Spiritual but not religious?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's life and claims.  For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass.  According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22).  Easy enough. Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible.  It is not.  This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity." Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..."  ...well, that's a different matter altogether. Well, you're quoting scripture to make a point against - scripture. Just because the old testament is old doesn't make it any more relevant. The whole book of Genesis has been shown to be fiction by Jewish scientists ... Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here? But like in any cult movement, when prophecies don't come true, many cultists get even more fanatic. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact that many Christians still expect the second coming of Christ after it's been postponed numerous times kind of illustrates this nicely. I find it amusing that you accused me of being "a tad arrogant," especially in light of claims you make.  I'm pretty sure no one has proved the whole book of Genesis to be fiction.  That's silly.  And even if I believed that, what do you expect me to say?  "Oh gee, somebody says some Jewish scientists proved the whole book of Genesis to be a work of fiction.  I think I will be an atheist now." I'm terribly sorry - first I quote one of Henry's posts in your name, and now I made another mistake: I meant the book of Exodus. But of course the book of Genesis is equally wrong ... I don't have to prove that every verse is fiction, IMO it's enough to show that the basic tenets have no basis in the real world. Of course some of the information could be based on real world events, but I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter so much whether a person named Moses existed or not, as opposed to whether God exists and Moses, as described in the book, communicated with God. Or, in the case of the book of Genesis, whether the world could have been created in that way. Back when the book was written it would have been perfectly in line with the science of the time (if you you could call it that), but today we clearly know it's wrong. Still many Christians in the USA visit the creation museum and tell their children that their ancestors walked with dinosaurs. And no, you don't have to become an atheist just because some scientists discover something. But such discoveries should make you less confident about the validity of your magic book over others. BTW: If I come across as arrogant ... I guess you're right about that. I'm simply fed up with people holding on to bronze age myths ... IMO such beliefs are forces of evil in the world. Nothing good can come out of them that couldn't be accomplished by secular reasoning.

You attack one interpretation of scripture, and I'd say about 90% of your criticisms are against the book of Genesis- you tend to harp on creation, which is decidedly bereft of scientific details because it is not a scientific text, and you tend to harp on the flood, which I've seen the evidence for and against it, and that which is against it does not persuade me.

But let's assume the book of Genesis and the book of Exodus did not exist.  Would my faith in Christ waver?  Not at all, because of the typology and dozens of amazing prophecies Christ fulfilled.

To put it another way (and cut to the chase), it doesn't really bother me if someone does not believe in the flood.  Believing in a worldwide flood will not save a person.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: The new prophet John the Baptist spoke of?  That would be Jesus Christ.  Except that John said that the new prophet would come in his lifetime, but he died before he could name one. Then Jesus conveniently assumed that John must have meant him to be that prophet.

Can you show why John was required to name one (and even still, John implied it- Matthew 3)?  And the new prophet did come in his lifetime.  Jesus began prophesying before John the Baptist was beheaded.  Also, John the Baptist fulfilled Old Testament prophecies as well.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: As for the passage you're referring to about Jesus, that's in Matthew 24, and you assume that he is talking about the same stuff that's in Revelation.  Matthew 24 is one of the most divisive passages in Scripture because (I would argue) of the way the passage is often translated (especially the Greek word aion, which would refer to an age, not planet Earth).  The Jews recognized two ages- the Mosaic age, and the age of the Messiah, and the latter would have no end (Luke 1:31-33).  There is also a lot of Ancient Near Eastern "judgment language" (like the stars not shining) that hearers would understand immediately (such phrases are found in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 13:10).  In short, Matthew 24 regards the consummation of the Mosaic age and the events that happened in 66-70 AD.  This article is lengthy, but does a good job explaining this. Now I've admitted several times that eschatology is a weak subject for me, but that is my understanding of Matthew 24. I don't care too much about such details. I don't believe in astrology either, and it's not like reading a thousand page volume on the intricacies of astrology and its different interpretations and approaches would change my mind. I'm sure you feel the same way towards some areas of pseudo-science. You make an exception for (your) religion, I don't. I guess that's one of the simpler ways to outline the difference between theists and atheists.

The same person who wants to treat us to hour-long video presentations can't be bothered to read an article addressing the very question he asked?

If you are not interested in details, then do not ask the question and waste my time. 

Epignosis wrote: You attack one interpretation of scripture, and I'd say about 90% of your criticisms are against the book of Genesis- you tend to harp on creation, which is decidedly bereft of scientific details because it is not a scientific text, and you tend to harp on the flood, which I've seen the evidence for and against it, and that which is against it does not persuade me.

What about the distribution of all the animals on the planet? There you go, proof that such a flood never happened, without any room for interpretation or need for persuasion.

I could post a Dawkins video where he explains this in great detail, but why should I. Those who think rationally about the matter know that I'm right, and those who don't won't watch such a video.

Epignosis wrote: But let's assume the book of Genesis and the book of Exodus did not exist.  Would my faith in Christ waver?  Not at all, because of the typology and dozens of amazing prophecies Christ fulfilled.

There you go again, using circular reasoning. You know from scripture that Christ fulfilled the prophecies - that you know from earlier and even more unreliable scripture, part of which has been proved wrong by simply comparing its claims to the actual world we live in.

Epignosis wrote: To put it another way (and cut to the chase), it doesn't really bother me if someone does not believe in the flood.  Believing in a worldwide flood will not save a person.

For me it would require a heavy dose of faith to believe in Christ. And by "faith" I here mean ignorance of evidence. Maybe if I had been indoctrinated as a child, I could believe the nonsense ... but luckily my parents never installed this shield against reality in me.

Epignosis wrote: Can you show why John was required to name one (and even still, John implied it- Matthew 3)?  And the new prophet did come in his lifetime.  Jesus began prophesying before John the Baptist was beheaded.  Also, John the Baptist fulfilled Old Testament prophecies as well.

No, I'm not that versed on scripture. I will finally read Bart Ehrman's book on the subject though, because even though I don't regard scripture as a reliable source, I am interested in knowing more about the key passages. The knowledge can come in handy in discussions like these ...

Epignosis wrote: The same person who wants to treat us to hour-long video presentations can't be bothered to read an article addressing the very question he asked? If you are not interested in details, then do not ask the question and waste my time.

I am interested in anything but scripture. If you don't want to watch the video I posted ... that's fine by me. Maybe some other people will watch it ... knowing that TED presentations are often quite interesting.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 07 2010 at 08:01

^ I am interested in the Bible, but I won't accept any defense for it that is again based on the Bible. And since the Bible is pretty much all you have, there's indeed no way for you to get me to accept it.

But aren't you quite one-sided either? I mean, would you want to respond to my argument about animal distribution on a scientific basis, without resorting to arguments like "scripture says otherwise"?

Surely though, Rob, what you're saying the bible says is also what you assume it says too?

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I am interested in the Bible, but I won't accept any defense for it that is again based on the Bible. And since the Bible is pretty much all you have, there's indeed no way for you to get me to accept it. But aren't you quite one-sided either? I mean, would you want to respond to my argument about animal distribution on a scientific basis, without resorting to arguments like "scripture says otherwise"? I did not ask you about animal distribution.  You asked me about Matthew 24 directly.  I responded, and then you said you didn't care. I never resorted to "scripture says otherwise."  My primary areas of study are language and cultural anthropology.  My participation in threads such as these is in showing what the Bible says (as opposed to what many people assume it says).  I am no scientist, and I've never pretended to be.  You are welcome to share all the scientific evidence against a worldwide flood that you want, but I will not answer you, because it is not my field.

jampa17 wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I am interested in the Bible, but I won't accept any defense for it that is again based on the Bible. And since the Bible is pretty much all you have, there's indeed no way for you to get me to accept it. But aren't you quite one-sided either? I mean, would you want to respond to my argument about animal distribution on a scientific basis, without resorting to arguments like "scripture says otherwise"? I did not ask you about animal distribution.  You asked me about Matthew 24 directly.  I responded, and then you said you didn't care. I never resorted to "scripture says otherwise."  My primary areas of study are language and cultural anthropology.  My participation in threads such as these is in showing what the Bible says (as opposed to what many people assume it says).  I am no scientist, and I've never pretended to be.  You are welcome to share all the scientific evidence against a worldwide flood that you want, but I will not answer you, because it is not my field.   The problem Mike, is that you ask for answers against the Bible where you expect scientific "proof" when it is a sociologic and historical book. Non of the writers of the Bible were scientist, so how do you think that they could explain some phenomena that at the end has nothing to do with the different knowledge and messages that they are writing about... is like you want that a mathematic book gives you a language answer you need...

A huge percentage of all religious people does take the Bible seriously in scientific matters though ... and that's not a small thing.

jampa17 wrote:   If I mention the different studies in which there's evidence about biblical happenings, like the Flood or the destruction of Sodoma, you will said is not prove, when all you give us is Dawkins videos, which do not explain nothing... he didn't live during those days... how we can get direct "prove" if you want to believe in a person who lives 2000 years after Jesus and you don't believe in the closest witnesses that we have in history...?

I guess you think that fossils are all a big scam by anti-religious scientists? Please, if you believe in the Flood, explain to me why marsupials are only to be found in Australia?

BTW: The gospels were written decades, if not centuries after those events (supposedly) took place. You base your argument on itself - it's circular reasoning.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 07 2010 at 12:57

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I am interested in the Bible, but I won't accept any defense for it that is again based on the Bible. And since the Bible is pretty much all you have, there's indeed no way for you to get me to accept it. But aren't you quite one-sided either? I mean, would you want to respond to my argument about animal distribution on a scientific basis, without resorting to arguments like "scripture says otherwise"? I did not ask you about animal distribution.  You asked me about Matthew 24 directly.  I responded, and then you said you didn't care. I don't care about evidence for scripture that's based in scripture. You always do that - ignore both common sense and science, and simply produce a verse and expect the other side to accept that as a "the discussion ends here" piece of evidence. I am - and have been - asking you about animal distribution now - you said that you believe in the big flood and Noah's arc, and I gave some piece of real world evidence that anyone who reads this can verify. You *choose* to ignore it. I don't care whether you ignore it or not, but I do think that real world evidence trumps bronze-age scripture in any argument, any way you look at it. Epignosis wrote: I never resorted to "scripture says otherwise."  My primary areas of study are language and cultural anthropology.  My participation in threads such as these is in showing what the Bible says (as opposed to what many people assume it says).  I am no scientist, and I've never pretended to be.  You are welcome to share all the scientific evidence against a worldwide flood that you want, but I will not answer you, because it is not my field. Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. You don't need a degree in biology or hours of research to realize that the distribution of animals on this planet is not consistent with a world wide flood wiping them all out and then distributing them from Noah's arc. Maybe you don't answer me because you're bored, or because you're angry because I didn't delve into your scripture argument, but my real guess is that you don't know a satisfying answer that doesn't conflict with your core belief.

No anger here Mike.  I just recognize futility.  And I don't offer answers for anything or debate anyone without researching a subject well first.  Frankly, I don't see why I should research the topic to discuss it with you.  You blow off what I say.  Let me remind you once more:

You asked about Matthew 24.  You posed a challenge that Jesus claimed he would make a "second coming" during that generation and concluded he was false.  Here is exactly what you said:

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here?

I answered, and it took time to craft my answer to you, showing that's not what he was talking about- yes using scripture to show linguistic and cultural consistency (what else am I supposed to use to do that?  Fossil records?  I can show you excerpts from the writings of Josephus if you'd like).  Determining what a person was talking about and showing that they were not mistaken is a linguistic matter, not a scientific one.  You claimed "Jesus said x, x didn't happen, therefore Jesus was wrong (and a doomsday fanatic)."  I countered the argument and offered an article for support, and you said you didn't care.  I'm not going to spend my afternoon discussing animals with someone who asks me a question and then ignores the answer.

^ I'll concede that I believe you when you say that according to Matthew he didn't say that. I hope you'll agree with me though that there are reasons for calling Jesus a doomsday prophet.

There - can we put this to rest? And don't talk about animal distributions if you feel like you don't want to ... as far as I know, nobody has ever challenged Dawkins on that one, so why should you bother to try.

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: James wrote: Surely though, Rob, what you're saying the bible says is also what you assume it says too? Good question.  I interpret the Bible using strict hermeneutics, and I look at the language as well as the culture of the day.  It comes down to: Intense study vs. Adopting tradition / interpreting the Bible through a 21st century Western mindset (both of which often lead to error). Are you really not able to realize the rose tinted glasses you're wearing? You're interpreting things into the Bible just like all the other people who base their whole lives (and that of their children) on the damn book and then back themselves into a corner, realizing that they were probably wrong. Most religious people would do anything to protect their house of cards from collapsing. Camels do go through eyes of needles sometimes. I choose the simple, dogma-free version of spirituality anytime - involving sunsets and meadows and appreciating life and nature in general. I may have many biases (I don't think that any ordinary human being is free of biases), but we should try to avoid basing our lives on bad ideas and flawed/contradictory concepts. And ironically, you are the most browbeating "evangelist" this forum has ever seen when it comes to religion (or lack thereof).

got you there man

^ nice! I've lost another 2-3 pounds last week - and the fasting days really help. Hey, fasting ... it even ties in with the topic at hand (spirituality).