Page 7 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


What would your view be closest to?
Young Earth Creationism (Genesis is historical) 10%  10%  [ 5 ]
Old Earth Creationism (Genesis is allegorical) 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Theistic Evolution (God helped evolution happen) 20%  20%  [ 10 ]
Intelligent Design, (not sure who the designer is) 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Naturalistic Evolution (all things occurred on their own) 65%  65%  [ 32 ]
Total votes : 49

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Mar 2008, 7:32 pm

I've spent five years studying the Bible, all of it, starting with the Tanakh and including the Brit HaDashah. I don't care how many people think something or who they are, I can only see my interpretations as correct until proved otherwise.



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

12 Mar 2008, 8:43 pm

An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

12 Mar 2008, 9:51 pm

Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

12 Mar 2008, 10:38 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.

I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.

I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

12 Mar 2008, 10:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.


Natural language is ambiguous, so even if you could parse the language word by word (which you can't) you still wouldn't get a single definitive meaning.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Mar 2008, 3:27 pm

greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.

I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.

I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.


Yeah, the interpretation of these passages,

Genesis 2:2-3
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

would be that the creation week was a literal week. If we were to go by Jewish traditions here, then the fact a day starts in the evening and ends after the morning would reflect the "evening and there was morning, the [Xth] day". Here going by Jewish traditions would be appropriate as to which day the Shabbat is, since their lives would revolve around it, so the Shabbat is Saturday. For the Goyim who don't care, why would they keep track of it?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

13 Mar 2008, 3:31 pm

Obres wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.


Natural language is ambiguous, so even if you could parse the language word by word (which you can't) you still wouldn't get a single definitive meaning.


I'd like to see you give that excuse in studying a foreign language as a reason for bad grades.



ascan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

13 Mar 2008, 3:55 pm

monty wrote:
...We always will be missing a lot of transitional fossils. But enough have been found to confirm the concept of evolution. Along with DNA evidence in living organisms, and observed differentiation/speciation in animals with very rapid life cycles.

This is preaching to the converted, I know:

L Cockcroft in the Telegraph wrote:
...Dr Prothero said the creationists are ignoring a wealth of transitional fossils found since Darwin's era which provide proof of the evolutionary process.

He said: "The idea still persists that the fossil record is too patchy to provide good evidence of evolution. One reason for this is the influence of creationism.

"Foremost among their tactics is to distort or ignore the evidence for evolution; a favourite lie is 'there are no transitional fossils'.

"This is manifestly untrue. We now have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/28/scicreation128.xml



BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

14 Mar 2008, 1:52 pm

There is not an iota of empirically evidence supporting the proposition that God exists.

In addition to which, one has the problem of accounting for God. Who made God?

So if one must believe something has always existed since the beginning of time, one may as well believe that it is the Universe.

Ba'al Chatzaf


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

14 Mar 2008, 2:19 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.

I just thought about the interpretation about the Sabbath for a moment, which would be the correct one? considering historical context, and its interesting to see in that aspect, some scholars have pointed out before that it is one of the things that were corrupted by the romans.

I have to agree with the literal day here, at the time it was written, I don't think it would have been intended to be thousands or millions of years each day of the creation, it wouldn't make sense for them, at the time.


Yeah, the interpretation of these passages,

Genesis 2:2-3
(2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
(3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Exodus 20:8-11
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(9) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
(11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

would be that the creation week was a literal week. If we were to go by Jewish traditions here, then the fact a day starts in the evening and ends after the morning would reflect the "evening and there was morning, the [Xth] day". Here going by Jewish traditions would be appropriate as to which day the Shabbat is, since their lives would revolve around it, so the Shabbat is Saturday. For the Goyim who don't care, why would they keep track of it?
This, children, is an example of a Creationist using Genesis and only Genesis to prove that Genesis is true! Crikey!!

An argument that rests upon itself is like an animal that rests upon its own back. Snakes, which are also famous for their forked tongues, are possibly unique in having this ability.



spudnik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,992
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

14 Mar 2008, 2:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.


This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?

Heres the Douglas Adams version of this argument from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Mar 2008, 2:31 pm

spudnik wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.


This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?


"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

14 Mar 2008, 2:40 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Obres wrote:
An interpretation can't be proven or disproven. You can only argue it, and you can only do that effectively if you know the opposing view's reasoning.


If there is truth behind it, only one interpretation can be correct. Go by the grammatical and historical context, there is only one interpretation valid. However, if the grammar is ignored, you can make any text say anything you want it too. Also, if the actual historical context doesn't suit someone, they may invent one so as to alter the meaning of the text to their liking. But, taken as the text presents, there is only one meaning that is correct.
This argument works on premises similar to solipsism. What makes solipsism so difficult to defeat is that it deals with factors which could conflict with its premises by being, definitively, a denial that any such premise could possibly exist. This is a "culture in a vacuum" theory in which a culture either existed completely without gaining the notice of other cultures or is, somehow, the only culture that produced an accurate historical record. The problem with solipsism is that it is not made self-evident that one's sense of self should be given preferential treatment over one's other sensations. By abolishing the preferential treatment of self, one could progress easily from solipsism to nihilism, which abolishes itself by its mere being. As with sensations that are obviously capable of conflict, it is most proper to construe one culture's interpretation of history as an imperfect but potentially useful means of enlightenment.



spudnik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,992
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

14 Mar 2008, 2:53 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
spudnik wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.


This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?


"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.


I don't deny the proof or lack of proof of god, that is not an abstract concept, that is mine and most people who don't have the problem of having blind faith. When it comes to religion your going to get people who disagree your version of it. Not that I mean to flame you but your going to be flamed by anyone who disagrees with you



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

14 Mar 2008, 3:13 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
spudnik wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.


This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?


"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
By his own admission, user, "iamnotaparakeet," originally came to his conclusions about Genesis due to an apparently isolated incident in which he believes he was spoken to directly by God. In spite of its isolation, he has chosen denial of any inconsistency with it. This is another example of preferential treatment, and it is one of the inherent fallacies in religion. By definition, religion requires the favor of divine origin not only above any other hypothesis but to the exclusion of any other possible explanation. Divine origin theories would be fascinating, even titillating, if it were not for the inherent abridgement of enlightened thought that most cultures which espouse them demand. Although preferential exclusion is itself a fallacy, staunch atheism is a useful protection against the obfuscatory and, unfortunately, infectious malfunctions in reasoning that the adherents of such belief systems so tenaciously spread. We must remember, however, that, in a world in which such behavior were not so popular, agnosticism would be more proper.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Mar 2008, 3:19 pm

Griff wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
spudnik wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.


This argument you posted is sort of self defeating researching the proof of god or creation, how does this apply to faith, is not having faith knowing there is a god, and if god has shown you that he or she or it exists, and you only come to this conclusion by researching and have concrete proof that a deity exists, how can you claim to have faith?


"Faith" for me is my confidence level, not an abstract concept.
By his own admission, user, "iamnotaparakeet," originally came to his conclusions about Genesis due to an apparently isolated incident in which he believes he was spoken to directly by God. In spite of its isolation, he has chosen denial of any inconsistency with it. This is another example of preferential treatment, and it is one of the inherent fallacies in religion. By definition, religion requires the favor of divine origin not only above any other hypothesis but to the exclusion of any other possible explanation. Divine origin theories would be fascinating, even titillating, if it were not for the inherent abridgement of enlightened thought that most cultures which espouse them demand. Although preferential exclusion is itself a fallacy, staunch atheism is a useful protection against the obfuscatory and, unfortunately, infectious malfunctions in reasoning that the adherents of such belief systems so tenaciously spread. We must remember, however, that, in a world in which such behavior were not so popular, agnosticism would be more proper.


You don't even know the event in question.