Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,187 members, 7,780,298 topics. Date: Thursday, 28 March 2024 at 11:54 AM

My Thoughts And Questions About Religion - Religion (23) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / My Thoughts And Questions About Religion (227142 Views)

Questions About Religion For The Deep Thinker / Why Are Atheists Always Talking About Religion / Questions About Demon Possession - Nairaland Demonology Experts (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) ... (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) ... (130) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 1:39pm On Aug 16, 2015
PastorAIO:


But a free will choice is arbitrary by definition.

Explain please.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 2:47pm On Aug 16, 2015
Mindfulness:


Explain please.

arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
antonyms: democratic, accountable
3.
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
Origin

late Middle English (in the sense ‘ dependent on one's will or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler’, perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 4:38pm On Aug 16, 2015
PastorAIO:


arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"an arbitrary decision"
synonyms: capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unpredictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual; More
antonyms: rational, reasoned
2.
(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
"a country under arbitrary government"
synonyms: despotic, tyrannical, tyrannous, peremptory, summary, autocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian, draconian, autarchic, anti-democratic; More
antonyms: democratic, accountable
3.
MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
Origin

late Middle English (in the sense ‘[b]dependent on one's will [/b]or pleasure, discretionary’): from Latin arbitrarius, from arbiter ‘judge, supreme ruler’, perhaps influenced by French arbitraire .

I know the meaning of arbitrary. I would like to know how a free willed choice is arbitrary by definition as you said.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 4:48pm On Aug 16, 2015
Mindfulness:


I know the meaning of arbitrary. I would like to know how a free willed choice is arbitrary by definition as you said.
LOL...It explains itself.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 4:53pm On Aug 16, 2015
joseph1013:
LOL...It explains itself.

No, it does not.

I can choose something freely based on reason.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 5:10pm On Aug 16, 2015
Mindfulness:


No, it does not.

I can choose something freely based on reason.


I would imagine that a Reasonable choice is compelled by reason. being compelled it cannot be free. Unless you have a new definition for free.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 5:18pm On Aug 16, 2015
PastorAIO:


I would imagine that a Reasonable choice is compelled by reason. being compelled it cannot be free. Unless you have a new definition for free.

It is not so simple.

Sometimes you have to make decisions and you have to choose from a wide range of REASONABLE choices.
In this case, you have different reasonable options and you are free to make the final decision.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 7:31pm On Aug 16, 2015
Mindfulness:


It is not so simple.

Haha. I didn't think it would be.


Sometimes you have to make decisions and you have to choose from a wide range of REASONABLE choices.
In this case, you have different reasonable options and you are free to make the final decision.


What is it that's reasonable? Is it the Options that you have to choose from that you find are all reasonable?

Or, Is it the decision process that is reasonable?

These are two different things. I can use reason to make a decision, a choice between options. Or, presuming that in a situation it is possible to have conflicting reasonable options, I can arbitrarily choose between a number of reasonable options.

Personally I don't think that having a number of options that are all reasonable is possible. But then I guess that would depend on what you mean by Reason (I feel a unique definition of Reason coming up soon).


Can you give me an example of a situation with a wide range of reasonable choices?
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 7:42pm On Aug 16, 2015
PastorAIO:


Haha. I didn't think it would be.



What is it that's reasonable? Is it the Options that you have to choose from that you find are all reasonable?

Or, Is it the decision process that is reasonable?

These are two different things. I can use reason to make a decision, a choice between options. Or, presuming that in a situation it is possible to have conflicting reasonable options, I can arbitrarily choose between a number of reasonable options.

Personally I don't think that having a number of options that are all reasonable is possible. But then I guess that would depend on what you mean by Reason (I feel a unique definition of Reason coming up soon).


Can you give me an example of a situation with a wide range of reasonable choices?

A simple example.

You want to eat something that is healthy. You have plenty of options.



Another example.

You have two different job opportunities. The one is better paid, the other is closer to your family.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 10:13pm On Aug 16, 2015
Is it the decision making process that is Reasonable (i.e. guided by reason) ? Or is it the Options itself that reasonable (if that even makes sense)?
You didn't answer this query in my post.


Mindfulness:

A simple example.
You want to eat something that is healthy. You have plenty of options.
Another example.

That cabbage is healthy is not a reasonable fact. You can't say the option is reasonable. The decision to eat cabbage because it has roughage and you need to ease your bowels could be a reasonable decision, but the cabbage in itself is not reasonable. A fact cannot be reasonable. That is the point I tried to make.
If however, you find yourself farting uncontrollably and you want to curtail that then eating cabbage would not be reasonable at all. The cabbage itself is neutral. It is the decision that is reasonable and the reasonableness of the decision depends on the goal you're trying to achieve.

I'm not attacking you willy-nilly. I myself am a religionist and I came to religion from Atheism. It is the process by which you arrived back at religion that is drawing my interest and I want to investigate.

Mindfulness:



You have two different job opportunities. The one is better paid, the other is closer to your family.

Again here to make a reasonable decision would depend on what your ultimate objectives are. If your family were experiencing difficulties and you felt that you needed to be closer to home then of course the second option might be more reasonable. If your main issues with your family were financial difficulties then the first option might be more reasonable. Again it is the context that determines which decision is more reasonable.

Now, I actually believe that your decision to believe in God may be reasonable. But in what context? In the context of a desperate psychological need for a Daddy in the sky a belief in God would be Reasonable.

However in a context of needing practical knowledge and methods that would help you achieve your mundane goals in life such belief and reliance on such belief would be utterly unreasonable.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 11:55am On Aug 17, 2015
[b]A LOOK AT THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD...

Could it be true that God knows everything? If yes, it means that he understands the geography, biology, physics, astronomy and all the laws that govern our universe. If Bill Gates is omniscient about Microsoft, then he understands the most rudimentary things in the Windows operating system.

So let's see if this is true about God as revealed in the Bible. Come let us examine him fairly:


1. The All-Knowing Bible God states in his Holy-Book that the earth is flat.

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Question: Where is the foundation of the earth located. Doesn't the earth move?

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Question: Where are the four corners of a sphere located?


Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the
wicked might be shaken out of it?

Question: How can you take hold of the ends of a sphere?

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them.

Question: How can you see all the kingdom of round earth from a high mountain?


2. The All-Knowing God states in his Holy-Book that the moon has its own light.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall
not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going
forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Fact: This is not true. The moon does not have its own light.

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

Fact: The moon is not a light.


3. The Bible God educates us that the stars are in reality little lights in the sky and that they only shine at night.

Mark 13:25
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in
heaven shall be shaken.

Fact: Stars don't fall. Stars are bigger than the earth.


4. The All-Knowing God of the Bible tells me that the sun goes down at nights and rises in the morning.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.

Fact: The Sun does not rise and set. It does not return to its place. It is the earth that goes around the Sun.

5. The All Knowing Bible God says that human-beings can think with their hearts.

Matthew 15:18
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth
from the heart; and they defile the man.

Fact: Not true. Nothing other than the pumping of the blood happens in the heart. The brain does the thinking.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.

Fact: Again, not true. The brain is to be blamed, not the heart.


I am certain of this conclusion that the all-knowing bible god isn't so all-knowing after all. As a matter of fact we can't do any less than to conclude that the bible's god either does not exist and that men made these things up according to the knowledge of the world they had at that time.[/b]

3 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 3:09pm On Aug 17, 2015
PastorAIO:
Is it the decision making process that is Reasonable (i.e. guided by reason) ? Or is it the Options itself that reasonable (if that even makes sense)?
You didn't answer this query in my post.

That cabbage is healthy is not a reasonable fact. You can't say the option is reasonable. The decision to eat cabbage because it has roughage and you need to ease your bowels could be a reasonable decision, but the cabbage in itself is not reasonable. A fact cannot be reasonable. That is the point I tried to make.
If however, you find yourself farting uncontrollably and you want to curtail that then eating cabbage would not be reasonable at all. The cabbage itself is neutral. It is the decision that is reasonable and the reasonableness of the decision depends on the goal you're trying to achieve.

This is interesting. I have not thought about it this way and I have to agree with you.


I'm not attacking you willy-nilly. I myself am a religionist and I came to religion from Atheism. It is the process by which you arrived back at religion that is drawing my interest and I want to investigate.

I didn't feel attacked at all. No worries.

What made you a religionist?


Again here to make a reasonable decision would depend on what your ultimate objectives are. If your family were experiencing difficulties and you felt that you needed to be closer to home then of course the second option might be more reasonable. If your main issues with your family were financial difficulties then the first option might be more reasonable. Again it is the context that determines which decision is more reasonable.

True.


Now, I actually believe that your decision to believe in God may be reasonable. But in what context? In the context of a desperate psychological need for a Daddy in the sky a belief in God would be Reasonable.

I am not sure whether I can say that my decision or choice to believe in a God is (exclusively)based on reason, maybe only partly. I would rather say that it is based on some sort of intuition, at least partly. It is not a desperate psychological need to have a daddy in the sky since I do not imagine God to be a person / a daddy in the sky.

1 Like

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 6:24pm On Aug 17, 2015
author=joseph1013 post=37044961][color=#550000][b]A LOOK AT THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD...

Could it be true that God knows everything? If yes, it means that he understands the geography, biology, physics, astronomy and all the laws that govern our universe. If Bill Gates is omniscient about Microsoft, then he understands the most rudimentary things in the Windows operating system.

So let's see if this is true about God as revealed in the Bible. Come let us examine him fairly:


1. The All-Knowing Bible God states in his Holy-Book that the earth is flat.

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Question: Where is the foundation of the earth located. Doesn't the earth move?

You already know that I am not a defender of the Bible but I am actually surprised by the way you read the Bible.

How does the above Psalm mean that the earth is flat?

Moreover, there is a difference between "it can never be moved" (passive voice) and "the earth moves" (active voice). The Psalm says that NOBODY can move the earth and NOT that it can't move ITSELF.

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall
assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Question: Where are the four corners of a sphere located?

North, South, East and West maybe?


Job 38:13
That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the
wicked might be shaken out of it?

Question: How can you take hold of the ends of a sphere?

Who or what is "it"?

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high
mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world,
and the glory of them.

Question: How can you see all the kingdom of round earth from a high mountain?

First of all, how can the devil take you there? Ever met him? grin


2. The All-Knowing God states in his Holy-Book that the moon has its own light.

Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall
not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going
forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Fact: This is not true. The moon does not have its own light.

Where is written that the moon has its own light. The moon shall not cause her light to shine means that it will not.



Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

Fact: The moon is not a light.

It lets the sun light through. It dims this light and in this way creates what we call night.

3. The Bible God educates us that the stars are in reality little lights in the sky and that they only shine at night.

Mark 13:25
And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in
heaven shall be shaken.

Fact: Stars don't fall. Stars are bigger than the earth.

I know that stars don't fall but the reason is not because they are bigger than the earth. And again shall could be replaced by will. It refers to the future.

4. The All-Knowing God of the Bible tells me that the sun goes down at nights and rises in the morning.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.

Fact: The Sun does not rise and set. It does not return to its place. It is the earth that goes around the Sun.

True!

5. The All Knowing Bible God says that human-beings can think with their hearts.

Matthew 15:18
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth
from the heart; and they defile the man.

Fact: Not true. Nothing other than the pumping of the blood happens in the heart. The brain does the thinking.

Come on!
When someone says "You'll always be in my heart", we don't take it literally.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.

Fact: Again, not true. The brain is to be blamed, not the heart.

Symbolic meaning, I guess. Same as above.


I am certain of this conclusion that the all-knowing bible god isn't so all-knowing after all. As a matter of fact we can't do any less than to conclude that the bible's god either does not exist and that men made these things up according to the knowledge of the world they had at that time.

You might be surprised now but I agree with you.

I believe that there are many misconceptions and delusions in the Bible.
I also believe that people created an image of the God that was strongly shape according to the knowledge of the world they had at the time. Furthermore, the at that time prevailing political structures, in which the church struggled to gain power, and the different tunic groups who also strived to do the same, also influenced the Bible, hence the many parts, in which the writers use metaphorical language to communicate ideas that they have might been killed for.

HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinking cheesy

1 Like

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by rabzy: 12:34pm On Aug 18, 2015
joseph1013:




[/b]




[b]How can you use that excuse? Wasn't slave trade in the constitution in the past before it was repealed? Were black men not to marry whites in the constitution? Were women not supposed to vote in the constitution in the past? All these were ruled out before sufficient arguments were made to the effect that it was not the right thing to do. What you just attempted to do is called playing the victim. If you bring facts to the table and convince the judges, you will be helped accordingly.

How do you think it can be explored more than it was explored? One of the best places, and perhaps the best place, for cross-examination is the Court of Law. You bring your facts to the table and you defend them. That's why the court of law is said to be the last hope of the common man.

The major players of Intelligent design in the World were brought forward to testify. I can bet that those of Creationalism who appeared in that case are more knowledgeable than you about Intelligent design. They have written books that you lots refer to and hold as sacred. They have been interviewed on International TV. They have donw documentaries and have foundations committed to Intelligent design. But upon close scrutiny they fell like pack of cards. Their facts were no longer facts. They resorted to half-truths and outright lies.

Are you aware that the court case was not a one day affair? It went on for months and various experts were interviewed on the subject. They brought evidences and they were eventually found out to be shams.

They could not have done better than they did from their weak position.

And no, evolution is a theory generally accepted in the Scientific world. Any evidence brought forward is not brought to refute it. Any evidence brought is to consolidate on what is already established to be true.[/b]

In the realm of science the best place to decide a scientific issue is not in the court of law. Lawyers just wants to win a case whether right or wrong. Judges have dismissed cases just because the evidence was obtained unlawfully. Slave trade is a social issue and the court is the best place to trash it out, you can't debate the superiority of a civil engineering code of design to another or whether a particular medical procedure should be continued or not in a court. It is best done and usually done by scientific bodies who after years of deliberation brings out their findings and recommendation and then adopts a standard. It is not a court matter.

The main issue was whether they can teach creationism in the court of law...the answer is no. The constitution says they cant, because creationism is akin to teaching a particular religion and the US is a secular state. So that is a no no. All the lawyers did was to link the so called expert's text to an earlier creationism text and that was the end of the case. From the clip the scientific basis intelligent design was not explored in detail. The Evolution theory and all its variants has been revised, redacted, discarded, resurrected a thousand times over the course of 150 years...that is science...it looks at all angles people bring their own researches and everybody contributes from all over the world. The court does not have such time to look at intelligent design.

The irreducible organ was discarded just by bringing one example and the sample used was recently discovered, was opportunity given to search for other evidences in favour of intelligent design that can counter that. Was evidence given to show that that particular simple needle and gear mechanism was the one that evolve into the one cited by the creationism expert.

The fish with the flat head that was shown as evidence or evolution into higher forms, such fishes still exists today in abundance, could that not have been the way God wanted them to be? They only brought fossil of a life form which was claimed to evolve into whatever, but there are other kinds of fishes that still has such features and still very much around.

The cell is still the basic unit of life and it is still irreducible to any inanimate thing.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 12:45pm On Aug 18, 2015
Mindfulness:


You already know that I am not a defender of the Bible but I am actually surprised by the way you read the Bible.

How does the above Psalm mean that the earth is flat?

Moreover, there is a difference between "it can never be moved" (passive voice) and "the earth moves" (active voice). The Psalm says that NOBODY can move the earth and NOT that it can't move ITSELF.

Rev 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Only a flat object has four corners. Think square, rectangle...

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

The earth does not have a foundation that will make it move. You have to read my writings and not argue for the sake of it. This verse says that the reason the earth does not move is because it has a foundation. In English language, the symbol ';' means that the next words explains the last words.



North, South, East and West maybe?

Why maybe? Because it fits what we have found out scientifically? Explain it away when it's convenient. Yeah, right!

Who or what is "it"?

Again, I say quit arguing for the sake of it. You should have read the context of the verse to know I have no business with 'it' or 'who'. I'm only interested in the fact that the Bible wrongly says you can hold the ends of the earth.

Here is it from verse 12

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days;
and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that
the wicked might be shaken out of it?

You cannot hold the ends of the earth. The earth does not have ends that can be held.


First of all, how can the devil take you there? Ever met him? grin

Why are you asking me? Ask the Bible. How is the question relevant?

Where is written that the moon has its own light. The moon shall not cause her light to shine means that it will not.

Is it right to ask you to go for an English lesson? 'his pen' means the pen that is his. 'her light' means the light that is hers. And the context of 'her' refers to the moon. Simple enough?

It lets the sun light through. It dims this light and in this way creates what we call night.

Read it again...it calls the moon a lesser light. THE MOON IS NOT A LIGHT. Aarrgghh. You make unnecessary arguments.

I know that stars don't fall but the reason is not because they are bigger than the earth. And again shall could be replaced by will. It refers to the future.

SHALL is not same as WILL. Refer to an English Language textbook. And don't let Christians catch you changing words in the Bible else this verse will be your undoing

Rev. 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
...God shall take away his part out of the book
of life.

grin grin grin


Come on!
When someone says "You'll always be in my heart", we don't take it literally.

Show me how God told you that's what he meant or I say that's your own interpretation. How do we know which verses to take literally and which ones we should not?


Symbolic meaning, I guess. Same as above.


HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinking cheesy

You keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say that God does not exist. I ask that you prove to me that God exists and why I should believe the definition you give to it. Your subjective feeling of God cannot be taken seriously. There are millions of subjective feelings like yours all over the world which are all at variance.

If you say it can be proven, PROVE it.

3 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by rabzy: 1:33pm On Aug 18, 2015
joseph1013:


Here are the verses:

The Earth was founded upon waters
Psalms 24:2
For he laid the earth's foundation on the seas and built it on the ocean depths.

The Earth has pillars
Psalms 75:3
When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm.

Vegetation before sunlight

Genesis 1:12
The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees
with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind.

Genesis 1:14
Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night.
Let them be signs to mark the seasons, days, and years.
And God saw that it was good.

We all know by virtue of scientific breakthroughs that these all are false. But we can forgive medieval men who wrote the Bible for thinking they are true. Right?

This is just a feeble attempt to look for errors where there are none. The first verse was talking about the ground, the firma terra. The preceding verse talked about the earth or land and all its inhabitants, the land and all its inhabitants are all resting upon the seas and oceans. That's a statement of fact. In Genesis the earth or rather the productive land, the earth's crust was raised up from the depths of the oceans and came to lie or rest on the sea.

Yes the Bible was written in medieval times and has to speak in language that people would understand, it does not have to speak in scientific terms. In the Psalms 75:3 it is not talking about what the planet earth rests upon, it used pillars as a figurative sense. Pillar is the support of buildings and God is saying when the earth quakes and people tremble, it is he himself that holds the support. He is the ultimate support for the earth and all its inhabitants. These are idioms and illustrations for people to understand and figures of speech to make a lasting impression on people. Till date scientists still talk about sun rise and sun set but we all know the sun does not rise nor does it set. So if someone says meet at sunset, we know what that means even though the sun actually does not set.

We talk about the four cardinal points of the earth, there are no such points, they are just reference points for directions. We all talk about North, South East and West. Everywhere is north of a place and south of a place. But for easy understanding and to set directions, we choose a place as the 'true north'. Longitudes and lats are imaginary lines but they are part of our everyday speech. The angels standing at the four corners of the earth is the same as this. I didn't learn about the four cardinal points from the Bible, i learnt it from a geography which is a branch of science. And till date it is still being taught.
In fact the Bible mentions what is physically holding the earth in place...(Job 26:7) "He stretches out his heavens over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing whatsoever. This was written at a time when alchemists believed fantastic stories about what the earth is resting upon. The verse even said he stretches the heavens, thousands of years later scientists has discovered that the universe is actually spreading, expanding or stretching. Brilliantly 3 scientists calculated the expansion rate and were given nobel prizes. I guess that's some brilliant science from the Bible for you there.

There was no vegetation before sunlight. There was the sun before the Vegetations. What Genesis detailed was the preparation of the earth for human habitation. The sun, moon and stars including the earth has existed as planetary bodies.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 [b]Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep
, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

This means the sun and moon and earth existed, but there evidently were fumes and clouds covering the surface of the earth making it desolate and dark.
When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.—Ge 1:3, 4.

That light would be sufficient for the vegetation that came on the third day. So there was light before vegetation.

In Genesis 1:14, that verse was now talking about the source of light.

And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼ′, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sah′, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by rabzy: 2:02pm On Aug 18, 2015
The Bible is a book written for men and in a way that people can understand. In fact some terms can be best understood if you know the terms or the idioms of the language in which it was written. The angels holding the ends of the earth has its meaning and it is well understood. Just as when someone says 'your life is in my hands' 'i am the one that made you' 'he is holding the tiger by the tail' 'When America sneezes the world catch cold'. These are physically impossible but idiomatically understandable.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 3:16pm On Aug 18, 2015
joseph1013:


Rev 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth.

Only a flat object has four corners. Think square, rectangle...

Psalm 104:5
The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

The earth does not have a foundation that will make it move. You have to read my writings and not argue for the sake of it. This verse says that the reason the earth does not move is because it has a foundation. In English language, the symbol ';' means that the next words explains the last words.





Why maybe? Because it fits what we have found out scientifically? Explain it away when it's convenient. Yeah, right!



Again, I say quit arguing for the sake of it. You should have read the context of the verse to know I have no business with 'it' or 'who'. I'm only interested in the fact that the Bible wrongly says you can hold the ends of the earth.

Here is it from verse 12

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days;
and caused the dayspring to know his place;
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that
the wicked might be shaken out of it?

You cannot hold the ends of the earth. The earth does not have ends that can be held.




Why are you asking me? Ask the Bible. How is the question relevant?



Is it right to ask you to go for an English lesson? 'his pen' means the pen that is his. 'her light' means the light that is hers. And the context of 'her' refers to the moon. Simple enough?



Read it again...it calls the moon a lesser light. THE MOON IS NOT A LIGHT. Aarrgghh. You make unnecessary arguments.



SHALL is not same as WILL. Refer to an English Language textbook. And don't let Christians catch you changing words in the Bible else this verse will be your undoing

Rev. 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book
...God shall take away his part out of the book
of life.

grin grin grin




Show me how God told you that's what he meant or I say that's your own interpretation. How do we know which verses to take literally and which ones we should not?


Symbolic meaning, I guess. Same as above.



You keep putting words in my mouth. I did not say that God does not exist. I ask that you prove to me that God exists and why I should believe the definition you give to it. Your subjective feeling of God cannot be taken seriously. There are millions of subjective feelings like yours all over the world which are all at variance.

If you say it can be proven, PROVE it.

I told you, God exists in people's minds. In yours too. Whether he exists beyond that, nobody has been able to prove so far.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 8:34am On Aug 20, 2015
rabzy:


This is just a feeble attempt to look for errors where there are none. The first verse was talking about the ground, the firma terra. The preceding verse talked about the earth or land and all its inhabitants, the land and all its inhabitants are all resting upon the seas and oceans. That's a statement of fact. In Genesis the earth or rather the productive land, the earth's crust was raised up from the depths of the oceans and came to lie or rest on the sea.

Una wan rewrite your Bible, shey? Here is the preceding verse:

Genesis 24:1
The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof;
the world, and they that dwell therein.

Then
Genesis 24:2
For he has founded it upon the seas, and
established it upon the floods.

No Sir, land is not resting on the seas and oceans. That your Bible says it does not make it a fact.


Yes the Bible was written in medieval times and has to speak in language that people would understand, it does not have to speak in scientific terms. In the Psalms 75:3 it is not talking about what the planet earth rests upon, it used pillars as a figurative sense. Pillar is the support of buildings and God is saying when the earth quakes and people tremble, it is he himself that holds the support. He is the ultimate support for the earth and all its inhabitants. These are idioms and illustrations for people to understand and figures of speech to make a lasting impression on people. Till date scientists still talk about sun rise and sun set but we all know the sun does not rise nor does it set. So if someone says meet at sunset, we know what that means even though the sun actually does not set.

[b]What you have written above is called gibberish. Which God is the support? How has God demonstrated that he is the support of the earth? You talk of when the Earth quake, does he mean he no longer supports when there is earthquake? If he indeed is the pillar as you posited, is he not strong enough in support for thousands to die via earthquakes every year.

For your information, that verse does not say God is the pillar. it says God holds the PILLARS, meaning there are pillars. Stop changing the CONTENT of these verses.

There is always this intellectual double-talk that I see when I discuss these things with religious people.You say the Bible was written for medieval men hence the language, yet you ask us in the 21st century to live by it.

When the Bible commands not to eat pork, you all go shouting that it is because God is omniscient and knows that Pork has excessive fat that is unhealthy yet when we show you that the same Bible tells us God holds the pillars of the earth, you say it is figurative. Who art thou fooling?
[/b]


We talk about the four cardinal points of the earth, there are no such points, they are just reference points for directions. We all talk about North, South East and West. Everywhere is north of a place and south of a place. But for easy understanding and to set directions, we choose a place as the 'true north'. Longitudes and lats are imaginary lines but they are part of our everyday speech. The angels standing at the four corners of the earth is the same as this. I didn't learn about the four cardinal points from the Bible, i learnt it from a geography which is a branch of science. And till date it is still being taught.

In fact the Bible mentions what is physically holding the earth in place...(Job 26:7) "He stretches out his heavens over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing whatsoever[/b]. This was written at a time when alchemists believed fantastic stories about what the earth is resting upon. The verse even said he stretches the heavens, thousands of years later scientists has discovered that the universe is actually spreading, expanding or stretching. Brilliantly 3 scientists calculated the expansion rate and were given nobel prizes. I guess that's some brilliant science from the Bible for you there.

You are grasping at straws. Herein lies another inaccuracy of the Bible. The heavens are not stretched out over EMPTY space. The space is not empty! Research that...

And you are twisting it. When scientists say the universe is expanding, they are not saying that it is stretching. It is not stretching. What scientists are saying is that more distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than closer ones. I repeat, they are not stretching. The Bible knows nothing about astronomies.




There was no vegetation before sunlight. There was the sun before the Vegetations. What Genesis detailed was the preparation of the earth for human habitation. The sun, moon and stars including the earth has existed as planetary bodies.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 [b]Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep
, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

This means the sun and moon and earth existed, but there evidently were fumes and clouds covering the surface of the earth making it desolate and dark.
When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness.—Ge 1:3, 4.

That light would be sufficient for the vegetation that came on the third day. So there was light before vegetation.

In Genesis 1:14, that verse was now talking about the source of light.

And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.

Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ʼohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma·ʼohr′, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
It is also noteworthy that at Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb ba·raʼ′, meaning “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb ʽa·sah′, meaning “make,” is employed. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways.

There are so much assumptions in your writeup that one would think that you were there when God was making all these things happen. If the sun, moon and stars had existed as planetary bodies before Genesis 1, why would there be darkness on earth? Why would he need to create light into existence before there would be day and night?

This writeup lacks substance. The apologists you quoted have a poor grasp of the hebrew language that the Old Testament was written in and your submission is even at variance with their explanation.

What you have up there is your own interpretation that is not supported except by your mind, and you have no evidence to tell us that they happened in the same sequence as you posited.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 8:45am On Aug 20, 2015
rabzy:
The Bible is a book written for men and in a way that people can understand. In fact some terms can be best understood if you know the terms or the idioms of the language in which it was written. The angels holding the ends of the earth has its meaning and it is well understood. Just as when someone says 'your life is in my hands' 'i am the one that made you' 'he is holding the tiger by the tail' 'When America sneezes the world catch cold'. These are physically impossible but idiomatically understandable.

[b]No sir, it is worse when you know the idioms of the language with which the Bible was written. I have told you several times that the originals of the Biblical manuscripts are lost, what we have are copies of copies of copies by people who did not have an encounter with the characters. That is why the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars do not believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures. Only the most of fundamentalists still hang on to those notions.

Personalities like Moses, Joshua and Abraham are not historical figures. There is no archaeological proof that the Red Sea was ever parted. There is no worldwide flood that submerged mankind. There is no tower of Babel whose project God killed.

These are all myths and legends that were used to entertain kids, the same way the Tortoise and his canny ways were used to entertain us as kids.

I know it's difficult for you to believe you have believed in lies of Christianity all along, but that's the truth. You've been lied to, there is no nicer way to say this. [/b]

2 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 8:48am On Aug 20, 2015
Mindfulness:


I told you, God exists in people's minds. In yours too. Whether he exists beyond that, nobody has been able to prove so far.

Oga sir, I was merely responding to your comments when you said the all-knowing-Bible-God that exists in people's minds can be proved. You think I made that up? I swear, I didn't. See for yourself:

Mindfulness:

HOWEVER, where I do not agree with you, is when you claim that God does not exist. The all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds. This can be proved. He is also part of your thoughts. He occupies your mind strongly enough for us to have this conversation here about "him", whether he is a person(laity), imagination or wishful thinking cheesy

grin grin grin
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 9:06am On Aug 20, 2015
[b]HOW REVELATION UNDERMINES EVERYTHING...

My new friend, mindfulness, often use revelations as a reason why he firmly believes there is a God. He even says he has revelations everyday. I hear it from several people too. Infact, when I speak with people about their believe in their god, the personal experience argument is one of the top three arguments I hear.

The personal experience argument could take the form of:

1) I was a lost/wicked/sick/worthless person.
2) I asked God to reveal himself to me.
3) God did reveal himself & it was a wonderful experience.
4) My life has changed for the better.
5) So I KNOW God exists.

When people tell me stories like this, I never deny their stories--I always assume they are telling the truth. They may not be, or they may be exaggerating, but I can't tell so I assume their story is true. I go a step ahead and tell them that I RESPECT their position.

But, if their story is true does that prove their god exists? No, not at all.

We know beliefs can change people. For example, good teachers take advantage of this fact. They encourage their students to believe they can do well and students often respond by achieving higher grades.

People make huge sacrifices, up to and including sacrificing their lives for a belief. During the Second World War Japanese kamikaze pilots flew their planes into battleships in the certain knowledge they would die. Motivations for this sacrifice were complex but many pilots believed their Emperor to be a god and that their death would serve their beloved god and protect their country. It was reported that pilots were often extraordinarily blissful immediately before their final sortie.

Today, suicide bombings are seen almost daily. Many of these bombers believe their sacrifice will guarantee them a place in paradise.

So, a belief alone can make people do extraordinary things. No supernatural intervention is necessary and the belief does not even have to be true.

Another fact shows the weakness of the personal experience argument. Life changing encounters with a "god" are not confined to the Abrahamic god. Hindus also report such encounters with their gods. If Yahweh and say, Vishnu, cannot both exist, either the Christian or the Hindu or both must have had a life-changing experience with a non-existent god.

These things lead us to the inevitable conclusion that our brains can "manufacture" life-changing experiences--no gods are required. In fact, this has been established in laboratory experiments where people report such experiences after being subjected to cranial electromagnetic stimulation, drugs and even simple meditation.

All this means personal experience and revelation is an unreliable way to determine that a god exists--there is simply no way to distinguish a self-created experience from one induced by an external supernatural agent. Of course, it is possible that all such experiences are self-induced.

That brings us to a final and crucial point. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are revealed religions. They arose because, some 3,000 years, ago the god Yahweh allegedly revealed himself to Jewish prophets. We have only the dreams of these men to attest to the existence of Yahweh.

But what if the experiences of Abraham, Moses and all the other prophets were no more real than the experiences of the electricians, agbero drivers and Melon-Selling Abokis I speak to all the time? What if these ancient prophets were as deceived by their own brains as people are today?

In that case, all the Abrahamic religions would have been founded on nothing more than the delusional experiences and revelations of a handful of Jewish tribal leaders.

The honest truth is, they could have been--we have no way of knowing. One thing we do know is the experiences of the prophets MUST have been delusions, if the god they communed with is not real. And we also know we cannot use personal experience as evidence for the existence of a god.

So we need to be sure Yahweh is real BEFORE we believe anything the prophets claim was revealed to them. Unfortunately, the prophets could not show Yahweh was real and nor, since then, has anyone else.

Personal experience and revelation is a terrible argument for the existence of God but revelation is a pretty good way to start a religion. It is good, not because it demonstrates truth, but because we can all have "god" experiences and the experience is so powerful that it promotes belief and overwhelms reason.

It is time for reason to fight back.

Thank you for reading! smiley smiley smiley[/b]

5 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 1:09pm On Aug 20, 2015
[b]Examine the following quotes:

“When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day.
But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”
~ Martin Luther

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things.
And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."
~ Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions.
How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it."
~ John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, Psalm 93, verse 1, trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"
~ John Calvin, sermon no. 8 on 1st Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), A. 72

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool [or 'man'] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
~ Martin Luther, Table Talk

Knowledge trumps beliefs all the time. [/b]

3 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by HerPapaPikin88(f): 1:36pm On Aug 20, 2015
malvisguy212:
it's a choice,you love God or you Reject Him,concerning the wife of cain;bible does not specifically say it only cain and abel was the son of adam,. Although Cain
does seem to be the firstborn, the text is not clear
that Abel was the second born, but only that he was
the second son. Later, the narrative indicates that
Adam and Eve produced "other sons and
daughters." So, it is possible that Adam and Eve
produced daughters between the births of Cain and
Abel. It is also likely that others sons and daughters
were produced after the birth of Abel. We don't know how old Cain and Abel were when Cain murdered his brother, but they seem to be at least young adults, since they are both engage in a trade. for their
living.

Although the period of time between the birth of
Cain and the death of Abel is not given in the Bible, it would seem that this period was probably over 100 years, since the birth of Adam's next son, Seth is said to have occurred when Adam was 130 years old. Adam and Eve could have produced many daughters during that period of time.
It is possible cain would have marry one of this sister,God caused him may have lead to this.

That explains one race...explain the other 4. And if I hear Shem, Hem, Haw, Ham or Bacon... I will be very upset.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 4:28pm On Aug 20, 2015
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

3 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 4:51pm On Aug 20, 2015
^^^ Is this a response to my REVELATION post?

If yes, then it's a good use of metaphor to make a point. Although in driving it, it makes a straw man argument for rational empiricism. The reason it seems appealing is because of the poetic comparison of various elements.

Let's try this:

Two men stood at the edge of a cliff.

Said one to another "I'm gonna jump using the invisible rope." "What rope?" said the other. "There must be a rope here." the Believer affirms. "Nonsense." said the Skeptic.

"We can't see a rope so whaaaaaat? Does that mean a rope does not exist. Can't you see how far the ground is? There must be a rope...". Bla bla bla...

I'm on the road now. I will compose something substantial later. But in the meantime, it doesn't make alot of sense.

1 Like

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by HerPapaPikin88(f): 6:03pm On Aug 20, 2015
PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Oh shut up! A baby is not capable of logical thought...YOU are!
By your ridiculous logic, allow me to market you this device. It's the most amazing piece of technology you could ask for; everything you've ever wanted in a smartphone, you'll find in it. It is perfection. In fact, lemme show you all the documentation; manuals and all as well as various photos of what the phone possibly looks like and testimonials of people who have seen the device. Now that you have all of this 'evidence' a percentage of everything you earn every single month is to be paid to me and the manufacturer and then one day in the uncertain future, you will surely get the device. Do we have a deal?

3 Likes

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by malvisguy212: 6:20pm On Aug 20, 2015
HerPapaPikin88:


That explains one race...explain the other 4. And if I hear Shem, Hem, Haw, Ham or Bacon... I will be very upset.
I did not understand you, present your question appropriate.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by joseph1013: 7:07pm On Aug 20, 2015
PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

[b]
First of all, people who put their faith in folklore often have difficulty understanding that an analogy (such as this story), no matter how clever (and I'm not saying this is), is still just a story.

An analogy usually serves as an explanation for something else, but it is never any sort of evidence or proof. It is just a story. If it were about two books on a shelf talking about an unknown wizard that would make them watch Messi and Ronaldo at the Bernabeu, the dialogue could be almost the same. And you know what, the Skeptic book would be right.

If its point is that we can sometimes be mistaken, and we agree that at other times we're not mistaken, then story isn't helpful. It's like saying, "Once, people believed the world was flat, so how can you be sure 1 + 1 = 2?" The story gives no guidance in helping us figure out when we're mistaken and when we're not.

The story has no meaning beyond whatever understanding others bring to it.

It's not a worthwhile argument.

Analogies are not proofs. This entire story relies on the reader already knowing what life after being born is. It presents a false dilemma with a counter argument that the entire reading audience already knows is false.. What if the child was arguing about meeting dragons after being born. "Don't you want to meet a dragon after you are born?" but see that would not work because we all already reject dragons as not real. The same can not be said of the mother eating them as food.

It is a silly story. It only seems smart because it is using knowledge the reader already has to prove something they already know and then uses that by proxy and metaphor to try and prove something completely and utterly unconnected and irrelevant to the conversation.

Also, Science pops in here! If your skeptic baby represents the skeptics of the world (including most scientists) then there are plenty of naturalistic ways the existence of a mother can be determined conclusively.

In fact, let me surprise you a lil here. Recent research indicates babies pick up the rhythms and prosody of their mother's language while they are inside her! That way they come out primed to pick out the sounds of their native language from amidst the millions of other noises and sounds they are exposed to in their environment. The very first few wails of French babies are different in rhythmic structure from that of German babies, and conforms to the structure of their respective native tongues.

If normal non-conversational babies can do this, the very accomplished ones in your story certainly can without resorting to faith.

There's plenty other issues with the story but the above should conveniently serve.
[/b]

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 9:39pm On Aug 20, 2015
joseph1013:


Oga sir, I was merely responding to your comments when you said the all-knowing-Bible-God that exists in people's minds can be proved. You think I made that up? I swear, I didn't. See for yourself:



grin grin grin

My brother, the fact that the-all-knowing-Bible-God exists in people's minds is a fact.
Whether he exists beyond thoughts nobody knows for sure.
Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by Nobody: 9:41pm On Aug 20, 2015
PastorAIO:
In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other:
“Do you believe in life after delivery?” The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”
The second said, “I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have other senses that we can’t understand now.”
The first replied, “That is absurd. Walking is impossible. And eating with our mouths? Ridiculous! The umbilical cord supplies nutrition and everything we need. But the umbilical cord is so short. Life after delivery is to be logically excluded.”
The second insisted, “Well I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here. Maybe we won’t need this physical cord anymore.”
The first replied, “Nonsense. And moreover if there is life, then why has no one has ever come back from there? Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery there is nothing but darkness and silence and oblivion. It takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the second, “but certainly we will meet Mother and she will take care of us.”
The first replied “Mother? You actually believe in Mother? That’s laughable. If Mother exists then where is She now?”
The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of Her. It is in Her that we live. Without Her this world would not and could not exist.”
Said the first: “Well I don’t see Her, so it is only logical that She doesn’t exist.”
To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive Her presence, and you can hear Her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Thanks for sharing.

1 Like

Re: My Thoughts And Questions About Religion by PastorAIO: 1:24am On Aug 21, 2015
joseph1013:
^^^ Is this a response to my REVELATION post?

If yes, then it's a good use of metaphor to make a point. Although in driving it, it makes a straw man argument for rational empiricism. The reason it seems appealing is because of the poetic comparison of various elements.

Let's try this:

Two men stood at the edge of a cliff.

Said one to another "I'm gonna jump using the invisible rope." "What rope?" said the other. "There must be a rope here." the Believer affirms. "Nonsense." said the Skeptic.

"We can't see a rope so whaaaaaat? Does that mean a rope does not exist. Can't you see how far the ground is? There must be a rope...". Bla bla bla...

I'm on the road now. I will compose something substantial later. But in the meantime, it doesn't make alot of sense.

Since you appreciate it as a good use of metaphor why don't you just enjoy it like that. You seem to be missing the point the other way you look at it.

Babies will face delivery one day whether they like it or not. Just as we all will face death one day whether we like it or not. In your counter example nobody has got to jump.
If jumping with an inevitable thing they had to do and one fretted while the other was calm that would be a closer analogy. If the calm guy also suggested a means of perceiving the invisible rope that would help. Like if he said, 'if you squint your eyes lightly you will see the rope' that would be closer. The baby tells the other baby that if he is quiet he can hear their mother's voice.

(1) (2) (3) ... (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) ... (130) (Reply)

The First Britsh Slave Ship To Reach The Americas Was Called The Good Jesus! / Jesus is coming soon. This thread is for faithful watchmen / Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble!

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 238
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.