Vertigo Bible

Just adding a new thread because Nerdfighters wont allow more than 4000 characters in a reply now. And I'm not breaking up the flow into 5 separate pieces.

Erm...no. The reason it cannot be tested is nothing to do with its validity, but its nature. You cannot test history. You can examine it.

So you are now claiming that God existed in the past and no longer exists in the present? If you are claiming that religion is like history, then that is exactly what you are claiming. That God is history and cannot be proven to exist. And unfortunately you are mistaken yet again. You can test history! If someone claims that the Egyptians mummified the elite dead one can examine whether or not this is true based upon the empirical findings of Egyptian tombs. Either we find evidence of this claim or we do not. And of course we have.

I said metaphors can contain truth. I did not say they were truth.

And if you paid attention to the topic the question was that nothing can be truthful and not literal! You said metaphors can, but metaphors are NOT truth, therefore yet again you have not proven anything. As I said, if it is truthful it is literal.

I'll be as clear as I can. The arrival of the light was it coming through the clouds, the separation of the light from the dark is day and night (IE the rotation of the planet) and the evening and morning were metaphorical for the ending of a phase, in conjunction with their use elsewhere. IE the Bible describes the process of day and night, but the days themselves (the first day etc) are described differently

That was quite obfuscated for attempting to be “clear”. Your words from above “the separation of the light from the dark is a day and night” (in the modern sense). Therefore,why would there be a description of a day and night as the Earth turns only to change meaning in subsequent lines? This makes no sense. No matter how you try, the only conclusion to reach is that the Bible claims the Earth was made in six days. Moreover, why would God take eons of time to create the Earth if he can create man and animals in a day? And if you say he didn’t really create man in one day, that that is metaphorical, than you are admitting the fallacy of Biblical text, that is, that a man named Adam was created.

The fact that it is not literal would suggest that the literal nature is not important to our salvation. How God made the world isn't as important as the fact that he did.

How is the creation of the world integral to your salvation? Either you believe in Christ or you don’t. Whether He created the world or not is unimportant. The answer may be integral to your belief in God, but not to your acceptance of Christ. And of course (see above) it is written quite literally though only Christians choose to imagine it differently because at all turns their view of the world has been taken away by science and they must attempt to affirm that certain things are literal and certain things which don’t square with science are to be taken metaphorically; that is quite a convenient trick.

What gave you the idea that the creation of the world is somehow the most important part of the Christian Faith? You'll find actually the most important part is Jesus's life, death and resurection. After all, that is what pretty much the whole of the OT points towards and the NT either points at or back to

So you are claiming your belief in God’s creation of the world has nothing to do with your belief in God’s creation of the world? For had He not created the world you wouldn’t be here to oddly take upon yourself the sins of Adam to have to accept Christ at all. Therefore, the creation must certainly be the most important belief. For if you did not believe in God THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR YOU TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST! Moreover, I think a lot of Jews would disagree that the OT leads up to Jesus. Their disagreement doesn’t make it right or wrong, I’m just making a point that just because you believe the OT to be leading up to Jesus, certainly does NOT make that statement a truism.

Untrue. We can test the gospels for their historical accuracy to see if they have the authority to claim that what they saw was true.

The Gospels are not truth. They are stories. And each religion has it’s own set of stories that take place in history. There is evidence that Buddha walked the Earth. Does this mean he reached enlightenment, or that the Dali Lama continues to be reborn until all have reached enlightenment? No of course not. These are stories. Buddha was a man, a wise and kind man, but a man nonetheless, nothing more.

Lets examine some truths here:

1) All of your “evidence” is anecdotal. However if someone said “I believe in evolution and think there is probably an animal that is between amphibian and land-dwelling.” You would have every right to disbelieve this claim until there was empirical evidence. And the fact is we now have fossil evidence of an animal that is both amphibian and land-dwelling. That is evidence. Do you have a piece of the cross with Jesus’ DNA on it? Of course not. Do you have any empirical evidence of His resurrection? No, of course not. All you have are stories.

2) We know that resurrection in the Biblical sense is physically impossible. We know from neuroscience that if one has problems with a certain part of the brain it can cause serious malfunctioning of the consciousness. We know that our brains rot after death. Therefore, it is impossible that after death we could retain anything like our consciousness, or remembering and “seeing” grandma in Heaven. We know these things to be factual. If you wish to claim otherwise than you are creating a chasm between what we know to be empirically true and what would be diametrically opposed to that which is faith and absurdity. So whether it is our own death and reassembling in Heaven or Jesus’ ascension neither can be true.

Firstly, God did not create the mess. We did. We sinned. It was 100% our choice. Secondly, I did not say God could not tollerate imperfection/sin to the point of not being with us. I said he could not tollerate it in heaven and could not be in our presence in the same way he was prior to the fall in Eden. He can still have his presence here, but it is not as it was. It is not the totality of his presence in the way it was in Eden.

We’ve been through this before. If God is outside time, He knows all (past, present, and future). Therefore He knew while creating us we would sin. Hence he created the supposed mess. And now you are creating ad hoc interpretations of the Bible. This is great. So God cannot tolerate our sinful nature in Heaven, but can tolerate it here on Earth. If I was a believer at all to this I would say, fine, then I shall remain on Earth in His company until death. That is enough for me. And how can he tolerate our presence here, but NOT in Heaven? Let me guess, it is just part of God’s mysterious nature.

Very few churches of a different denomination would actually say that the other is unsaved

You make my point for me. Whether you consider it trivial or not the differences are interpretational. And the fact that you claim “few” means there certainly are some. Therefore, each can claim dominion over truth and salvation. And there is no way to tell which one is right, because each one thinks it’s right, each one points to historic stories and each one believes their faith is the proper one. Example: Some don’t believe in the Trinity some do. You may claim that to be trivial. But you don’t know the mind of God. If God can create a place of endless torment, I don’t see why He might not send people there you do not worship Him correctly or one the right day.

The Psalms. Unless you are seriously going to suggest that the Psalms were written after the gospels. If so, this conversation is going to end because you clearly have no regard for history.

That is amusing since your regard for history is laughable. There is no historical evidence for the things you posit yet you claim them to be true.

1) Jews do not believe the messiah has come yet, so have the “predictions" of psalms come true? Possibly not.

2) If one takes the Bible as pure fiction then of course the “predictions” of the OT will find occurrence in the NT.

3) Are you seriously now going to claim that the poetic nature of the psalms be taken literally while you oft argue that the “poetic” nature of the creation story not be taken so simply because this time it seems to work in your favor to take them literally??

It would be impossible to prove Casar's existance, or WW2 happening without access to written texts

I’m not going to further remark on the empirical findings of history as this part of the conversation has gotten too silly. There are of course people still alive from WWII that could tell you what happened. That’s all I’ll say about it. And you think I’m the one who has problems with history? Funny.

90 minutes in heaven, 23 minutes in hell, A12 to heaven, the experiences of Brother Yun. Three off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find more h proper research.

These are almost too laughable to respond to. This is NOT empirical evidence. It is not evidence at all. It is a personal, subjective experience--THAT IS ALL. And one thing you really need to understand about NDE or near death experiences is that it is called NEAR death for a reason! It is not death and there are many valid, scientific explanations for these mental images.

No they don't. See infinite regress and the fundimental misunderstanding that Hawking makes about agency and design

Yes they do. See infinite regress of who designed God. You do not understand about quantum physics, but that is OK. Not everyone agrees with Stephen Hawking, and he should rightly be scrutinized, but unless you have a degree in quantum physics throwing links at me wont fly.

There is evidence, but many people refuse to accept it because they demand higher standards of evidence. But there is enough.

Again, if the evidence is enough as you claim there would be no atheists, or Hindus, etc.

So obviously requiring more rigorous evidence is a good thing.

There are many non believers who are none the less Biblical academics.

So no link, and by your reasoning wouldn’t these Biblical scholars be so convinced by the studies they would become believers?

You are humorous. The condensation forms on the leaves. Again take out a soda can from the refrigerator and experiment for yourself. Watch as the condensation FORMS not FALLS upon the can. Enough said I think.

They may have expected shorter lifespans. It may have been the cultural norm. They may have had a level of resistance to the illnesses, but they still lived less anyway. Much like the way people today eat unhealthily.

OK. Now you are just being silly. They didn’t care that it made them sick because they had expected shorter lifespans? What? And how do you know these other tribes didn’t live as long or longer. You have NO proof of this at all.

Once again, you are thoroughly reliant on writing

You are completely mistaken on this point that I have made several times already. The point is there is a likeness of someone, someone of obvious importance to put on a coin. I don’t care if it is Caesar or Monet, it is someone. There is NO evidence like this whatsoever of even a man called Jesus.

While Catholics may have in the past used it to attack heretics, I see no evidence to suggest that that is what it was intended for

Then you are not looking hard enough. All the evidence points to a totalitarian dictator made manifest in the Bible as God who sees everything you do and knows everything you think, the perfect dictator and the perfect way to enslave nations. Why do you think it wasn’t until recently that Catholic mass was only in Latin, and most Bible were not even taken home? They didn’t want people to question what was being told to them. Moreover, the Bible story makes it perfect to keep all the wealth in the Church. By giving people the idea that Jesus was poor, poor people could feel comforted by the idea and not attempt to rise up against those in power. It worked perfectly until people started questioning the Bible. And noticing things just didn’t add up.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 22, 2012 at 3:09am

Not using the methods you are describing, since the methods are used exclusively to examine the natural world

And unfortunately you are mistaken yet again. You can test history! If someone claims that the Egyptians mummified the elite dead one can examine whether or not this is true based upon the empirical findings of Egyptian tombs. Either we find evidence of this claim or we do not. And of course we have.

In that sense you can, but you cannot perform a controlled experiment, which is part of the scientific method.

And I have pointed out that metaphors contain truth, therefore they are truthful without being literal. The messages they carry can be true. That is how we see truth without being literal.

In English we can use they same word with multiple meanings in the same sentence. Eg "That was way out of the way for the way we were going". Also, as I have said, other linguistics experts have commented that if it was a literal day, we would expect to see something different. See discussion of this point here

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0707W2C.htm

Moreover, why would God take eons of time to create the Earth if he can create man and animals in a day?

Since time means nothing to God, then I would say it doesn't matter from either perspective. As far as he was concerned, it took him no "time".

And if you say he didn’t really create man in one day, that that is metaphorical, than you are admitting the fallacy of Biblical text, that is, that a man named Adam was created.

Or, I am saying that he didn't create man in one day because that isn't what the text means when it says that.

And of course (see above) it is written quite literally though only Christians choose to imagine it differently because at all turns their view of the world has been taken away by science and they must attempt to affirm that certain things are literal and certain things which don’t square with science are to be taken metaphorically; that is quite a convenient trick.

Actually, people have been believing in the metaphorical nature of Genesis since around 200 AD. It's not really anything to do with science

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel Schama on March 22, 2012 at 8:12pm

Well this is ridiculous I can't even add a single response without the site informing me that I've gone over 4000 characters. Well that is the end of that then. It's been interesting. Though I obviously disagree strongly with all of your percieved ideas it must end here because I cannot fully express what I wish to even within one single reply in less than 4000 characters. I will however leave you this link to peruse if you wish which contains a lot of contradictions within the Bible. My favorite is the one where Matthew obviously mistranslates the OT by claiming that Jesus arrived on TWO donkeys. That's pretty funny. Just to attempt to fulfill a prophechy.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictio...

Wish it could have continued, but the character limit is too little. And as I've said I'm not going to begin breaking everything into 5 to 10 different replies, that would simply be a waste of my time and yours.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel Schama on March 22, 2012 at 9:29pm

One other quick thought I will leave you with. If you truly believe in the Bible I wish you the best while lying in Heaven listening to the screams of the countless tormented souls of the rest of us in Hell. A very sadistic attitude towards life. And if you claim that you can not see nor hear nor even know of them, the worse you are for forgetting the misery your God has created by creating such a place. Of course none of it is true anyway, so I'm not really bothered. But you should be.

"And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, ⁴⁸ where the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched" - Mark 9:47-48

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 23, 2012 at 4:25am

Why do you think I am so passionate about telling people about Jesus. Because I believe that hell is so real and so unpleasnt.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel Schama on March 23, 2012 at 6:10pm

As I said it was interesting. And I hope you enjoy your time in Heaven while us heathens burn and suffer forever.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 22, 2012 at 3:24am

I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. I said it was not important in the same way. Of course it is important, but it is not, as you claim, the most important aspect for our salvation.

Moreover, I think a lot of Jews would disagree that the OT leads up to Jesus.

I've not yet heard an answer that convinces me of the reason they would argue that Jesus does not fulfil the prophecies. Since he does, it seems to me odd.

The Gospels are not truth. They are stories.

If you continue to assert this without providing evidence, I am going to leave. You have no evidence to support the idea they were fictions, other than your lack of belief in the supernatural

And each religion has it’s own set of stories that take place in history. There is evidence that Buddha walked the Earth. Does this mean he reached enlightenment, or that the Dali Lama continues to be reborn until all have reached enlightenment? No of course not. These are stories. Buddha was a man, a wise and kind man, but a man nonetheless, nothing more.

We cannot test the historical nature of the Buddha, since enlightenment was not something objectively observed. What we can do however is test the internal consistency of his belief system, which I believe comes up short.

All of your “evidence” is anecdotal.

All history is anecdotal. History is what people wrote about. That's anecdotal. If you discount my evidence for that reason, you must discount all of history.

We know that resurrection in the Biblical sense is physically impossible.

No, you believe it is physically impossible because you believe that all there is is the natural world. If however there is something other than the natural world, then it stands to reason that the supernatural can do what the natural cannot.

We’ve been through this before. If God is outside time, He knows all (past, present, and future). Therefore He knew while creating us we would sin. Hence he created the supposed mess.

The fact that he knows does not stop us from being responsible. He created us with the capacity to make the decision. It was up to us.

And now you are creating ad hoc interpretations of the Bible. This is great. So God cannot tolerate our sinful nature in Heaven, but can tolerate it here on Earth. If I was a believer at all to this I would say, fine, then I shall remain on Earth in His company until death. That is enough for me. And how can he tolerate our presence here, but NOT in Heaven? Let me guess, it is just part of God’s mysterious nature.

Because in heaven, he is in his purest form. On Earth, as we are now, he is separate from us (IE not as it was in Eden).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 22, 2012 at 3:36am

Therefore, each can claim dominion over truth and salvation. And there is no way to tell which one is right, because each one thinks it’s right, each one points to historic stories and each one believes their faith is the proper one.

There are ways and means of examining the central concerns to prove whether or not someone is right or wrong biblically. Theologically, it is not a question of "everything goes".

If God can create a place of endless torment, I don’t see why He might not send people there you do not worship Him correctly or one the right day.

Because the Bible says that isn't the reason we are punished.

1) Jews do not believe the messiah has come yet, so have the “predictions" of psalms come true? Possibly not.

The fact that someone believes something in no way makes it true, as you yourself have said, nor does it make it a possibility. Instead it is the evidence, and from the evidence, I would posit, the very large body of prophecies that Jesus's fufills (incluidng many beyond his control, like where he would be born, the nature of his death, the mock corination before he died etc) would suggest there is a great deal of support for this.

2) If one takes the Bible as pure fiction then of course the “predictions” of the OT will find occurrence in the NT.

Yes, but if you do that, you have to loose all conception of history. It is well documented that the Psalms were written several thousand years before the Gospels.

Poetry can contain truth, just as the Genesis accounts contain truth.

And what happens when they are dead? What about Caesar? How would you prove WW2 without referring to a single written/recorded word in the year 2400. You claimed you could prove history true scientifically. In fact, I'm going to quote you to show you "Sorry, but if you can empirically examine pre-history, than you can likewise examine history." This is simply not true. History is based upon records.

No there arnt. Scientists have come up with some ideas for some NDEs, but they have not explained all of them by a long shot. And furthermore, there is the question of Brother Yuns experiances. The point is that if you dismiss these as annecdotal, you must dismiss all history, since that is what history is made of.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 22, 2012 at 3:45am

Yes they do. See infinite regress of who designed God.

I've already answered that. If God exists outside of time, then there is no origin point, thus he does not need a designer. The same is not true of the universe.

You do not understand about quantum physics, but that is OK. Not everyone agrees with Stephen Hawking, and he should rightly be scrutinized, but unless you have a degree in quantum physics throwing links at me wont fly.

Read the link. It is not a question of the science, but rather the understanding of the meaning of the science (IE philosophy) where Hawking fails. Read the link in full, but here is an extract that makes my point

...contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-w...

Again, if the evidence is enough as you claim there would be no atheists, or Hindus, etc.

The evidence is enough, but people demand more than enough. That's the point.

So no link, and by your reasoning wouldn’t these Biblical scholars be so convinced by the studies they would become believers?

Because they are demanding more than they need.

That's a can. Since the ground is at the bottom, it is reasonable to say it falls (IE It was in the air, which is above, and then was on the ground, which was below).

Its a hypothesis that makes sense. We know that the Hebrews by anchient standards had strict dietary laws on hygiene, implying therefore that the rest of the ANE was less so.

Without writing, you have no evidence of who the likeness is. Tell me, what kind of evidence would you want of Jesus without writing? Pictures of his likeness? But without writing, how would you know it was him?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vertigo_One [Ops Mod] on March 22, 2012 at 3:48am

Why do you think it wasn’t until recently that Catholic mass was only in Latin, and most Bibles were not even taken home?

Because there were people in the Catholic church that were power hungry. That doesn't prove that the Bible demands we be power hungry.

Moreover, the Bible story makes it perfect to keep all the wealth in the Church.

No it doesn't. If you read the Bible, you see that it asks for a tithe from believers, and that wealth should be given out to the poor, as best as is possible.

It worked perfectly until people started questioning the Bible. And noticing things just didn’t add up.