Creation >> DNA Code

[August]

Originally Posted by heartc

Please define God (attributes?)....

God cannot be defined. The thousands of religions that man has created throughout history are but flawed attempts at defining a force that we as a race barely comprehend, let alone understand.

and then tell me where you got your information from that there is such a thing / being (and don't say "faith", because you do not have faith that God exists, you have faith in God, so God existing must be a prerequisite. You cannot have faith that something exists when you never heard of it = you never got information about it).

So if I understand you right you're saying that if I have never heard of God then I wouldn't believe that he truly exists? Is that correct?

If so that's difficult to prove one way or the other but one thing is for sure, regardless of whether I may share some of their various tenets, my faith in the existence of a supreme being is not defined by the proponents, or opponents, of any religion.

I feel what I feel because I feel it and I do believe that i'd still feel it even if organized religion didn't exist. Maybe it would be more difficult to quantify but the feeling that all of this just didn't spontaneously happen by accident, that there is an architect behind it all, would still be there,.. or so I feel.

Now no offense intended but you seem to me to have the same problem that religious radicals have. You are both so wrapped up in the details that it causes you to miss the big picture.

Religious books should not be taken as historical encyclopedias, they should be looked upon as a collection of stories designed to illustrate various morals. Like the fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is supposed to teach (amongst other things) the moral that one ought not to ask for help unnecessarily lest it not be available when it's really needed. There was no actual boy, sheep or wolf. Arguing that there was, or in your case that the story has holes in it misses the entire reason for the fable.

You need to look past all the spin and the begats and the errors in translation introduced by thousands of rewrites over several millennium and see the underlying message of the Bible, the actual divinely inspired parts, like how we should treat others as we would have them treat us, and how we should not to bear false witness against our neighbors. Those are pretty good morals to teach, don't you think?

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

You need to look past all the spin and the begats and the errors in translation introduced by thousands of rewrites over several millennium and see the underlying message of the Bible, the actual divinely inspired parts...

But how do we go about determining which parts are the errors, and which parts are the real divinely inspired parts? It seems to me that the people that take this view tend to either:
A. find the parts that back up the views they already hold are the real parts, or
B. find the parts that make them feel good are the real ones.
I find neither to be particularly more reliable than just randomly drawing verses out of a hat.

Originally Posted by August

Those are pretty good morals to teach, don't you think?

The book (and other books) do have some good moral lessons. But to find them, you also have to pick through a ton of bad moral lessons on slavery, genocide, conquest, etc.

Besides, you are already able to tell that there are good moral lessons in the book. Why do you need the book to tell you what the good moral lessons are, if you already know they are morally good?

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

Why do you need the book to tell you what the good moral lessons are, if you already know they are morally good?

I didn't say I needed a book to tell me that. That doesn't mean nobody else does either, nor does it mean that I don't find it handy to explain certain things. But just like not everyone needs a travel guide and others are lost without it, I don't think any less of people for wanting to use one nor am I adverse to taking advantage of things I may read in them.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

I didn't say I needed a book to tell me that.

Sorry, that was a general you, not directed at you specifically.

Originally Posted by August

That doesn't mean nobody else does either, nor does it mean that I don't find it handy to explain certain things. But just like not everyone needs a travel guide and others are lost without it, I don't think any less of people for wanting to use one nor am I adverse to taking advantage of things I may read in them.

My question is why use a travel guide that tells you all the wonderful parts of a city to see, but also insists that you need to crawl through the sewers and garbage dumps? Get a better travel guide, one that doesn't hide the gems of goodness behind piles of crap.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

Sorry, that was a general you, not directed at you specifically.


My question is why use a travel guide that tells you all the wonderful parts of a city to see, but also insists that you need to crawl through the sewers and garbage dumps? Get a better travel guide, one that doesn't hide the gems of goodness behind piles of crap.

Well no travel guide is perfect, they are all written by flawed and fallible humans but what would be considered "piles of crap" is really a matter of personal opinion.

[razark]

Originally Posted by August

...but what would be considered "piles of crap" is really a matter of personal opinion.

Well:

Originally Posted by razark

...slavery, genocide, conquest, etc.

I'd call those "piles of crap", morally. And I will go so far to say that anyone that doesn't think those are morally wrong is also a "pile of crap".

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Oh, that poor defenseless man who called their show to tell them that they are going to hell for not thinking the way he does!

Yeah, the AE team is quite clear that anyone is welcome to call their show. They spent an entire episode talking to Ray Comfort once.

[August]

Originally Posted by razark

Well:

I'd call those "piles of crap", morally. And I will go so far to say that anyone that doesn't think those are morally wrong is also a "pile of crap".

Really? Well I would go so far to say that anyone who so callously dismisses an entire collection of books that have been held dear by billions of people for thousands of years as a "pile of crap" is staggeringly arrogant. By what authority do you make these claims? Why should anyone believe you?