tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post9012747960500312193..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Bible as Truth?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83993175662169302442007-04-26T04:00:00.000-04:002007-04-26T04:00:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,thanks for the sentiment. I am sorry for...Hi Chris,<BR/>thanks for the sentiment. I am sorry for your loss as well. <BR/>The journey has been longer than that (many years of puzzling and puzzling till my puzzler was sore). I have to say that visiting with my Grandmother and overhearing all the God talk and rationalizations had a big influence in leaving my personal blog and asking to be allowed to join this one.<BR/>My posts over there were not so carefully thought out as they are here. If someone makes me look I a fool, I don't want to make it easy on them.<BR/><BR/>How do you like my new picture? <BR/>Its Howard Beale, the mad prophet from the movie "Network". I was going to use a monkey face, but that wasn't very satisfying to me. <BR/><BR/>I have to reduce my participation for a little while. My posts aren't going to be so frequent. I'm going to support what I already have provided, but after a couple of days if there are no 'bites' then I'm just going to track the other articles and challenge the irresistible comments. But I have plenty of stuff in my google docs that I am working on and when I get ready to get back in the game, I'll have a nice bunch of crazy talk to amuse you and a five dollar bill.<BR/>;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68172014608055175242007-04-25T23:43:00.000-04:002007-04-25T23:43:00.000-04:00When I hear you say things like that, it makes me ...<I>When I hear you say things like that, it makes me think you're not listening.</I><BR/><BR/>Ouch. But you know, I think you're right. I spent some time reading your "Questions for God" blog. I had looked at it before, but not closely. I should have said this before, but I'm really sorry about your grandmother. I lost my father in a similar way (cancer + chemo + complications). <BR/><BR/>You've been on quite a journey this past year or so.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13508104910559115252007-04-25T21:27:00.000-04:002007-04-25T21:27:00.000-04:00Well if you go around kissing devils, you're bound...Well if you go around kissing devils, you're bound to apostasize.<BR/><BR/>You'll have to pay another $5 if you want me to go on arguing with you.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21597349649205991942007-04-25T10:20:00.000-04:002007-04-25T10:20:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,I just discovered something. remember wh...Hi Chris,<BR/>I just discovered something. remember when you said this:<BR/>"You might want to rewrite that opening paragraph, because it's a little jumbled."<BR/><BR/>nudge, nudge, wink, wink<BR/><BR/>well, someone liked it enough to make it the <A HREF="http://www.teambio.org/2007/04/quoute-of-the-day-42007" REL="nofollow">quote of the day.</A><BR/>There is no accounting for taste!<BR/>http://www.teambio.org/2007/04/quoute-of-the-day-42007/<BR/><BR/>say no moah!<BR/>[qlug, glug, glug, grin]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87131361859992641982007-04-24T23:34:00.000-04:002007-04-24T23:34:00.000-04:00Hi Chris, [Lee orders a Scottish beer called De...Hi Chris,<BR/> [Lee orders a Scottish beer called Devils Kiss, because he likes it a lot and the irony of it is irresistible to him. He takes a long thoughtful drink of his beer. He looks over the table at Chris, puts his weight on one elbow and says]<BR/>Sorry Chris, I want to maintain plausible deniability so I won't give out too much meaningful information and in some cases have used allegory and anecdotes that weren't necessarily mine. [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] I don't want to be 'fingered' difinitively in case someone that has influence on my future see's this blog and makes some hasty conclusions about my integrity. On a side note, I love Monty Python and I have memorized more Monty Python than the Bible. and my favorite song is....can you guess?......The philosophers song.<BR/><BR/> <I>Humility is the paragon of Christian virtue -- in fact it is the paragon of any system of virtue.</I><BR/><BR/>[Lee almost chokes on his beer and some of it comes out of his nose, he wipes it away with a napkin. Lee adopts an australian accent]<BR/>maybe in your church, Bruce! In the various churches I was in, and I was as guilty as any, it was pious competition for some people, and I suppose, it was an alibi for rationalization for whatever it was they were feeling guilty about and for others obviously, it was a way to get comfort, self-esteem, recovery and all the good things that it should be. I don't have a problem with Christians that mind their own business, I am challenging the christians that want to infringe on my beloved science and my rights. <BR/><BR/>[a moment, which only seemed like seconds but was really a minute, passed. Lee turns his beer up another time]<BR/><BR/><I> I wondered if you got mad at religion because it didn't deliver 'as advertised.' Did you 'get a divorce' from God because he didn't do the kinds of things you wanted him to do?<BR/> [Quaff]<BR/> I invite your comments as well.</I><BR/><BR/> [Lee stifles a burp, sighs deeply, takes another pull on his beer and says]<BR/>When I hear you say things like that, it makes me think you're not listening.<BR/> Chris, is it so hard to accept the fact that I couldn't live with the confusion created in my mind with something that I was being told was true, but didn't seem to be?<BR/>Some of the things that went on in my mind back then follow.<BR/>- how can I say I love god when I can't see him, and he may or may not interact with me? <BR/>- How do I know when it is god and when it is luck?<BR/>- Where is evidence of the holy spiirt? <BR/>- I was literalist until I read the bible. I took it on faith that logically it must all be true. How can the bible have any mistakes if it was co-authored by god? <BR/>- where does the interpretation and metaphor stop?<BR/>- how do you know an interpretation is right? <BR/>- Why isn't the holy spirit interactive in figuring these things out?<BR/>- How do you know what is real?<BR/>- How can there be so many starving poor people. the only thing that seems to separate them from me is I was lucky to be born where I was. Why should I be grateful for me when they are unfairly disadvantaged<BR/>- If god knows everything already, why should I pray? What difference does it make if I just think it while I'm driving or am in church? <BR/>- Why should I pray for someone to overcome some misfortune when he already knows what the situation is and what I want him to do about it?<BR/> - that prayers not just mine, didn't really seemed to be answered.<BR/> - The things that people were taking for answered prayers and evidence of divine intervention were suspect to me<BR/> - People telling me that 'god wants them to do this or that with their life', was suspicious especially when strongly coincided with what they wanted anyway and not, in my opinion in their best interests.<BR/>- People going so far to tell me that god talks to them. He didn't talk to me!<BR/> - I thought people in church in were very self centered, attention seeking<BR/>- I thought that 'outreach' was just advertising and fund raising. If you are going to do something altruistic as a church, don' t advertise it, the bible says that anyway.<BR/>- why tithe? It pays the preacher yes, and keeps the church together, but why do you need the church? Why do you need the preacher as the middle man? God should be living inside me, it should be a personal relationship, if he's everything he is supposed to be, then why would I need the preacher?<BR/>- If a person wants to have a relationship with god, and a god exists and wants to have a relationship too, how could a reasonable person resist? How could a reasonable person doubt he is in relationship with a god? Therefore I was unreasonable by my standards. But I don't think I am unreasonable generally, so how does that happen? Either I am unreasonable or <BR/>I did not find god where he should be, if he were there I would have found him. Can you see how I was going crazy?<BR/><BR/>etc, etc, etc, etc.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, I am not physically able to sustain a belief in god. I chalk it up to brain disorder. I say brain disorder because since I am in the minority, and it's crazy to say that everyone else is crazy, I must be crazy.<BR/>;-)<BR/><BR/>So you see, Its not about what god can do for me, its what makes you think there is a god there at all?<BR/><BR/>[Lee finishes his Devils Kiss and asks for another]<BR/><BR/>Its like you said, it all comes down to evidence. As far as I can tell, there is a double standard for truth. I've used them both.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55037069877579093802007-04-24T23:10:00.000-04:002007-04-24T23:10:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,no worries, I'm not going anywhere!tak...Hi One Wave,<BR/>no worries, I'm not going anywhere!<BR/>take care.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66279496557152874632007-04-24T20:52:00.000-04:002007-04-24T20:52:00.000-04:00Lee,I think I'm starting to sound like a snob, I'm...Lee,<BR/>I think I'm starting to sound like a snob, I'm sorry. Talk to you later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15378120929335499982007-04-24T11:12:00.000-04:002007-04-24T11:12:00.000-04:00(Before we continue -- just curious -- how old are...(Before we continue -- just curious -- how old are you? I'm the same age as Dennis in the <I>Holy Grail</I>, who was mistaken for an old woman -- 37.)<BR/><BR/>Hallelujah. Agreement. And now for something completely different -- another agreement:<BR/><BR/><I>If [homosexual marriage] should be illegal, or at least, not supported, then there should be more compelling reasons than ['the Bible says so'].</I><BR/><BR/>Yup.<BR/><BR/>Now for the disagreement . . .<BR/><BR/><I>The difference between you and me, in my opinion, is that I've been there and done that, puzzled over it, got new information and changed my mind.</I><BR/><BR/>Until you're dead, you haven't 'been there and done that.' You of all people should know how easy it is to be wrong, given your history of dubious commitments. Humility is the paragon of Christian virtue -- in fact it is the paragon of any system of virtue.<BR/><BR/>I read your domain of knowledge post, but I just can't battle on two fronts. <BR/><BR/>[Chris and Lee step out of the ring, remove their gloves, and walk across the street to the local pub for a pint.]<BR/><BR/>Lee, this is just a shot in the dark. . . When I read your list of past "commitments," I wondered if you got mad at religion because it didn't deliver 'as advertised.'(Similar to the diet schemes.) [Chris takes a quaff of his Guinness]I admit, this is an easy, and maybe even reasonable conclusion to draw. I haven't seen the 'results' in my life that I once hoped for or expected. But maybe that's not the best way of thinking about Christianity, or God, for that matter. I don't know if you meditate or contemplate or whatever, but this might be something to ponder: Did you 'get a divorce' from God because he didn't do the kinds of things you wanted him to do?<BR/>[Quaff]<BR/>I invite your comments as well.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67076478769090196422007-04-24T07:05:00.000-04:002007-04-24T07:05:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,When you said that if someone "underwent ...Hi Chris,<BR/><I>When you said that if someone "underwent and [sic] honest search for the truth regarding this MP, he would realize that it was just an emotional phenomena that developed through natural selection," this is not the statement of a man who thinks that Christianity is rational, is it?</I><BR/><B>In a strict go, no-go, true or false, axiomatic kind of way you are right. But from a pragmatic common sense informal logic kind of way, joe came to the best conclusion he could with the information he had. That is not irrational, that is the kind of reasoning that we use quite a bit day to day. You can say the same thing about me. This is a debate with no resolution till we are dead. We are both going on our best information. The difference between you and me, in my opinion, is that I've been there and done that, puzzled over it, got new information and changed my mind.</B><BR/><BR/><I> I would hold the same view, but we would differ on what counts as evidence/reasons. </I><BR/><B>Whew! Finally, we agree on a 'big ticket item'! Thank god! ;-) </B><BR/><BR/><I>So, I think we agree, mostly. Do you consider Christianity rational?</I><BR/><B>It depends on the context. In the sense that it is based on conclusions that a person reaches based on their best information, then yes it is rational. If I were to say I am a christian it would be irrational. Based on what I know about you, when you say you are a christian it is rational. In a strict dictionary sense, even emotional causes qualify as reasons and therefore rational (I looked it up). On the other hand, at the risk of a 'straw man' charge, when I hear someone say "god said it, I believe it and that settles it" I would not call that rational. Am I wrong?</B><BR/><BR/>I don't want you to think that I am immune from 'stinking thinking'. I have been committed to plenty of things that I am not committed to anymore.<BR/>- Fitness supplements<BR/>- Diet Schemes<BR/>- smoking<BR/>- smokeless tobacco<BR/>- The bermuda triangle, ufo's, bigfoot<BR/>- Religion.<BR/>etc. In my lifetime I have spent tons of money and years worth of time on that stuff. Heck I recently got sucked into Ray Kurzweils Life extension through supplements not long ago. It seemed plausible based on current research on calorie restriction and revised thinking about nutrition. And because I believe "in fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" I say the following.<BR/><BR/> I still stick to my guns that the bible is not a valid premise for conclusions that depend on the presumption that it is authorized and co-authored by a god. My reasons are as follows.<BR/>1. A god has not been shown to exist.<BR/>2. A god has not been shown to have participated in the creation of the bible<BR/>3. Jesus has not been shown to have been god, excluding the New Testament which is covered by item 2.<BR/>4. There is quite a bit of 'negative evidence' that conflicts with claims in the bible.<BR/>5. There are plenty of other reasonable alternate hypotheses to account for the dataset that christians depend on to back their faith.<BR/><BR/>So to avoid misunderstandings, an example. When homosexuals want to be protected by law when having a relationship that has been traditionally called marriage and it is resisted because the bible says that god doesn't like homosexuals, I see that as unsound reasoning. If it should be illegal, or at least, not supported, then there should be more compelling reasons than that.<BR/><BR/>Another example. The resistance that the old FDA administrator was getting over a birth control pill caused her to quit. It was found safe by the FDA but its availability was blocked in legislation.<BR/><BR/>However, I am open to new information. New information caused me to deconvert, new information may cause me to repent. I looked till I was convinced god wasn't there and gave up.<BR/><BR/>Like you said, It all comes down to evidence.<BR/><BR/>Did you read my other 'domain of knowledge' post? It explains all that, but it uses a dog instead. dog is god backwards. ;-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91461617228794657362007-04-24T00:35:00.000-04:002007-04-24T00:35:00.000-04:00Lee -- Great comments. OK, it is probably true th...Lee -- Great comments. OK, it is probably true that all atheists don't think Christians are pathetically deluded. But I actually got the impression that something close to this was your view (and I certainly get this impression from others at DC). When you said that if someone "underwent and [sic] honest search for the truth regarding this MP, he would realize that it was just an emotional phenomena that developed through natural selection," this is not the statement of a man who thinks that Christianity is rational, is it? <BR/><I>I think you feel that way about christianity.</I><BR/>No, I don't, because I know too many reasonable, intelligent people who do not believe as I do. I think atheism is a rational position, even if it is false. So if you think I am rational to believe as I do, then you should retract the above statement. I hereby retract my comment about atheists (that they all think we are pathetically deluded).<BR/><BR/>Now, regarding truth . . .<BR/>Only propositions can be true or false, and propositions are expressed by sentences of a certain sort. "Go get the toaster" is not a proposition, since it is neither T nor F. "Are you ticklish?" is not a proposition either. "The cat sat on the nuclear bomb" is a proposition, and is either T or F.<BR/><BR/><I>But I still think that something that is considered to be a "truth" that is subjective is an opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps another way to say this would be "A proposition that is considered to be true, but is subjectively true, is an opinon." What does this mean? Well, we could say that something is merely *subjectively true* just in case it is relative to the person asserting it. So, "I am sitting at the kitchen table" is true relative to me, but perhaps false if you said it. So for thiestic belief, the proposition "I beleive that God exists" is true when I say it, but false when you say it. This probably isn't what you are getting at. Or maybe you're talking about matters of taste, like "Dog meat is the best." That probably is subjective, and is only true relative to a person. But such claims would be really uninteresting, and could not be debated. On this view, the statement "God exists" (or "God does not exist") would merely<BR/>be a matter of taste. True for me, false for you. <BR/><BR/>The other way I could take what you said is this: a certain sort of evidence/reasons are needed for a proposition before one should believe it. So, unless I have empirical evidence for UFOs, the proposition "UFOs exist" should not be believed by me. But this has nothing to do with truth -- only belief. UFOs might exist, but I have no supporting evidence/reasons, thus I should not believe in them. Would this be your view on theistic belief?<BR/><BR/>This seems reasonable. I would hold the same view, but we would differ on what counts as evidence/reasons. So, there needs to be a further argument about what should count as evidence/reasons. I assume you want CSI-type evidence. I think logic, personal experience, and phenomenological arguments count as evidence/reasons. Like you, I consider them defeasible.<BR/><BR/>So, I think we agree, mostly. Do you consider Christianity rational?<BR/>(Meaning, it can be believed by reasonable persons, it isn't absurd, it isn't irrational, there are good arguments in support of it, etc.) Might be a good next post.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37250735124456965922007-04-23T05:38:00.000-04:002007-04-23T05:38:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,Anyway, there are stories around the w...Hi One Wave,<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway, there are stories around the world of people in remote areas who claim they have been visited by someone saying he is the Son of God and from what I have heard whole villages have come to believe in the message of the Gospel w/o any human intervention. I believe it. I think it is possible and likely that God would do that for people who cannot hear and are searching when they cannot be reached.</I><BR/><B>well, that doesn't seem fair. he's got all these ex-believers blogging their little hineys off, wishing for something like that to happen to them. For that reason, I don't buy it.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I don't agree with you that Christians do good things because God is watching, there are many of those, but there are some who do it out of a compulsion to give out of the overflow of their heart.</I><BR/><B>whew, good, because I don't agree that christians only do good when god is watching either. I said they do it in addition to the egocentric motives. they have an additonal type of motivation source than the non-believer.</B><BR/><BR/> Lee said:<BR/> I am saying that a god should be able to be discovered using the same processes we use to discover truths about the world around us.<BR/><BR/> <I>I would liken this to heart issues in a human relationship. If my husband tried to reach my heart and know who I am by using the scientific method I would be insulted. Maybe that's the trouble between men and women at times eh?! I can understand God's desire to be drawn out and sought after, to be known on a heart level. I think He offers a great reward in return too.</I><BR/> <B> I hope you were joking, because in a god that hardly seems appropriate behavior when so much is at stake and he supposedly wants a relationship. I don't really want to get into the details of a married relationship and compare it to god, but sometimes a little flowery surprise from your husband is in order, isn't it?</B><BR/><BR/> <I>When I look at the world I can't help but to see it broken down into atoms and molecules...it's just the nerdy way my mind works. But I also have a sense of awe and wonder at the beauty and complexity and just being of it all. I realize there are many reactions that happen in my glands and brain, but something goes deeper that causes me to want to reach for Someone I can't see but am sure is there.</I><BR/> <B>well thats okay for you but there are billions of other people god needs to consider. Not all of us have your acute powers of perception. Some of us are handicapped, and can't see what is obvious to you.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>This is so long, I'm off for a while again but I'll check back to see what you write on morality/egocentrism.</I><BR/><B>I look forward to hearing from you again.</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12530838825972124222007-04-23T04:26:00.000-04:002007-04-23T04:26:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, I forgot to include this:I am saying th...I'm sorry, I forgot to include this:<BR/><BR/>I am saying that a god should be able to be discovered using the same processes we use to discover truths about the world around us. <BR/><BR/>I would liken this to heart issues in a human relationship. If my husband tried to reach my heart and know who I am by using the scientific method I would be insulted. Maybe that's the trouble between men and women at times eh?! I can understand God's desire to be drawn out and sought after, to be known on a heart level. I think He offers a great reward in return too. <BR/><BR/>When I look at the world I can't help but to see it broken down into atoms and molecules...it's just the nerdy way my mind works. But I also have a sense of awe and wonder at the beauty and complexity and just being of it all. I realize there are many reactions that happen in my glands and brain, but something goes deeper that causes me to want to reach for Someone I can't see but am sure is there. <BR/><BR/>This is so long, I'm off for a while again but I'll check back to see what you write on morality/egocentrism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70479202137156841122007-04-23T04:07:00.000-04:002007-04-23T04:07:00.000-04:00Lee,But how do you arrive at this assumption about...Lee,<BR/><BR/>But how do you arrive at this assumption about god? From your culture I'd say. Then the bible supports it and it supports the bible and we are in that feedback loop, that started with and assumption from culture. Is this correct or a misrepresentation?<BR/><BR/><BR/>My answer: <BR/>Well, it is possible that the idea of God came from some cultural source. I don't think so, because I have tended not to see God in exactly the same way as any religion I know. The first time I remember knowing there was a being beyond what I could see was when I was three years old. That was a sense, not a cultural thing. <BR/>You may not believe this, but my idea of God comes from Him. There are some things in the Bible that I can't grasp God doing, but I am seeking for answers to those things. The Bible is where I see the most of what I know to be true about God and I do believe that Jesus is the Messiah promised to the Israelites. I see truth in other religious writings too, but the end product of the thought processes of other belief systems seem to be either self debasing or self centered. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, there are stories around the world of people in remote areas who claim they have been visited by someone saying he is the Son of God and from what I have heard whole villages have come to believe in the message of the Gospel w/o any human intervention. I believe it. I think it is possible and likely that God would do that for people who cannot hear and are searching when they cannot be reached. <BR/><BR/>I don't know if you've heard of Bruce Olson or his book Bruchko, but it's pretty fascinating. I think it's a good example of what happens when someone really listens to God instead of the religion or culture.<BR/><BR/>I would be interested in reading an article you write on egocentrism. I don't agree with you that Christians do good things because God is watching, there are many of those, but there are some who do it out of a compulsion to give out of the overflow of their heart.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2136158925605359952007-04-22T03:58:00.000-04:002007-04-22T03:58:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave, These issues are good to look at ...Hi One Wave,<BR/><BR/> <I>These issues are good to look at honestly and try to come to conclusions, but sometimes it seems that there can be no conclusion because there is not enough plausible information on either side. ...On the one hand, we all know that every culture has unwritten "laws" that seem parallel. The ten commandments were certainly not original in the whole, the law of Hammurabi was very similar in some ways.<BR/> Again, I would say that if God is God and man was made in His image, all men would have a semblance of His truth in their being. </I><BR/><BR/> <B>Or not. For example, i tried to use this type of reasoning as to why humans should be able to judge if god was good or not, but it was attacked 'religiously'. I argued that if we are made in gods image, then we should know what it means to be good and when someone says that god is good and we look around at tragedy we can rightfully say that either he's not around or he's not good. Charge me with a false dichotomy! ;-) I think I can hear Chris's motor revving up....god has reasons that we don't understand, and he's good in his own way, got it. ;-) </B><BR/><BR/> <I>Truth implies something ultimately foundational. ..I begin with the assumption that God is the foundation and all He has made proceeds from Him directly.<BR/> Therefore, the Bible need not be the source of truth because it is only part of God's revelation. God is truth....</I><BR/> <B>But how do you arrive at this assumption about god? From your culture I'd say. Then the bible supports it and it supports the bible and we are in that feedback loop, that started with and assumption from culture. Is this correct or a misrepresentation?</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>.. The ability to reason beyond the obvious doesn't seem to be the hallmark of evolution.</I><BR/><BR/> <B> No. You're right. But this is not what I am saying. I am saying that a god should be able to be discovered using the same processes we use to discover truths about the world around us. Saying that there is one standard of truth in one sense and one standard in another is intellectually dishonest. <BR/><BR/> In the case of lies you are right. It is morally justifiable to tell a lie in a situation like the following. A friend comes to you crying and bruised saying her husband hit her. You let her into your house. 30 min later her husband is at the door wanting to know if she is there. The weight of the ethic to mitigate her harm is more than the weight of the ethic not to lie.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>My point about doing good in the world was not to debase another faith. ... People without a faith in God or a god, can still do good things and do. I'm not judging thier ability to do good, but I do observe that people who believe that they are here to be the hands and feet of God are more motivated to change thier plans to serve people without expecting those they serve to give back.</I><BR/><B> I am pretty sure that, as you say, morality spans cultures and religions. But I would go further and say that it stems from egocentrism. Is it really so honorable to be compelled to do something altruistic because you know god is watching? I would say that is pretty egocentristic. In the example of the puppies I gave in an earlier comment, I was in a psychological state, and it was changed by the introduction of the knowledge of the puppies. I became uncomfortable and wanted to get back to my comfy psychological state. To do that required an action on my part that was altruistic. I think it is plausible that this developed evolutionarily, like the social characteristics, as a kind of feedback between humans and animals which improved each others survival strategy. Add a god watching and you have more influence to do good deeds.</B><BR/><BR/>If you would like to pursue this, I am thinking about doing an article on egocentrism and morality/altruism. Would you be interested in that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47663655554840253302007-04-22T03:01:00.000-04:002007-04-22T03:01:00.000-04:00Hi Chris,Lee said: This is an egocentric subjectiv...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/><I>Lee said: This is an egocentric subjective process that he has undergone. . . If he really underwent and honest search for the truth regarding this MP he would realize that it was just an emotional phenomena that developed through natural selection.<BR/> chris said:<BR/> Wow! Do you realize how this sounds? "If anyone did an honest search for truth, they would believe as I do!"<BR/> Egocentric -adj.- having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things. (Dictionary.com)</I><BR/> <B>You really know know how to brighten my day! I love citations and real data!<BR/><BR/> Chris, that is how it is supposed to sound. I really believe that. I don't see how anyone could not come to the conclusion that I did. So what? I think you feel that way about christianity. If not we'd be talking about something else.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>Lee said: Can a truth that is open to interpretation really be considered a truth? It is an opinion.<BR/> chris said:<BR/> What does this mean? I assume you are not suggesting that for anything I believe to be true, it must be absolutely true without the possibility of error. That is dogmatism. If you think your beliefs are infallible, then this will be my final post. There would be simply no point in dialogue. But I don't think you hold such a view.</I><BR/><BR/> <B>Well chris, I don't see how get there from what I said. The way you took my view is not my view. My view is this. I have plenty of presumptions that I use day to day to make decisions and interact in the world. I am not comfortable with a presumption that is not as certain as it can be. Is that weird? Our beliefs and most of our reasoning is defeasible, meaning that it can be made invalid by new information. This is my 'dogma' if you will. If you look back through my articles, I usually provide that 'disclaimer'. I do that because I consider the position of some atheists that "absolutely there is no god" to be unreasonable in a strict sense. But I still think that something that is considered to be a "truth" that is subjective is an opinion. My computer is true because I'm typing on it, but if I tell you how it works, that may or may not be the truth. It would be my opinion until we get some expert information that both of us were satisfied with, that it accurately represented what was going on inside, was plausible. Do you believe if you go to Lourds that you will be healed? Do you believe in faith healers? Do you believe in bigfoot or UFO's, do you believe in the "the secret" that is on the bestseller list? etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Without strict criteria for a commitment to an idea, we open ourselves up to fraud. And I don't want any of you to go away, I like talking to you all.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>...Just that MP is only a starting point. From there you must try to interpret the experience and try to understand the Person behind it. We can have fallacious MP, .... But only a madman would conclude that we should never trust our eyes or ears, or even our spirit.<BR/><BR/> So MP seems like a valid starting point, but it is fallible. I...even many Christians misinterpret MP. Double-heck, I probably misinterpret it.<BR/> ...The atheist has to turn a blind eye to this fact, or make up a just so story to explain how pathetically deluded these billions have been, and how enlightened he is.</I><BR/><BR/><I>The atheist turns a blind eye..."Pathetically deluded"....</I><BR/><BR/><B>Chris, I think you're throwing a little straw around in here. Pathetically Deluded sounds like Dawkins, not all of us. You don't think I and all other non-christians are deluded?<BR/>You interpret your MP as you see fit, Hyam interprets his MP as he sees fit, Mohammad interprets his as he sees fit, I interpret mine as I see fit, but the christian is the only right way. Why is everyone wrong but the christian, I think I missed that? </B><BR/><BR/>times up gotta go.<BR/>later.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23816941164920494172007-04-22T02:16:00.000-04:002007-04-22T02:16:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,I never thought you were trying to mak...Hi One Wave,<BR/>I never thought you were trying to make me look foolish. I hope you don't think I'm trying to make you look foolish. I got a little 'light hearted' with the fruit of the spirit thing, because I am enjoying the dialogue! <BR/>I don't disagree with most of what you said, I am working on a reply to you.<BR/>I hope all is well with you and that your troubles have passed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47906213964197832052007-04-22T02:10:00.000-04:002007-04-22T02:10:00.000-04:00Hi Chris, Here's the first part of my reply, I'...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/> Here's the first part of my reply, I'm working on the rest.<BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>Thanks for the ongoing mental stimulation. I've had to think of things I've not thunk of before.</I><BR/><BR/> <B>thank you for participating. Thats what I'm here for.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>You know, one theme I have seen in your comments is this idea that God ought to make his existence, and the truth of Christianity for that matter, undeniable or irresistable. I presume that you believe that this would solve most of the problems concerning religion. There should be no epistemic wiggle-room, in your view. No one should ever be able to say, "I didn't know!"</I><BR/><BR/> <B>you pegged me.</B><BR/><BR/> <I>To override our senses with an indisputable manifestation of his glory would be to destroy our freedom.</I><BR/><BR/> <B>this is your opinion. no, it wouldn't. If I see three puppies in a trash bin, I make the decision to get them out and save them. I am not compelled. Motivation, and desire come from stimulation we get from our environment. If god manifested himself, I am sure most would convert, but some wouldn't, chance is just that way, then we would need to figure out why they wouldn't convert. Maybe they are just butt heads or maybe they are schizophrenic and can't trust it because it appears to be just another illusion. if god cured it, and they converted, would it be fair to say they were coerced?</B><BR/><BR/> <I>Skeptic: Isn't that convenient! I say I want more evidence, and you tell me that's not God's way. How could I ever falsify that claim? It's self-fulfilling!<BR/><BR/> There's not much I can say, except, I think with a little contemplation one can see the wisdom to such an approach for God. God hides himself. You will find this idea throughout the Bible.</I><BR/> <B> yes, i think your are right, but I would say if you think long enough, you can find a way around an unfalsifiable argument, reasonable or not. Thats why I like to stick with things that are verifiable. It limits the amount of fraud that I fall into</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>Skeptic: But what about the spectacular miracles in the Torah?<BR/><BR/> Ahh, yes. But what was the result of witnessing those spectacles? Steel-bolted faith and obedience? Nope. Once the electricity of the event wore off, people went right back to their old doubting, finicky selves.</I><BR/> <B> that is what it says, I agree, but its truth is what I doubt. I don't believe that it played out that way or if it really happened. If it were to happen now, and I'm looking with my 'miracle watch', I think I would convert again, and I think most would such that we'd have more like 80% compliance worldwide instead of the ~30% that the world atlas claims. But this is my opinion, much as it is yours that the bible is valid for knowledge about god.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> <I>I think Jesus recognized the futility of signs and wonders. This is not a philsophical issue, i.e., "how much evidence is sufficient for belief in God." This ultimately comes down to the heart. Scoff if you will. Jesus said,"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."(Lk. 16:31)</I><BR/> <B>if you can make it irrefutable not many would resist, especially if it was clear the the threat of hell was real and present. To say that I have to suspend my reason and adopt a philosophy with a dependence on non-verifiable data is a recipe for disaster in the real world. I would say it is a recipe for disaster in religion as well. I think the people falling out of the towers on 9/11 or the unlucky suffering torture in the dark ages or in Salem would agree.</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86936417553616494522007-04-21T12:33:00.000-04:002007-04-21T12:33:00.000-04:00Lee,My point was not to make you look like a fool....Lee,<BR/>My point was not to make you look like a fool. These issues are good to look at honestly and try to come to conclusions, but sometimes it seems that there can be no conclusion because there is not enough plausible information on either side. It's good for me to be stretched and grapple with these ideas and I think it's good for us all.<BR/><BR/>You are right, this concept of truth is hard. On the one hand, we all know that every culture has unwritten "laws" that seem parallel. The ten commandments were certainly not original in the whole, the law of Hammurabi was very similar in some ways. Again, I would say that if God is God and man was made in His image, all men would have a semblance of His truth in their being. The Summerians would not have been too far off in time from the literal 6 day creation.<BR/><BR/>Truth implies something ultimately foundational. Something unalterable. Is telling a lie right or wrong? Bertrand Russel would have argued, I think, that a Christian would begin with the assumption that God created right and wrong. He started with the premise that God has made everything in a mechanical sort of way as we would make a clock. I don't see that as being the case. We know it is not a good idea to lie but there are occassions when lying is neccessary. An example from the Bible would be the midwives in Midian. What truth is violated there? It's deeper than written words.<BR/><BR/>According to Bertrand Russel, Christians begin with the premise that God created law and right and wrong when He created space, time and matter. That is what he seems to imply, that Christians would start with that assumption. I can't speak for other Christians, and I could be wrong, but I don't start with that assumption. I begin with the assumption that God is the foundation and all He has made proceeds from Him directly. <BR/>Therefore, the Bible need not be the source of truth because it is only part of God's revelation. God is truth. He looks at the very core of our being, the intentions of our hearts, not only outward actions. <BR/><BR/>From what I hear you saying, truth is a process of natural selection. Those with the ability to value others and live by an internal law survived. These people passed on thier altuistic genes to us and we have the right brain chemistry. That could be to some extent. Right and wrong are subjective but underlying truth is not. For example, it is good to tell a lie sometimes and it is neccessary to kill sometimes. The value of truth in telling a lie or killing would be the motive or intent. The ability to reason beyond the obvious doesn't seem to be the hallmark of evolution. <BR/><BR/>My point about doing good in the world was not to debase another faith. I was asking you to look at the results of a belief system. There are horrible examples of Christianity and other belief systems, but looking at the fruit of each of them can tell us something about the integrity of the beginning premise.<BR/><BR/>People without a faith in God or a god, can still do good things and do. I'm not judging thier ability to do good, but I do observe that people who believe that they are here to be the hands and feet of God are more motivated to change thier plans to serve people without expecting those they serve to give back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54172941892084513752007-04-21T02:09:00.000-04:002007-04-21T02:09:00.000-04:00Hi live-n-grace,I think the important thing is tha...Hi live-n-grace,<BR/><BR/><I>I think the important thing is that, true almost all charities, shelters, ect.. are founded and run by christians, </I><BR/><B>I'd like to see your source for that please.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I think a big difference too, is that athiests give because it makes them feel better, a pat on the back, while Christians realize how lucky they are to have all these possessions given from God, and that they can help other people's lives by giving. </I><BR/><B>The feel good pat on the back does not apply to Christians? Is it probable (I'm avoiding the 'p' word [possible] for fear that Chris will 'light into me') that it can be both in a Christian? I think there is more integrity in giving when you know your possessions are finite, and there is not reward, than there is knowing that your possessions are potentially infinite and there is an eternal reward. Ironically, of the two givers, I'd say the non-believer is the more deserving of the reward.</B><BR/><BR/><I>Also, generosity is a fruit of the spirit, and I feel compelled to give, just as God has given much to me.</I><BR/><B>Orange you not considering my 'fruits'? Kiwi say that I have fruits too? As far as I can tell they don't come from the supernatural, they come from the chemical reactions that are going on in my noggin. Banana wanna discredit the Christians contributions, all contributions are good. </B><BR/>☺<BR/>I love that!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81923771811794325362007-04-20T23:04:00.000-04:002007-04-20T23:04:00.000-04:00Hi ho --Thanks for the ongoing mental stimulation....Hi ho --<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the ongoing mental stimulation. I've had to think of things I've not thunk of before.<BR/><BR/>You know, one theme I have seen in your comments is this idea that God ought to make his existence, and the truth of Christianity for that matter, undeniable or irresistable. I presume that you believe that this would solve most of the problems concerning religion. There should be no epistemic wiggle-room, in your view. No one should ever be able to say, "I didn't know!" <BR/><BR/>I have come to see the profound wisdom in providing epistemic wiggle-room. (If you want biblical references, I can do that next time.) God is just close enough so that he can be found by those who honestly seek him. But he is just far enough away that he can be ignored by those who wish to keep their distance. In this, he gives us a wonderful gift of freedom. To override our senses with an indisputable manifestation of his glory would be to destroy our freedom.<BR/><BR/>Skeptic: Isn't that convenient! I say I want more evidence, and you tell me that's not God's way. How could I ever falsify that claim? It's self-fulfilling! <BR/><BR/>There's not much I can say, except, I think with a little contemplation one can see the wisdom to such an approach for God. God <I>hides himself.</I> You will find this idea throughout the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Skeptic: But what about the spectacular miracles in the Torah? <BR/><BR/>Ahh, yes. But what was the result of witnessing those spectacles? Steel-bolted faith and obedience? Nope. Once the electricity of the event wore off, people went right back to their old doubting, finicky selves. <BR/><BR/>I think Jesus recognized the futility of signs and wonders. This is not a philsophical issue, i.e., "how much evidence is sufficient for belief in God." This ultimately comes down to the heart. Scoff if you will. Jesus said,"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead."(Lk. 16:31)<BR/><BR/>Sorry to seemingly change the subject here -- "now back to our regularly scheduled programming."<BR/><BR/><I>This is an egocentric subjective process that he has undergone. . . If he really underwent and honest search for the truth regarding this MP he would realize that it was just an emotional phenomena that developed through natural selection.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow! Do you realize how this sounds? "If anyone did an honest search for truth, they would believe as I do!" <BR/><B>Egocentric</B> -adj.- having or regarding the self or the individual as the center of all things. (Dictionary.com)<BR/><BR/><I>Can a truth that is open to interpretation really be considered a truth? It is an opinion.</I><BR/><BR/>What does this mean? I assume you are not suggesting that for anything I believe to be true, it must be absolutely true without the possibility of error. That is dogmatism. If you think your beliefs are infallible, then this will be my final post. There would be simply no point in dialogue. But I don't think you hold such a view.<BR/><BR/>Suppose Joe has an experience of MP. Of this, he cannot be mistaken, anymore than he can be mistaken about the pain he currently feels in his tooth. What he <I>can</I> be mistaken about is this: the cause or meaning of the MP. Joe could be having a mild epileptic seizure. If not, and the cause is supernatural, then which god is it? This is where written revelation comes in handy. <BR/><BR/>So where does this leave us? Just that MP is only a starting point. From there you must try to interpret the experience and try to understand the Person behind it. We can have fallacious MP, just as I can have hallucinations or misundertand something said to me in the telephone game. But only a madman would conclude that we should never trust our eyes or ears, or even our spirit.<BR/><BR/>So MP seems like a valid starting point, but it is fallible. I've already implied this, but I think that many Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims have authentic MP. MP is generally non-propositional, though. So, they interpret it incorrectly. But they are most likely experiencing the same God I am. Heck, even many Christians misinterpret MP. Double-heck, I probably misinterpret it.<BR/><BR/>I won't even go into how this actually makes a nice start for a theistic argument. Billions of people throughout history have experienced MP. The atheist has to turn a blind eye to this fact, or make up a <I>just so</I> story to explain how pathetically deluded these billions have been, and how enlightened he is.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I'll wrap up. If you can't get to a reply right away, Lee, that's ok. The double-team is a little rough. Thanks for your thought-provoking responses so far.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14474427963427699052007-04-20T18:05:00.000-04:002007-04-20T18:05:00.000-04:00I think the important thing is that, true almost a...I think the important thing is that, true almost all charities, shelters, ect.. are founded and run by christians, but this does not mean that non-christians give or love. We were all made in the image of God, and we are all CAPABLE of doing good, it's just that most don't. I think a big difference too, is that athiests give because it makes them feel better, a pat on the back, while Christians realize how lucky they are to have all these possessions given from God, and that they can help other people's lives by giving. Also, generousity is a fruit of the spirit, and I feel compelled to give, just as God has given much to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72703660895128807472007-04-20T10:57:00.000-04:002007-04-20T10:57:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,now the second part, if I make a stupi...Hi One Wave,<BR/>now the second part, if I make a stupid rushed mistake please exercise the principle of charity and give me the benefit of the doubt! ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>In regard to neuroscience, ...Behavior can cause a chemical reaction in the brain and a chemical reaction can cause a behavior. Depression is a prime example.</I><BR/><B>As i understand you are right. there instances of feedback loops in all categories of things. Brains, electronics, dialogue, etc.</B><BR/><BR/><I>If a person is depressed for an extended period of time, their brain chemistry can change so that they will need medication or a change in life circumstances in order to balance the chemistry again. OR, a person can have an unbalanced chemical reaction due to an accident or poor diet, etc.., and experience depression.<BR/>Psychology is highly subjective because it begins with the human mind which is subject to presuppositions and subconscious ideals even though the psychologist is a "trained professional". ...The very nature of science cannot determine moral truth because it is the quest of man's inquiry into a pre-existing infrastructure.</I><BR/><B> I agree with that too, up until the 'pre-existing infrastructure' because, with regards to the 'universal moral', it appears that you have assumed that science can't isolate the areas of the brain that control the rudimentary 'morality algorithms' if there are any. But on a side note, if you had thrown schizophrenia in there I could use that argument against Chris and anon 1035 for the unreliability of experience in validating the truth of the Bible. Your brain plays tricks on you.</B><BR/><BR/><I>If there is foundational truth, it makes sense that many belief systems would have some of that truth.</I><BR/><B>Yes I agree, but as an evolutionary psychology issue</B><BR/><BR/><I>If chance is what gave me the ability to imagine a God so awesome and beyond-my-imagination-wonderful, why can't I reproduce that reality or those feelings whenever I want to? Believe me, I would!</I><BR/><B>Well you can't do that with other feelings unless your are skilled at it like an actor, I'm assuming that actors can do it to make themselves cry.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I'm assuming your reason for debunking the Bible is to show that it is not worth building a worldview from??</I><BR/><B> Actually my reason for debunking the bible is because I am a big fan of science and a republican up until the last elections, but in the past few years things have gotten out of control and I think it is time I took a stand. I joined this blog specifically to attack the bible and its use as a presupposition for reasoning. I think there is not enough debate based on verifiable data and I wanted to bring something else to the table.</B><BR/><BR/><I>You mentioned other religions...Christianity can be seen as a religion, ...The residents of Antioch saw people emulating Christ. If you follow, carefully, the lives of people who were known to exhibit lives in line with what Christ taught, the fruit of the Spirit, I think it makes a very persuasive argument for the continuity of God's work in the human heart to bring about His Kingdom on earth. There have been abuses of the gospel for sure, but the Kingdom of God is evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit.</I><BR/><B>Christians don't hold a monopoly on morals, ethics or any other spirit fruit. I think you know that, so this Christian fruit of the spirit thing applies to non-Christian spirit fruit as well. Orange you glad I didn't make any weak puns just now?</B><BR/><BR/><I>It would be interesting to get statistics...they probably already exist...to find out how many charity run organizations are operating hospitals, orphanages, relief shelters, refugee camps etc... are run or staffed mostly by Christians. This IS a significant point. John said that he thinks that people would have come up with these ministries eventually. If that's the case, there should be as much help being administered by non-faith as faith based agencies. It would also be interesting to find out how many of the faith-based agencies indoctrinate the people they are "serving". By indoctrinate, I mean actively teaching doctrine or using threats, withholding treatment etc... Sharing the love of God or praying with people would not fall under that definition regardless of the faith.</I><BR/><B> yes it would be interesting to comprehensive demographics on that. There are united way and unicef and all sorts of secular charities.</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3395142627431629312007-04-20T09:52:00.000-04:002007-04-20T09:52:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave, I'm going to have to 'nickel and dime...Hi One Wave, I'm going to have to 'nickel and dime this reply'.<BR/><BR/><I>In your model I don't see room for any moral truth. Everything is subject to interpretation if there is no fixed point of reference.</I><BR/><B>First off, 'morals', 'ethics' and 'goodness' are subjective. But here's a 'hail mary', how about "mitigate harm"?<BR/>If you mean universal moral truth, there are being shown to be psychological moral reasoning schemes that span cultures and populations, but for the rest it is decided on by the culture it affects. The ten commandments were nothing special, plenty of examples exist that predate them. Do unto others yada yada existed before Jesus supposedly said it. More or less, It is the prisoners dilemma in game theory. Game theory has promise for resolving ethical dilemmas that aren't even considered in the Bible. Consider this simple one that you probably have run across at a kids birthday party. How do you divide the cake so that there is no 'portion envy'. There is a way to come REALLY DARN CLOSE using game theory but not the bible. How does that happen?<BR/><BR/>I don't see any room for moral truth in your model either. Christians in this blog have argued the God is good in his own way. What does that mean? There is no fixed point of reference. It is non-sense. Don't get me started on the old testament or I'm going to have bring up the Holy Poop mandate, in addition to the other things about stoning etc.<BR/><BR/>The bible is not sophisticated enough to deal with the kinds of ethical dilemmas that we deal with today. An example. Is there any guidance in the bible on the following hypothetical situation?<BR/>You are in a boat in the ocean from a plane wreck. you have five people in the boat, you don't know when you are going to get rescued and you have very little fresh water. One of you has a wound that will result in death in these circumstances. Do you keep feeding the person water even though you know they probably wont survive or do you share it with them till they die? another one, invitro fertilization. It has got us to the point where there are frozen embryos unclaimed that are being disposed of. Why not use them for stem cells? I suppose you would argue we shouldn't have gotten ourselves into that mess and should stop so that we don't have to deal with it. But Invitro fertilazation has brought lots of healthy babies into the world, and some consider it a blessing. <BR/> <BR/>What to do, what to do?<BR/><BR/>I go with the frame of reference that I know is not based on the faulty premise of the bible.</B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45535356662661792742007-04-20T04:09:00.000-04:002007-04-20T04:09:00.000-04:00Hi Chris, Here is the rest of my feedback on your ...Hi Chris, <BR/>Here is the rest of my feedback on your comment.<BR/><I>Now wait just a artifact-pickin' minute. These finding are VERY significant. ...<BR/>Skeptic: These civilizations are pure fiction! See, we knew the Bible was a joke.<BR/>Christian: Wait -- we found evidence of the Hittites!<BR/>Skeptic: Oh. Uhh, well, how important is that? That doesn't prove anything.<BR/>It proves a lot…. Every such confirmation increases the reliability of the total package, and makes it that much more probable that we'll confirm the other stories as well.</I><BR/>Now hold on there Mr. Indiana Jones! Now I get to throw the straw at you a little bit! I didn't say they weren't important, I agree they are very important. And I agree that the likelihood of a story being true increases with the evidence that supports it. But the weight of importance on discovering that a civilization existed and the weight of discovering that the exodus really happened the way it is detailed in the bible are not equivalent are they? One is a general type of claim and the other is very specific claim that has repercussions. To say that the city that “Lonesome Dove” took place in is real is a different claim that to say that the characters in “Lonesome Dove” really did what they are described as doing.<BR/><BR/><I> Lee said “Most of the history in a James Michener novel is accurate. What about the Iliad and the odyssey? Does that say a lot?”<BR/><BR/>Chris said “Sure. If they are claiming to tell a true story.”</I><BR/><B>There have been books written that were discovered to be fraudulent. One I’m thinking of but cannot find the name to was written by an Australian girl that was posing for years as an immigrant. She made up a war-time tale and adopted a east European accent to keep her fraud going for five to ten years until it was uncovered by someone familiar with the facts. So to say that history in a book means a lot if it claims it is telling a true story doesn’t follow in my opinion. It would have the same weight of importance in either case. The process of verifying the story would increase or decrease the weight of importance.</B><BR/><BR/><I>I've done the homework, Lee. But there is always more out there to study than anyone could get to. At some point, we have to draw a conclusion. Honestly, the more I study, while at the same time deepening my spirituality, the stronger my faith becomes.</I><BR/><B> You are right, but it worked the opposite on me. If you read my other domain of knowledge post, you can see what I mean. And the more I continue to learn the more comfortable I am with my convictions. </B>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89695027775404149412007-04-20T04:07:00.000-04:002007-04-20T04:07:00.000-04:00Hi One Wave,welcome back.now I'm trouble! I have y...Hi One Wave,<BR/>welcome back.<BR/>now I'm trouble! I have you both double-teaming me!<BR/>I'm going to have to defer my comment to you for a little while until I get the time to respond.<BR/>check back,<BR/>thanks for coming back.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.com