledge because they find the thought a God telling them what to do and not do repulsive. You know, like Adam and Eve and the entity called Satan are said to have found it. Is that possible?

Is there an agency handing out 'arguments' against atheism? yrreg was trying this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128652) on a couple of weeks ago.

No, atheists don't choose not to believe in god because they find him repulsive, they don't believe in him because he doesn't exist. Unless you happen to have some evidence for either god or satan?

[Tubbythin]

I thought he might be referring to this from Michio Kaku:

Because of Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there is a tiny chance that anything will occur. There is a chance that firebreathing dragons will be produced by the LHC.

In which case he's completely missed Kaku's point.

[Safe-Keeper]

Now, within that framework which physicists are now delving into, I see no difficulty whatsoever in imagining a being located in one of those other universes [heaven]? having great power like the Q in Star Trek and going about creating universes and even seemingly contradicting himself in human eyes and forcing some humans to reject him because they can't seem to understand his way of thinking.And I see no problem in imagining that trolls existed. I still don't believe they actually did, though.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Like every other believing Irish householder, I leave a saucer of milk outside the back door each night for the 'little people', and by morning it's been drunk. That's what I call convincing evidence.

My Dad did that (put out a saucer of milk) one evening when I was about 7 (this was in England) and then we waited nearby quietly. Eventually, just around dusk, a creature appeared from under the bushes -- a hedgehog -- that lapped up the milk and then silently went on its way.

There are mundane explanations for many "mysteries".

In the case of the Bible, the simplest is that it was all made up by goat herders sitting around their fires at night and telling tall tales.

[Safe-Keeper]

Norsemen (farmers, at least) leave porridge in the barn every Christmas. Whether that's any healthier for the critters than milk (which I know you're not supposed to give dogs and cats, at least), I do not know;).

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>
It is entirely possible (and frequently done) to describe a "god" that is impossible. Normally be making it self-contradictory. Like being invisible and pink, at the same time.
</snip>


Cursed unbeliever. She is pink by faith and invisble by definition!! :D

[interwaff]

I speak English. I know what "a day" means.

Rewrite the bible if it is supposed to mean anything else.

[HghrSymmetry]

What they never speculate about is the existence of God because if they did then all academe would come down on their heads like and avenging sword.


Scientist rarely (if ever) comment on letter groupings that do not have a definition.

[Darth Rotor]

First it's good to keep in mind that eating blood was forbidden under the Mosaic Law. Neither were Noah and his descendents ever given permission to eat human flesh or blood.
Irrelevant. Blood to be drunk, bread to be eaten. (OK, taken in as food, I'll go along with that.)

However, in the Triune model, God/Jesus gets to make the rules, which in the case of the New Covenant, means new rules, thus this objection doesn't sit too well. Worthwhile cite, however, if the actual consuming of a human's or a sheeps's blood were the deal. In dealing with the blood of the Divine, not so sure your OT admonition holds water within the context of my question. Not to mention the following practical issue: ever cooked a steak at medium? Just what is that reddish juice that collects on the plate, if it isn't blood, in part?
So Jesus could not have been encouraging the breaking of both the Noachian Covenant nor the Mosaic law while that law was still in effect.
Sure he can. See above about rewriting the rules, and the problem you are having with the Divine nature of Jesus: not a real sheep, a symbolic sheep, whose divine blood isn't covered by the old rules. Not a lot of divine things to hunt, herd, and eat, last I checked.
That would have been sinful and Jesus is described as morally spotless. So that alone disqualifies the literal interpretation.
You are trying too hard, but that's fine. You are in good company.

John 6 (King James Version)
47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Your citation supports the Pope, not your position. ;) Likewise the Greek Orthodox position.
The folowing scriptuires are also pertinent.
Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
I do not find any scriptural passages that cites any and all bread presented as the flesh of Jesus: is each meal thus a taking of communion? Is each sip of wine? In memory of me connotes that it is done in a particular setting. (See both the Eucharist and my Methodist friends and their Memorial method) So, this quote does nothing for us. The Word is to nourish our Spirit, and if we then take from John that Jesus is the Word made flesh, we are back to: how is the Word to nourish us?
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
That doesn't back up the explicit remark you made about Jesus defining the eating and drinking as metaphorical or symbolic.
Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Likewise, as above.


Radrook, I have no confidence that you and I can resolve a bitter disagreement between old school and newer school doctrine on the matter of receiving Communion. Your assertion, however, about Jesus' allegedly clear guidance on what it means is lacking.

This is no surprise. :)

Were it that explicit in scripture, we'd not have had about 1800 years of pissing and moaning over this. :D I have only read somewhat on the early Church, so am not as confident as some might be on this matter, but I am of the opinion that the adjustment to the Passover meal, given the profoundly Hebrew/Jewish nature of the original adherents, in the Easter ritual and Communion holds the keys to what the teaching was and how it was held by the early followers. Not interested in you or I resolving this dispute here, we won't.

Thanks for the response anyway.

DR

[Radrook]

I speak English. I know what "a day" means.

Rewrite the bible if it is supposed to mean anything else.


Not that simple.
When you translate from one language to another there can be a loss connotations and variety of possible meanings. In short, their might not be a corresponding word in the other language which corresponds perfectly to the original and might lead to misunderstandings. That's why we have Lexicons which inform us of the original meanings so we can consider the possibilities of what was originally intended. So it's not a matter of rewriting. Even if we did rewrite we'd still be faced with translating what was rewritten into the hundreds of languages each presenting differing challenges of conveying the original meaning.

BTW

Do you consider the following usage of the word "day" restricted to twenty-four hours?

In Abraham Lincolns day things were different.

Scientific discoveries will bring the dawn of a new day.

In the day God created Heaven and Earth.

[Radrook]

Irrelevant. Blood to be drunk, bread to be eaten. (OK, taken in as food, I'll go along with that.)

So the ritual isn't one in which people eat and drink?

However, in the Triune model, God/Jesus gets to make the rules,

Have you investigated the origin of the triune god idea? It was and still is an alien concept to the Jews who had been recipients and caretakers of the sacred writings long before Christians came on the scene. It's origins aren't biblical.



which in the case of the New Covenant, means new rules, thus this objection doesn't sit too well. Worthwhile cite, however, if the actual consuming of a human's or a sheep's blood were the deal. In dealing with the blood of the Divine, not so sure your OT admonition holds water within the context of my question. Not to mention the following practical issue: ever cooked a steak at medium? Just what is that reddish juice that collects on the plate, if it isn't blood, in part?


In which case the argument is null since the authority you are citing isn't a convincing one.

[Furthermore, the OT is clear on how to treat blood. An effort was expected as a show of respect. Blood represented life and God wanted to illustrate that only he could arbitrate legitimately in reference to it. You know, by providing guidelines. Even Christians are told to keep free from eating blood. It's in the book of Acts. Have you read it?


Sure he can. See above about rewriting the rules, and the problem you are having with the Divine nature of Jesus: not a real sheep, a symbolic sheep, whose divine blood isn't covered by the old rules. Not a lot of divine things to hunt, herd, and eat, last I checked.

I have no problem with Jesus being divine since Jesus never claimed to be divine. he claimed to be the son of God. The term which is even applied to angels.

Furthermore your conclusion goes contrary to Jesus constant reminders to those under law to abide by the Mosaic law.


You are trying too hard, but that's fine.

Perhaps you are beginning to project.



Your citation supports the Pope, not your position.

Some might choose to arrive at that conclusion.

I do not find any scriptural passages that cites any and all bread presented as the flesh of Jesus: is each meal thus a taking of communion? Is each sip of wine?


Of course not.

In memory of me connotes that it is done in a particular setting (see both the Eucharist and my Methodist friends and their Memorial method) So, this quote does nothing for us. The Word is to nourish our Spirit, and if we then take from John that Jesus is the Word made flesh, we are back to: how is the Word to nourish us?

I never said that no setting was necessary.


The expression isn't to be taken literally. Jesus himself indicated it by saying that his words were spiritual in response to their objections of taking it literally. Furthermore he repeatedly reminded them that the word of God is what nourishes us.

Jesus being the personification of God's wisdom nourished our spirit with his message of hope.The ritual he instituted is simply a reminder that true life depends on our apreciation of his sacrifice.


John 5:24
Quote:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

That doesn't back up the explicit remark you made about Jesus defining the eating and drinking as metaphorical or symbolic.
Luke 4:4
Quote:
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Likewise, as above.

When he said his words wrere spiritual he was responding to an objection of their literal meaning. That's the context of his words.
They can't be wrenched from the context in the manner you are doing. Wrenching fromcomntextr is what gives false impression that the Bible is oipen to millions of interepretations. Taken in context what is consumed is the word of God, not literal flesh and blood. At least that's what the Bible tells us and what the scriptures I cited indicate. What you conclude, well, that's up to you.

Radrook, I have no confidence that you and I can resolve a bitter disagreement between old school and newer school doctrine on the matter of receiving Communion. Your assertion, however, about Jesus allegedly clear guidance on what it means is lacking.


I'm not seeking your confidence nor attempting to garner accolades as you seem to imply. Whether the word takes root or not isn't up to me. Neither am I bitter. If there is bitterness it isn't on my part. Why should I be? Everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Not interested in you or I resolving this dispute here, we won't

Thanks for the response anyway..


Not interested? Then why participate?

BTW

Ultimately, issue resolution is in God's hands not mine. I was merely responding to questions and points being brought up on the thread. Is every response an attempt to resolve and tinged with bitterness? Strange viewpoint!

[six7s]

I speak English. I know what "a day" means.

Rewrite the bible if it is supposed to mean anything else.Not that simple.Actually, it could be that simple...

The is a wide range of synonyms for 'a period of time' - from the precise to the poetic

era, aeon/eon, age, cycle, epoch, phase, interval, interlude, lull, pause, hiatus, meantime, season, term, while, span, etc, etc

When you translate from one language to another there can be a loss connotations and variety of possible meanings. So your book is the inspired word of your sky-daddy in which languages?


Even if we did rewrite we'd still be faced with translating what was rewritten into the hundreds of languages each presenting differing challenges of conveying the original meaning.Your brand of woo has an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-whatever dude at the helm and yet you can't accommodate a mere 50,000 languages :confused:

Do you consider the following usage of the word "day" restricted to twenty-four hours?Not colloquially, no

However, as any hack knows, employing clichés, jargon and/or slang is inefficient and ineffective if/when clarity is important

[Darth Rotor]

So the ritual isn't one in which people eat and drink?
It obviously is, but you seemed to miss my point on the nature of the blood.
Have you investigated the origin of the triune god idea? It was and still is an alien concept to the Jews who had been recipients and caretakers of the sacred writings long before Christians came on the scene. It's origins aren't biblical.
Since I am not providing apologia for the Pope, we will put this aside.
In which case the argument is null since the authority you are citing isn't a convincing one.
To you. See again 1800 years of pissing and moaning.
Furthermore, the OT is clear on how to treat blood. An effort was expected as a show of respect. Blood represented life and God wanted to illustrate that only he could arbitrate legitimately in reference to it. You know, by providing guidelines. Even Christians are told to keep free from eating blood. It's in the book of Acts. Have you read it?
Yes, so what's your guidance to me on eating that medium rare steak?
I have no problem with Jesus being divine since Jesus never claimed to be divine. he claimed to be the son of God. The term which is even applied to angels.
Did you just read what you wrote?
Furthermore your conclusion goes contrary to Jesus constant reminders to those under law to abide by the Mosaic law.
I understand, that's part of the fun of interpreting the Bible. One has to fill in the blanks for a lot of what was left unsaid.
Perhaps you are beginning to project.
As I am not tied to either tradition, I was looking for support for your assertion. Nothing particularly powerful there. Again, no surprise. This topic has been done to death.
The expression isn't to be taken literally. Jesus himself indicated it by saying that his words were spiritual in response to their objections of taking it literally. Furthermore he repeatedly reminded them that the word of God is what nourishes us.
You have not actually responded to my initial query, and we don't disagree with the general case of the Word nourishing the human Spirit.
Jesus being the personification of God's wisdom nourished our spirit with his message of hope.The ritual he instituted is simply a reminder that true life depends on our apreciation of his sacrifice.
Your interpretation, and of course that of millions of others. Again, the support for your statement is derivative, as is the history behind the Eucharist, so we remain at a draw here.
Wrenching fromcomntextr is what gives false impression that the Bible is oipen to millions of interepretations.
Sola Scriptura rides again. Martin Luther just smiled, somewhere. As for the rest, take it up with the Pope and the Patriarch.
Taken in context what is consumed is the word of God, not literal flesh and blood. At least that's what the Bible tells us and what the scriptures I cited indicate. What you conclude, well, that's up to you.
Thank you for your take on it, it's almost identical to that of my Methodist friend's.
I'm not seeking your confidence nor attempting to garner accolades as you seem to imply.
I was hoping for some support for your assertion. You gave me where you were coming from. I got what I came for.
Not interested? Then why participate?
Speaking of trying to take words out of context, how about you read my posts with the concept of comprehension in mind. The participation is aimed at seeing the basis. I got that, and it convinces me of nothing. This isn't a surprise, but one never knows when one will get a nugget of gold. Iron pyrite this was, but it still is nice and shiny.
Ultimately, issue resolution is in God's hands not mine.
Agreed. IMO, with one's heart in the right place, God may be laughing mightily and the contortions we go through on this score. Please read the Chesterton in my sig.

[QUOTE]Is every response an attempt to resolve and tinged with bitterness?
No, as I stated, and no, where is bitter coming from? :confused:
Strange viewpoint!
Whose?

If anyone is interested:
The Eucharist or the Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus at a Passover meal, to which he gave a radical reinterpretation. The festival of Passover commemorates the Israelites' deliverance from Egypt - specifically, how the lamb's blood which God commanded them to place on their door posts caused the Angel of Death to "pass over" their dwellings, so that their firstborn might be spared from the final plague. The New Testament writers understand this event typologically: as the lamb's blood saved the Israelites from the plague, so Jesus' substitutionary death saves God's New Covenant people from being judged for their sins. Covenant theology has generally viewed the Eucharist as a mysterious participation in the Real Presence of Christ mediated by the Holy Spirit (that is, real spiritual presence or pneumatic presence). This differs from Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism which believe in the Real Presence as an actual bodily presence of Christ, as well as from the generally Baptist position that the supper is merely a memorial commemoration.
DR

[Elizabeth I]

When you translate from one language to another there can be a loss connotations and variety of possible meanings.

So God didn't personally oversee and guide the translation of His inerrant word? Doesn't that strike you as being a little careless?

[Darth Rotor]

So God didn't personally oversee and guide the translation of His inerrant word? Doesn't that strike you as being a little careless?
To wax pithily philosophical on you for a moment:

In golf, as in discerning the deeper meanings in the Word, as in life, one finds that the Journey is the Thing.

DR

[biomorph]

So God didn't personally oversee and guide the translation of His inerrant word? Doesn't that strike you as being a little careless?

I thought the translaters considered that god did personally oversee and guide the translation of His inerrant word, so careless maybe , more like inept...or nonexistant

[Upchurch]

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed that the OP topic didn't actually last.

[interwaff]

Not that simple.
....


I appreciate secondary meanings of words, figurative language, etc.

I also know how things don't always translate with good precision, at least not into single words (lengthy elaboration should always be possible however).

It's all moot. The meaning of "7 days" is obvious, and if it really means something else then the burden is not on readers to change their interpretation.

If "7 days" actually means "2 billion years" in some twisted way, then the bible is flawed to that extent.

[Elizabeth I]

To wax pithily philosophical on you for a moment:

In golf, as in discerning the deeper meanings in the Word, as in life, one finds that the Journey is the Thing.

DR

Huh? So inaccurate translations are...what, exactly? Cool? Just as good as accurate translations?

DR, I usually follow you pretty well but this time you took a sharp left at the traffic light and lost me.

[six7s]

I have to say that I'm a little disappointed that the OP topic didn't actually last.<:confused: >

Atheist misconceptions of Christianity

Atheists think (cf 'believe') that christianity, like all woo, is bollocks

According to all reliable evidence, christianity (like all woo) is bollocks

Where is there scope for misconceptions ?
</:confused: >

[Robert Oz]

Do you consider the following usage of the word "day" restricted to twenty-four hours?

In Abraham Lincolns day things were different.

Scientific discoveries will bring the dawn of a new day.

In the day God created Heaven and Earth.


The difference is here:

Genesis

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


Exodus

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


I think the Bible is quite clear in identifying the six days of creation as 24-hour days. The days are preceded by "the evening and the morning" and God identified a 24-hour day as the sabbath day because he "rested on the seventh day".

[I Ratant]

Are you kidding? I have seen very few signs that he reads the responses to the threads he starts.
.
In the four pages (thus far) the OP has only made the tossup, with no sign of even reading the same ol' same ol' from the usual respondents.

[cj.23]

And I see no problem in imagining that trolls existed. I still don't believe they actually did, though.

Trolls? Oh trolls exist alright. I think the beginning of the end for the traditional troll based economy was the 70's - rising pollution in rivers, increased vehicle traffic and a sharp decline in goat owning smallholdings put an end to the centuries old lifestyle. Despite generous government subsidy my friend Erik Axel Cornellius finally gave up the goat in 1987, complaining bitterly "I been sittin' under this bridge two bloody year bor, and ev'ry time I get as much as a whiff or a goat it motors over in a fancy lorry before I can even let out a growl. More than a troll can stand!"

Fortunately Erik was able to catch the wave of the future. Bury St Edmunds Job Centre sent him on a Restart Back to Work programme, and after a few months of hanging out with roll up chain smoking gnomes, leprechauns put out of work by the downturn in the housing market and watching the dribby old geriatric satyrs push them zimmer frames after lithe nymphs whose traditional woodland pursuits had also declined with the end of traditional shepherding, Erik was able to attend a course in computing funded by the government.

Today, Erik is an internet troll, and once again commands the fear, respect and evokes the horror beloved of his breed. "It's not hard being a fading entity of norse legend" Erik confided in me "and those platic Dam trolls were nearly the end, I mean how would you feel? Especially when the market was flooded with the cheap chinese version. Still, today I once agai, thanks to my local job centre, have a future, and can hold my fangs up in public."


The days of the traditional troll may be over, but the troll is one of the great adaptive success stories of the late twentieth century.

cj x

[Ladewig]

The days of the traditional troll may be over, but the troll is one of the great adaptive success stories of the late twentieth century.

cj x

Oh, we could wipe them out alright if there weren't JREF rules forbidding the posting of kitten pictures. Trolls hate kitten pictures.

[Darth Rotor]

Huh? So inaccurate translations are...what, exactly? Cool? Just as good as accurate translations?
It is in the journey of trying to get at the meaning in Scritpure that the value accrues. Focusing on product, not process, strikes me as missing the point, though the desired result, wisdom and internal awakening, is significant. I related this to golf due to my deep respect for Ben Hogan's approach to the game. (Golf, for the addicted golfer, is a profound metaphor for life.) It is in the discovering and perfecting of his swing that his genius lay. That it laid the foundation for success in tournaments was also good, but the Journey itself, the Journey to Mastery, has a deep value beyond the score card at the US Open. (Won't derail into "Golf in the Kingdom" esoterica, but there is something there as well. )
DR, I usually follow you pretty well but this time you took a sharp left at the traffic light and lost me. Well, I was waxing philosophical, which might have been why my driving was eratic. Meet you at the pub a few blocks from that other place. First round is on me.

DR

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nope... simply cos I am still largely ignorant about it... ignorant in the sense that I don't know what it is... not ignorant in the sense that I'll regard it as innocent until proven guilty. Allopathy is but one of a few items on that list that are "things that I have - so far - no reason to accept unreservedly"

Scamway? No thanks




Sorry, had forgotten that I posted in this thread.

But, to reject allopathy is to reject conventional modern medicine, since that is what allopathy is. No one particularly likes the term, since it was created in contradistinction to osteopathy, but even most osteopaths practice only allopathic medicine nowadays.

With the Amway reference I was referring to its existence, not it's reliability. I guess that's the problem with lists like that. Many of those items you and I would reject out of hand as existing, while others, like Amway, are just bad deals.

[Radrook]

I appreciate secondary meanings of words, figurative language, etc.

I also know how things don't always translate with good precision, at least not into single words (lengthy elaboration should always be possible however).

It's all moot. The meaning of "7 days" is obvious, and if it really means something else then the burden is not on readers to change their interpretation.

If "7 days" actually means "2 billion years" in some twisted way, then the bible is flawed to that extent.

It's obvious to you? OK. : )

It's good to keep in mind that the BIble's purpose, and it does have a purpose and unifying theme contrary to popular opinion-is to tell us why we are here in the condition we are here and how God provided a way out of here. All these other things are secondary and have absolutely no effect on that theme.

[Mashuna]

It's all moot. The meaning of "7 days" is obvious, and if it really means something else then the burden is not on readers to change their interpretation.

If "7 days" actually means "2 billion years" in some twisted way, then the bible is flawed to that extent.

It's obvious to you? OK. : )


How could anyone get confused between 7 days and 2 billion years?

Unless. . .

Radrook, you're not the guy I hired to build my house extension are you?

[Radrook]

The difference is here:

Genesis

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


Exodus

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


I think the Bible is quite clear in identifying the six days of creation as 24-hour days. The days are preceded by "the evening and the morning" and God identified a 24-hour day as the sabbath day because he "rested on the seventh day".

Since this isn't a salvational issue then OK, if that's your take on it no problemo. : )

[Safe-Keeper]

Since this isn't a salvational issue then OK, if that's your take on it no problemo. : )You're not going to tell him how he's wrong? How very constructive.

[cj.23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Church_Hist orians_on_Allegorical_Interpretation_of_Genesis is rather useful. People may find this old thread of mine of some uinterest too?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119760

Hope of interest.

cj x

[Darth Rotor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Church_Hist orians_on_Allegorical_Interpretation_of_Genesis is rather useful. People may find this old thread of mine of some uinterest too?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119760

Hope of interest.

cj x
As usual, yes, very much of interest. Thanks.

[Robert Oz]

You're not going to tell him how he's wrong? How very constructive.


I'm not sure whether Radrook could point out a problem with the conclusion reached above. He has, on multiple occasions, said that the Bible clearly states when it is being allegorical. Since the passage from Exodus does not clearly identify the sabbath day as a notional symbol for a period longer than 24-hours, the reasonable conclusion is the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

I would be very interested to hear an alternative reconciliation between Genesis and Exodus.

[Mister Agenda]

I understand all the arguments so far postulated. However, there is something which physicists say that keeps coming to mind when people mention the impossibility of certain things existing because they seem to be self contradictory. That is their recent penchant and tendency to theorize about multiple dimensions where anything is possible due to their infinite variety of laws within those universes. One type of universe is the one which mimics ours but with differing histories. This one is based on observations of subatomic particles which have the habit of being in different locations at the same time and disappearing and appearing at randomly. The question is whether they are serving other duties in other dimensions something the Hadron Collider will strive to answer. Another is the idea that our universe is part of just one of an infinite number of branes and that collision between branes causes Big Bags and the emergence of new universes on regular basis. This would create a sea of bubble universes each with its own distinct set of natural laws making things impossible in one universe possible in another. All this is an effort to take physics beyond the moment of the Big Bang, into areas previously considered beyond scientific hypothesizing and theorizing.

Now, within that framework which physicists are now delving into, I see no difficulty whatsoever in imagining a being located in one of those other universes [heaven]? having great power like the Q in Star Trek and going about creating universes and even seemingly contradicting himself in human eyes and forcing some humans to reject him because they can't seem to understand his way of thinking.

BTW
I have heard physicists discussing this subject speculate the possibility of such things as the existence of elves, unicorns, fire-breathing dragons. What they never speculate about is the existence of God because if they did then all academe would come down on their heads like and avenging sword.

Multiple universes are an interesting speculation, and a good way to conceptualize what things might be like with different physical laws, but given our current sample size is one we have no good reason to believe that physical laws can be different--that is, a particular physical law might be necessarily so, like 1+1=2. Maybe some laws can vary within narrow parameters, maybe they could all be wildly different. At this point we have no way of knowing. It might even be that there ARE multiple universes, each with the exact same physical laws we have. Some physicists think multiple universes are an approach to the issue of 'fine-tuning'. The universe could be tuned a LOT better for life, as it is it is barely inhabitable in an extremely tiny portion of its volume.