Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, not directly, but the estimates based on lineage would not be unreasonable if you accept the Bible as historically accurate. If you have an objection here, I'm willing to listen.
Holy micro font size, Batman. Crank it up a bit there, dude. I don't want to use a magnifying glass to read your posts.
I considered myself to be a Christian until somewhere in my mid-twenties. I read the Bible, both OT & NT cover-to-cover, but and participate in numerous Bible study groups. During my 3rd year of college I hung out a lot with the Campus Crusade for Christ group. I was raised in Church of Christ, I've attended services for various different denominations (mostly Catholic & Pentecostal because various family members belonged to those two). I eventually decided that Christianity was basically unreasonable (not just "beyond reason" as would be expected insofar as it requires faith, but unreasonable in the sense that it leads people to believe a variety of foolish, and potentially dangerous things). Over the past couple of decades I've studied Buddhism, Taoism, Yoga, and when all is said and done I don't buy into any religion. I see some aspects of great value, and I do sometimes pray and/or meditate, but overall I am not very happy with organized religions. I seek my own path, which is my own evolving mixture of philosophy, science, and mysticism. I don't believe in any of the traditional conceptions of God, but I am open to the idea that there is far more to this life than current scientific theories can explain. This is a deep-seated "hunch" but it does not lead me to give up on naturalistic explanations. A major interest for me is the philosophy of mind, with a leaning toward process philosophy. My master's thesis was entitled: "From Chaos to Qualia: An Analysis of Phenomenal Character in Light of Process Philosophy and Self-Organizing Systems." I don't see a need for God in our philosophical and scientific explanations, but I'm not totally opposed to the idea of some "deeper purposes" in life, and I am favorable to some notion of God along the lines of Spinoza or Whitehead, tho I'm not entirely sold on them either.
No, not directly, but the estimates based on lineage would not be unreasonable if you accept the Bible as historically accurate. If you have an objection here, I'm willing to listen.
My view of what scripture reveals about the age of the earth/universe is basically agnostic. But, as with you, if you have any reasons to offer as to why I should agree with the YEC view, I'm willing to hear you out. Bottom line, as far as it pertains to my current layman's understanding of Biblical hermeneutics, the earth/universe could be millions or perhaps billions of years old. Barring any objections, I think we can dispense with your first point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Yes, I am making moral judgments. It is my responsibility as a moral being to make moral judgments, and when people present me with claims about God, including claims about what God has or has not done in the course of history, then I will make a moral assessment of the actions of this supposed God. It would be foolish and immoral for me to do otherwise. Suppose, for example, someone presented me with the concept of a God who accepts slavery and commands the abuse of children. Well, I would say that this God is evil, and I would not promote the worship of such a deity.
I'm referring to objective moral value judgments. If you do not accept the notion of a Transcendent Being who communicates a framework for Transcendent morality, how is it even possible to have any framework for moral objectivity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
BTW, I've recently written about a neurological theory for the Golden Rule. I will probably start a new thread about that later.
I would be interested to read it. Do you have the link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Like you, I have read the Bible as well as mythology, but I have the opposite reaction. To me, the Bible (especially the OT) reads very much like mythology. In fact, several themes found in the Bible can also be found in other mythologies. Virgin birth, the resurrection, etc. As I see it, many element of Christian mythology were older concepts adapted for use in the new religion.
When all is said and done, I have consistently found that arguments over the credibility of the Bible eventually boil down to some variation of a basic idea, namely: "God works in mysterious ways" or "Limited human reason is laughable compared to the infinite intelligence of God." What this basically means is "Yes, the Bible seems absurd, but that's just because you can't understand the mind of an infinite God." But any advocate of any religious can say essentially the same thing: "You are just too limited to understand, and therefore you just have to accept all of this seemingly absurd stuff on faith." Well, I don't buy it. If I am going to place my faith anywhere, it will be a faith in logic (even tho I accept that there are limits, hence my willingness to entertain some elements of mysticism) and faith in the methodology of empirical science.
My basic allusion was to the composition style of ancient mythology in comparison to Biblical composition style. Again, I don't see any comparison here.
Anyway, I don't see anything about your assertion here that should cause me to question the logic of accepting the basic historical reliability of the Bible.
My view of what scripture reveals about the age of the earth/universe is basically agnostic. But, as with you, if you have any reasons to offer as to why I should agree with the YEC view, I'm willing to hear you out. Bottom line, as far as it pertains to my current layman's understanding of Biblical hermeneutics, the earth/universe could be millions or perhaps billions of years old. Barring any objections, I think we can dispense with your first point.
I was mistaken when I spoke loosely about "the age of the earth." I should have said "the age of humanity" – which is to say, in Biblical terms, the length of time since Adam and Eve. If you allow "days" in Genesis to be millions or billions of years, then you could accept that the actual geological age of the earth itself could be in agreement with geological theories.
I do, however, find it suspicious that people want to interpret the Bible as literal history, but conveniently blame confusion on issues of translation, etc. A straight-forward interpretation of Genesis would suggest that God created Adam on the 6th day, suggesting that the earth itself (indeed, light – and I would suppose, therefore, the whole universe) is not much older than Adam. If the Bible is God's word that we must accept on faith, then it seems like God should have made sure that Biblical translators translated the frackin thing correctly (yes, I'm a fan of Battlestar Galactica ;-), thereby making it possible for us to have faith in HIS words. But no – instead we must have faith not only in God's words, but we must also have faith in some contemporary human being's ability to interpret the words – and that, to me, leads us into sheer craziness. Given enough poetic license, you can make the Bible seem to say almost anything that anybody wants it to say.
Here is a link to a page that details the Young Earther's timeline. Do you disagree with this timeline? Do you agree that human beings (and presumably all modern animals) trace their biological lineage back to this time period, roughly 4000 years ago?
I'm referring to objective moral value judgments. If you do not accept the notion of a Transcendent Being who communicates a framework for Transcendent morality, how is it even possible to have any framework for moral objectivity?
I've started a new thread which focuses on the potential for moral objectivity, and I give some links in that thread to more info - hopefully that thread will not get hijacked back into a discussion of God.
I am curious: Would you say that objective morality JUST IS whatever God says it is, for no other reason than the fact that God says it? I generally hear people say that God make moral commandments because he knows that we will benefit if we follow these commandments. This leads me to wonder if there were any logical constraints on God in determining what is moral. For example, if God had wanted child abuse to be moral, he could commanded us to "abuse thy children" and thus it would be an objective fact of our reality that abusing our children is a good thing, and we benefit by following this commandment.
Alternatively, if God is constrained by logic, and if logic dictates that abusing children is bad (given the biological facts of human neurology/psychology, etc), then given our biological constitution, God could not make something be moral for us "just by saying so." If this is correct, then we would not technically need God to tell us what is moral, since what is moral for us would logically depend on our biological/psychological nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Anyway, I don't see anything about your assertion here that should cause me to question the logic of accepting the basic historical reliability of the Bible.
My list of possibilities is long, and the amount of time I can spend on this topic is so short, that I wonder if you could help me out a bit here. Are there any quotes in the Bible that make you squirm – even just a little bit? Did Adam name the dinosaurs? Were women literally created from Adam's rib? Why do we have a commandment against incest when, logically, all of Adam and Eve's immediate decedents must have been engaging in incest? If morality is objective, why do so many of the OT laws no longer apply to modern Christians? How is it that an all-knowing deity has to "repent" and change his mind about stuff? Why would a good deity command his people to slay pagans, including all the children (except for maybe some virgin girls who can be kept for private use). Why would anyone spend eternity in hell? Couldn't God have created human in such a way that everyone would ultimate choose, of their own free will, to obey God and spend eternity in heaven? Should women really refrain from talking in church? Should women never cut their hair? Should we whack our children with rods? Exactly who went with Mary to the tomb to find that Jesus was gone? Is homosexuality a sin? Is using contraception a sin? Are whole generations of humanity really cursed because of the sins of their ancestors? (And if so, is it logical and moral for a deity to punish children for the sins of their parents?) And so on. These are just a few things that pop into my head. I used to have a much longer list, back when I used to think a lot about this stuff. I know that you can go down the list and refute item by item – I've seen Christian do it on various occasions, but when pushed to the logical limits their arguments always come down to brute faith because, actually, none of this makes any rational sense – and it can't make sense because God is infinite and we are limited. Since I don't buy this first step, all of the Christian explanations of these absurdities fall apart, in my view.
I'm referring to objective moral value judgments. If you do not accept the notion of a Transcendent Being who communicates a framework for Transcendent morality, how is it even possible to have any framework for moral objectivity?
Whoa there! This reads suspiciously like saying "If you don't believe in god, you have no morals". What a crock!
I'm referring to objective moral value judgments. If you do not accept the notion of a Transcendent Being who communicates a framework for Transcendent morality, how is it even possible to have any framework for moral objectivity?
Well it must be possible...there are a lot of atheists and agnostics out there, yet I don't see mobs of them raping and pillaging. In fact, most people who end up in jail are religious.
Now how is it that these people who believe in a transcendent morality, end up ignoring it? Priests, pastors, etc?
I was mistaken when I spoke loosely about "the age of the earth." I should have said "the age of humanity" – which is to say, in Biblical terms, the length of time since Adam and Eve. If you allow "days" in Genesis to be millions or billions of years, then you could accept that the actual geological age of the earth itself could be in agreement with geological theories.
Perhaps. From my perspective, there are also wide enough gaps in the record of genealogy to possibly account for this. As stated, my primary beef with the YEC crowd involves Biblical hermeneutics. I just don't see where the Bible provides any specific information concerning the age of the earth/universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I do, however, find it suspicious that people want to interpret the Bible as literal history, but conveniently blame confusion on issues of translation, etc. A straight-forward interpretation of Genesis would suggest that God created Adam on the 6th day, suggesting that the earth itself (indeed, light – and I would suppose, therefore, the whole universe) is not much older than Adam. If the Bible is God's word that we must accept on faith, then it seems like God should have made sure that Biblical translators translated the frackin thing correctly (yes, I'm a fan of Battlestar Galactica ;-), thereby making it possible for us to have faith in HIS words. But no – instead we must have faith not only in God's words, but we must also have faith in some contemporary human being's ability to interpret the words – and that, to me, leads us into sheer craziness. Given enough poetic license, you can make the Bible seem to say almost anything that anybody wants it to say.
I don't fault you for being suspicious. However, I think it would only be fair minded to realize that there is a reason why hermeneutics is called hermeneutics. A significant part of getting to a true understanding of scripture, particularly Old Testament scripture, has to do with understanding the 'ins' and 'outs' of the old Hebrew language as well as trying to understand the culture of the day. There's certainly more to it than just sitting down to read and contemplate the English translation.
Also, I certainly agree that any book, to include the Bible, can be twisted into any variety of human concoctions. However, the Bible is readily available for reading and study by anyone so inclined. We, as individuals, would obviously need to make time to take in the information, pray (if one is so inclined) and make use of our brains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Here is a link to a page that details the Young Earther's timeline. Do you disagree with this timeline? Do you agree that human beings (and presumably all modern animals) trace their biological lineage back to this time period, roughly 4000 years ago?
As stated, I'm agnostic with respect to the Bible providing a precise time line. I'm very much inclined to entertain the possibility that science may actually provide a more accurate answer and I'm okay with that, after all, all truth is God's truth.
I've started a new thread which focuses on the potential for moral objectivity, and I give some links in that thread to more info - hopefully that thread will not get hijacked back into a discussion of God.
So I've noticed. I'll most probably weigh in at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I am curious: Would you say that objective morality JUST IS whatever God says it is, for no other reason than the fact that God says it?
No. My understanding of the orthodox Christian view is that basic objective morality is rooted in God's character. Basically, when God communicates moral absolutes, God basically says: 'Be like me,'
Now, I am curious as to how the atheist responds to this dilemma. Is something wrong simply because it's wrong or is it wrong simply because the atheist says it's wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I generally hear people say that God make moral commandments because he knows that we will benefit if we follow these commandments. This leads me to wonder if there were any logical constraints on God in determining what is moral. For example, if God had wanted child abuse to be moral, he could commanded us to "abuse thy children" and thus it would be an objective fact of our reality that abusing our children is a good thing, and we benefit by following this commandment.
Alternatively, if God is constrained by logic, and if logic dictates that abusing children is bad (given the biological facts of human neurology/psychology, etc), then given our biological constitution, God could not make something be moral for us "just by saying so." If this is correct, then we would not technically need God to tell us what is moral, since what is moral for us would logically depend on our biological/psychological nature.
My list of possibilities is long, and the amount of time I can spend on this topic is so short, that I wonder if you could help me out a bit here. Are there any quotes in the Bible that make you squirm – even just a little bit? Did Adam name the dinosaurs? Were women literally created from Adam's rib? Why do we have a commandment against incest when, logically, all of Adam and Eve's immediate decedents must have been engaging in incest? If morality is objective, why do so many of the OT laws no longer apply to modern Christians? How is it that an all-knowing deity has to "repent" and change his mind about stuff? Why would a good deity command his people to slay pagans, including all the children (except for maybe some virgin girls who can be kept for private use). Why would anyone spend eternity in hell? Couldn't God have created human in such a way that everyone would ultimate choose, of their own free will, to obey God and spend eternity in heaven? Should women really refrain from talking in church? Should women never cut their hair? Should we whack our children with rods? Exactly who went with Mary to the tomb to find that Jesus was gone? Is homosexuality a sin? Is using contraception a sin? Are whole generations of humanity really cursed because of the sins of their ancestors? (And if so, is it logical and moral for a deity to punish children for the sins of their parents?) And so on. These are just a few things that pop into my head. I used to have a much longer list, back when I used to think a lot about this stuff. I know that you can go down the list and refute item by item – I've seen Christian do it on various occasions, but when pushed to the logical limits their arguments always come down to brute faith because, actually, none of this makes any rational sense – and it can't make sense because God is infinite and we are limited. Since I don't buy this first step, all of the Christian explanations of these absurdities fall apart, in my view.
All interesting assertions/questions. Unfortunately, I'm out of time for tonight. I do hope to get to these at some point.
I'm still curious as to what your assessment of Jesus is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
