ForumsWEPRThe Religion Debate Thread

546 52567
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,867 posts
Viceroy

So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!

Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!

I'm going to start the ball rolling:

We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?

Roping in the WERP frequenters
@MageGrayWolf @Kasic @Hahiha @FishPreferred @Doombreed @09philj

  • 546 Replies
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

If "The Bible in all its variations and flaws account for God's will," that includes the variations you don't like. I see you keep going back to specific denominational sites in order to regurgitate their arguments. You can't hold that all variants are God's Will, and cower back to a shell of familiarity whenever it's convenient. What is your basis for favoring one denomination's views over another, if they're all valid extensions of God's will?
Well I guess I was wrong about "The Bible in all its variations and flaws". I'm sticking to all of the variations that makes sense to me. If I can find another denominations site with a more compelling argument about the true canon of the Bible, I'll reconsider.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

Well I guess I was wrong about "The Bible in all its variations and flaws".

Then we're back 3 pages of unanswered questions:

"The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better."

"There is no body of text that is definitively His Word."

"Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations."

"Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else."

I'm sticking to all of the variations that makes sense to me.

This is due to cognitive bias. You've already got an idea of what you believe, so you gravitate toward the denominations that agree with you. This flawed reasoning mirrors the guidelines for constructing the bible in the first place.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

This is due to cognitive bias. You've already got an idea of what you believe, so you gravitate toward the denominations that agree with you. This flawed reasoning mirrors the guidelines for constructing the bible in the first place.
I grabitate toward them but that doesn't mean I haven't looked at the evidence of which variations convey the right message. Well... I have yet to look at a Catholic's argument or a JW's argument.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

With jehovah's Witnesses, I believe they're a separate religion though by the way.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,570 posts
Duke

With jehovah's Witnesses, I believe they're a separate religion though by the way.

Just curious as to why this is. I'm guessing it's because they reject trinitarianism. Though if you accept trinitarianism, that could be problematic since it's a straightforward logical contradiction (what many denominations like Catholicism identify as a 'divine mystery of faith').

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

but that doesn't mean I haven't looked at the evidence of which variations convey the right message.

"the right message" being the one you already agree with.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

Just curious as to why this is. I'm guessing it's because they reject trinitarianism. Though if you accept trinitarianism, that could be problematic since it's a straightforward logical contradiction (what many denominations like Catholicism identify as a 'divine mystery of faith')
Denying it would be problematic because Jesus obviously claims that He is God.

"the right message" being the one you already agree with.
The right message being the one that makes the most sense when you actually read the scriptures.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

when you actually read the scriptures.

Back to these:
"The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better."

"There is no body of text that is definitively His Word."

"Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations."

FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

But would anyone know several loan words from the Egyptian language?
Yeah, anyone who lived in the vicinity of the Red Sea or had trade relations with Egyptians.

The author is also very familiar with geography, fauna, and flora.
Yeah, like most people living in or traveling through the vicinity of the Red Sea.

Moreover, no where in Exodus does it mention customs passed its time.
What time?

It's not hard to claim that the author of these books was an eyewitness to the Exodus.
Nor is it any harder to claim that they were written by Admiral Fnorg of Andromeda twenty six million years ago. What's your point?

The people who say that Moses didn't write those books, believe in the document hypothesis which essentially says that the Pentateuch was written by 4 different authors and then several editors put them together.
No, only proponents of the documentary hypothesis believe in the documentary hypothesis.

However, it falls flat on many fronts. Firstly, there is no evidence for the various authors.
1 It falls flat because it's a weak hypothesis. Try the supplementary hypothesis.
2 There is no evidence for a single author, let alone a specific one.

Then, you can take into account that when people put Genesis into a computer to check authorship, there was an 82% chance that it was written by one person based on its idiosyncratic patterns.
1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which translation was it?

Those denominations who deny Moses is the author of the Pentateuch are in direct conflict with Jesus who said that those who "hear not [i.e. reject] Moses" would not be persuaded "though one rose from the dead"
Uh, no, they clearly aren't. That's a blatant quotemine.

I might also add that the Pentateuch, other Old Testament books, and New Testament books claim that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch. For more
1 No part of the Pentateuch mentions any author.
2 Examining your incredibly dubious source gives us the following:
13And Joshua defeated Amalek and his people with the sword. 14Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this as a reminder in a book and recite it in the hearing of Joshua: I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”
This is about a minor and very specific incident unrelated to the writing of the Pentateuch itself.

3Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.
This is about God's orders to the Israelites on how to treat the Canaanites and other tribes they were to displace.

27The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.
28He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
This is obviously not about writing the Pentateuch.

These are the stages by which the Israelites went out of the land of Egypt in military formation under the leadership of Moses and Aaron. 2Moses wrote down their starting points, stage by stage, by command of the Lord; and these are their stages according to their starting places.
This is about writing down logistics during the exodus.

9Then Moses wrote down this law, and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel.
This is just about the ten commandments again. I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.

Denying it would be problematic because Jesus obviously claims that He is God.
Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

Yeah. I'll admit that it would be foolish to say that I know how and why the canon I follow was put together. However, I do hold on to the 66 book canon. I found an interesting discussion which includes insight from several denominations and not just my own. Now the versions of the 66 book canon I believe has barely any contradictions.

What time?
The second millennium as creation.com says.

1 What people did this, exactly?
2 Which translation was it?
Technion University, Hebrew text

This is just about the ten commandments again.
Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...

I could go on, but at this point, Grigg is just blatantly contextomizing anything he can find.
Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more. The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law and/or the commandments. We for sure know that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and not just the 10 commandments because Matthew 19:7-8 says, 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law. Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer: 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. . . 44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Even if we needlessly assume he's right about that, Jesus claiming to be God does not make trinitarianism correct.
Why doesn't it?
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,570 posts
Duke

Why doesn't it?

Not to speak for Fish here, but I'm sure he would point out that trinitarianism is logically impossible. After all, that's what a logical contradiction is. It's also worth pointing out that someone claiming something doesn't make it true. For example, I am now claiming to be the king of England. But that doesn't make it true.

The problem is that trinitarianism flies in the face of what's called the transitivity of identity. If a=b and b=c then a=c. That's transitivity and it's an axiom of logic. And yet we have three 'aspects' of god that are all identical to god and yet not identical to each other. This is waved away as a divine mystery of faith as it's something we cannot possibly comprehend. But we can't comprehend it because it's a logical impossibility.

This gets into other, more interesting, worries depending on how the theist responds to this argument. But I've never come across a response to this that's reasonable and consistent (other than outright rejecting it). By my lights, this makes a belief in god irrational. Like, by definition irrational--not just silly.

lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

Yeah people usually say it's one of those things that are "unknowable" about God due to our finite minds, but I think you make sense when you it's simply impossible because of logic. Keep in mind though that we are the same people who claim that God can turn water into wine or feed thousands with a loaf of bread and some food. My dad said God can make a circle into a square whatever that means haha. My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".

EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

My dad said God can make a circle into a square whatever that means haha. My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".

Read through this before Fish tears you a new one.
FishPreferred
online
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

The second millennium as creation.com says.
Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?

Technion University, Hebrew text
Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.

Well, the Book of Law is the Pentateuch/Torah so...
Sure, but the "Law of Moses" isn't. It refers to the ten commandments, which I think we can all agree, are not the same as the Pentateuch.

Why don't you though? They all say the same thing and even more.
Exactly because they all say the same thing. It just boils down to "Moses wrote the ten commandments". They aren't even vague or out of context; they just don't support Grigg's (and, by extension, your) claim in any way.

The verses you skipped say that Moses wrote the Book of Law [...]
No, they don't. You know that they don't.

[...] and/or the commandments.
That isn't in dispute.

“Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. The bit about the certificate of divorce is obviously not in the 10 commandments. This verse is obviously claiming that Moses not only wrote the 10 commandments but also the Book of Law.
No. No, it isn't. It's saying that Moses gave that specific instruction.

Man, Luke 24 couldn't have said it any clearer:
Yeah, no surprise that he made no mention of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.

Why doesn't it?
Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.

My point is, if God can do the "impossible", He can also be the "impossible".
Anything doable can't be impossible, but logic dictates what is doable.

@Moegreche I actually don't consider this to be problematic, as it's basically the same as when a white horse is not a horse. A trinitarian can say that these three things are not each other, but are all completely God, and that God is the sum of the three. It just doesn't make sense to say that each is all of God, because "all of God" includes the other two.

EDIT: In my previous post, I said Grigg was contextomising. That should have been "misattributing". Contextomy is something more specific.
lozerfac3
offline
lozerfac3
622 posts
Shepherd

Read through this before Fish tears you a new one.
Hahaha I appreciate your concern. It wasn't as bad as anticipated.

Do you have any idea what the Egyptian customs were at that time?
I was referring to Jewish traditions. But I admit to having limited knowledge on that too.

Right, so we can confidently assert that this particular translation was made by a single editor, rather than several.
Isn't the Hebrew text the original though?

Yeah, no surprise that he made no mention of the Book of Law or of Moses writing anything.
In verse 44, it says "everything written about [Jesus] in the Law of Moses". The 10 commandments doesn't say anything about Jesus, so when Jesus says Law of Moses, He is including the rest of the Pentateuch. We also know that Moses wrote the Law of Moses.

Because Jesus being God is not sufficient. Trinitarianism also requires the Holy Ghost and the heavenly Father to be God at the same time.
Oh you right. Makes sense. There is a reason why trinitarianism is accepted within the Protestant church though. Especially with Jesus being the Son of God and the idea of God having a Spirit.
Showing 481-495 of 546