Scriptural literacy

[Arthur Denton]

No, I am not Jesus.

Robin, I'm being honest with you,

your answer is sincere. Thank you, much better than some other people, in fact, it's true, and that's a relief.

If you actually tried to explain it thoroughly, it'd be an endless set of accusations and "hehe, I've debunked you" and "hehe I've excomunicated you" and this is really a relief.

 

[Paulhoff]

The activity the Pharisees complained of was not eating, it was picking grain. I think the operative part here is "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath".

The law was made for man, not man for the law. That does not rescinded the law.

Paul

 

[Robin]

The law was made for man, not man for the law. That does not rescinded the law.

Paul

I guess it is just how I am reading it, but I think it is the way most people read it. The Pharisees are treating the Sabbath as an onerous religious duty, Jesus is saying, this is for your benefit.

I can't think what else it could mean.

 

[joobz]

I guess it is just how I am reading it, but I think it is the way most people read it. The Pharisees are treating the Sabbath as an onerous religious duty, Jesus is saying, this is for your benefit.

I can't think what else it could mean.

It could also mean that the 10 commandments are so much commandments as guidelines.

 

[Piggy]

It could also mean that the 10 commandments are so much commandments as guidelines.

It depends on whose Jesus you're looking at.

The gospels do not agree on what Jesus's doctrine was.

They were written for different audiences.

Oh, and btw, there is no definitive "10 commandments". In fact, if you look at the decalog, which the scripture identifies as the "ten commandments", it is not the passage which 99.9% of Americans think of as the Ten Commandments.

 

[Paulhoff]

I guess it is just how I am reading it, but I think it is the way most people read it. The Pharisees are treating the Sabbath as an onerous religious duty, Jesus is saying, this is for your benefit.

I can't think what else it could mean.

And there lies the problem with the little black magic book, people read into it whatever they what all the damn time. Another problem is that the so-called three main characters in that book have no proof of existent.

Paul

 

[Ladewig]

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.

I have never come across anyone who believes that ID is not feasible. I am pretty certain that both sides agree that an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent being could have created the visible universe.

On the other hand, many atheists question the scientific credientials of those that claim ID should be taught in science classes. Given that what constitutes science is the very core of that discussion, investigating the scientific credentials of ID proponents is appropriate.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God

Again, I think you have missed the mark. Many people in the JREF forums question the scientific credentials of those that claim that both the Earth and man were made less then 10,000 years ago. Such questioning is relevant given that there are mountains of evidence that the Earth is billions of years old and life on Earth is several hundreds of millions of years old.

When posters claim that the Grand Canyon is a product of Noah's flood, then questioning the claimant's ability to understand what constitutes scientific evidence is de rigueur. No progress can be made until both sides agree on the evidence.

 

[Paulhoff]

I have never come across anyone who believes that ID is not feasible. I am pretty certain that both sides agree that an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent being could have created the visible universe.

Zero to none is not very feasible for ID.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

The activity the Pharisees complained of was not eating, it was picking grain. I think the operative part here is "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath".

One could use that utterance to conclude that the prohibition against on the Sabbath but if that was god's intent it was sure damn obtuse and in direct conflict with other statements by Christ.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

What does fulfil mean?
Yesterday: Don't ever work on the Sabbath.
Today: Work on the Sabbath if you need to.

Fulfil seems to be Christs way of justifying equivocation.

In addition, it begs the question, if we accept Christ's proposition then why did god instruct people not to work on the Sabbath or risk death to begin with?

Why does it appear that Christ was trying to work within the framework of an anachronistic set of religious based ethics?

 

[Ladewig]

Zero to none is not very feasible for ID.

Paul

Are you saying it is not likely or that it is not possible?

 

[Paulhoff]

Are you saying it is not likely or that it is not possible?

OK, NOT POSSIBLE for ID to be true.

Paul

 

[Toke]

I have never come across anyone who believes that ID is not feasible. I am pretty certain that both sides agree that an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent being could have created the visible universe.

The problem is not so much feasible as falsible.

 

[RandFan]

I have never come across anyone who believes that ID is not feasible. I am pretty certain that both sides agree that an omnipotent, eternal, omnipresent being could have created the visible universe.

Yeah, given the premises. Why is this even a point at all? What basis do we have to even consider such a hypothetical? It's as if we are discussing the story of Pinocchio as a possibility. Sure I could carve a boy of wood and he could be turned into a real boy of flesh and blood, IF fairies with turquoise hair are real and have powers to turn wood into human cells then the story is feasible.

We all agree that if my neighbor can fly by flapping his arms he can get to Tokyo without taking a plane. That's feasible.

If I could use a butter knife to give myself functional gills I could set diving records. Feasible.

If the moon were made of green cheese it could be a good source of nutrition for space travelers. That's feasible.

ETA: Abstract reasoning is a wonderful thing but we shouldn't use it to create fictional characters to worship.

I want to see the fairy with blue hair and an example of her power. Until I do I'm not going to entertain, seriously, that Pinocchio is anything other than fiction.

 

[MIKILLINI]

To Radrook, Edge...How would we know if you are interpreting the bible correctly?

 

[Ladewig]

OK, NOT POSSIBLE for ID to be true.

Paul

How did you reach that conclusion?

 

[Piggy]

To Radrook, Edge...How would we know if you are interpreting the bible correctly?

If you apply any amount of scholarship to it, it's actually fairly easy to establish that they're interpreting it incorrectly.

Like Ted Lewis used to say, "A text cannot mean what it never meant". Yet these 2 consistently ignore all evidence regarding what the texts meant in their day and instead strain it through the filters of contemporary theology, which the original authors, redactors, and audience would not have recognized.

 

[Paulhoff]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Simple, nothing has shown a need for a so-called god. But many people seem to need for one, but on a whole, the more people learn the less that need becomes. After all, the entire universe has gotten along just fine without a so-called god for about 13.7 billion years.

Paul

 

[RandFan]

How did you reach that conclusion?

I guess I'm on your ignore.

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

It is perverse to withhold provisional consent that ID is false.

That's not arguable.

But you keep combing the beaches in search of a bottle with a magic genie. Hey, it's possible.

 

[MIKILLINI]

If you apply any amount of scholarship to it, it's actually fairly easy to establish that they're interpreting it incorrectly.

Like Ted Lewis used to say, "A text cannot mean what it never meant". Yet these 2 consistently ignore all evidence regarding what the texts meant in their day and instead strain it through the filters of contemporary theology, which the original authors, redactors, and audience would not have recognized.

Absolutely. My question for Rad and Edge challenges them to determine how their interpretation can be correct.
Since they choose to ignore Randfan's legitimate question, the avoidance of a response reveals their position on the matter.

 

[Ladewig]

I guess I'm on your ignore.

I was called into the office and just got back. I have never placed any poster on ignore.

Yeah, given the premises. Why is this even a point at all? What basis do we have to even consider such a hypothetical? It's as if we are discussing the story of Pinocchio as a possibility. Sure I could carve a boy of wood and he could be turned into a real boy of flesh and blood, IF fairies with turquoise hair are real and have powers to turn wood into human cells then the story is feasible.

It is being discussed because almost one half of the U.S. population believes that ID is the best explanation for our existence. It is being discussed because Radrook used that word.

I personally do not believe in ID or God. I'll agree that ID multiplies entities needlessly. I'll agree that ID provides no useful information about how the world works. I'll agree that ID is for all practical purposes no more valuable than the story of Pinocchio. I'll agree that observations of the human body indicate that there was no ID in our form. I'll agree that ID is non-falsifiable. However I will still maintain that it is feasible. Overwhelmingly unlikely, but feasible nonetheless.