My Forbidden Fruit Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Where would I go to find those people,

The Voice of the Martyrs

 

[Moral Orel]

Thanks for the QED, fellas.

And here I thought you might actually want honest discussion sometimes. I'll adjust my posts to you in the future accordingly.

 

[Paul Finch]

And here I thought you might actually want honest discussion sometimes. I'll adjust my posts to you in the future accordingly.

If you stay away from truth you will have more of an impact on the religious, perception and impression are their watchwords, with religion as with war truth is the first casualty, truth has been stifled and fear pushed to the front with reason being a definite no no, reason will give them hot flushes and spots.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is a very important bit of information about the nature of sin in that story. One is guilty of sin when one knows that something is bad and, yet, chooses it. If the thing is bad but one doesn't know it, one doesn't count it as sin to choose it. Just an unfortunate occurrence.

I get that and have no problems with such ideas. Kind of a "moral of the story" kind of thing. Greek mythology etc, aren't any different in that respect.

However, I do find some problems in the Genesis story when it comes to this point...
It's the "tree of knowledge". Before eating from this tree, they alledgedly didn't know right from wrong. Only after eating from it, did they gain that knowledge.

Yet, the act of eating is "the original sin".
But in the quote above, you literally state that if the act being done is bad without the person realising it, then it is not sin.

Seems like a contradiction.

The human condition is such that we learn about bad consequences having established strong habits and preferences we don't wish to give up. So we don't. But once we learn of the harm we are causing, to continue the harm is . . . sin.

Knowledge, then, occasions the spiritual fall of mankind.

Going by what you say, it seems the exact opposite is true?
Knowledge is what makes you realise that the thing you are doing, which you considered harmless, is actually harmfull.

How is that a "spiritual fall"? I'ld call it the exact opposite: a "spiritual lift".

The sin part also extends to refusal to learn when the learning could have taken place.

But.... god in genesis actually didn't want adam and eve to learn - as they were "forbidden" to eat from the tree of knowledge. In other words, he wanted them to remain ignorant on these matters.

How does that fit into all you are saying here?

Denial in the face of plain facts in order to keep one's comfortable practices . . . still a sin.

I'll agree with you there.

/stares at creationists, global warming 'sceptics' and other science deniers in general

Examples abound. Denial of global warming as caused by humans is a nice example.

Yep.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your questions were sincere then?

They did not seem so. If they were, then I apologize that I don't have an answer for you. But that is not how one approaches things.

If you want proof, the best way might be to go somewhere where Christians are being martyred, and see how they live, and die. Such actual grace as they receive and display cannot be the result of "fairy stories".

That just proves that christians exist and that they really really believe in their religion.

It doesn't prove, or even remotely supports, one iota of the actual contents of the religion.


Otherwise, you might just as well say that jihadi suicide bombers are evidence of Islam being correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've always wondered why self-proclaimed atheists would seemingly waste their time arguing against things they don't believe in.

No 'self-proclaimed' atheist would do so, if it weren't for the effect the religious majority have on their lives.

I mean, I don't think many non-trekkies visit their forums to argue against them.
For the simple reason that trekkies have no influence on public matters.

I certainly don't visit Bigfoot sites to argue against believing in them.

You would, if the majority would be actively trying to shove bigfoot beliefs down your throat and actively try to invade school science classes to replace solid science courses with bigfoot nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? so you can deny it out of hand?

Here you go:

The Bible, martyrs, churches, holidays, time divided into BC/AD, churches and other edifices, hymns, carols and other songs, bumper stickers, slogans, organizations, debates, testimonies and anecdotes, symbols (is there one on your flag?) and other iconography.

First, those aren't arguments... that's just a list of things.
Secondly, this list shows only one thing: christianity exists.

It doesn't tell us anything concerning if christianity is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

First, those aren't arguments... that's just a list of things.
Secondly, this list shows only one thing: christianity exists.

It doesn't tell us anything concerning if christianity is true.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[Paul Finch]

First, those aren't arguments... that's just a list of things.
Secondly, this list shows only one thing: christianity exists.
It doesn't tell us anything concerning if christianity is true.

Thanks for the QED.

Truth goes so high over your head it's dismissed as being irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

Truth goes way over your head so high in fact it's dismissed as being irrelevant.

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Nebraska man was our ancestor?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Pluto was our 9th planet?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that it was safe to party aboard the Deepwater Horizon?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that we were going to run out of food by 2050?

Do scientists think it is true that Genesis 1 is a myth?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews were never in Egypt?

Do scientists think it is true that Jesus was an ape?

Do scientists think it is true that there is no such thing as original sin?

Do scientists think it is true that the Bible teaches geocentrism?

Do scientists think it is true that the early Jews were ignorant bronze age goat herding desert nomads?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews invaded an area they called "the Promised Land" and committed genocide?

Do scientists think it is true that a person martyred for writing one of the books of the Bible is just as honorable as a Muslim who hijacks an airliner and flies it into a skyscraper?

Do scientists think it is true that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never existed?

Do scientists think it is true that the Gospels are fiction because they were written after the fact?

Do scientists think it is true that verbal plenary inspiration is a made-up doctrine by those who are desperate to believe in the authenticity of the Bible?

Do scientists think it is true that it took 186,000 years for the first light of SN1987A to reach us?

Do scientists think it is true that U283 decays one atom at a time, as opposed to all at once, like an ice cube?

Do scientists think it is true that O HOLY NIGHT carries just as much evidentiary weight as O NANHE SE FARISHTE?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bhagavad-Gita has as much authority as the Bible?

Do scientists believe it is true that a "child in the womb" is a misnomer?

Do scientists believe it is true that prayer is ineffectual?

Do scientists believe it is true that a search for intelligent life in the universe with radiotelescopes is a viable endeavor; while the belief in angels is a sign of mental problems?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches a flat Earth?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches the Earth is locked in space (immoveable)?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Jews used bronze, instead of brass?

Do scientists believe it is true that the NIV is more accurate than the KJV?

Do scientists believe that it is true that correcting their mistakes is taking something that is right and making it more right; while Christians run on the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY?

Do scientists believe it is true that a Christian who questions their work has no right to use a computer?

Do scientists believe it is true that a person who doesn't believe in evolution is a hypocrite if he goes to the doctor?

Do scientists believe it is true that ...

 

[Larniavc]

I just read this in another thread:
How many of you theistic evolutionists agree with this?

Does it say it was an apple?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does it say it was an apple?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Nebraska man was our ancestor?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Pluto was our 9th planet?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that it was safe to party aboard the Deepwater Horizon?

Did scientists at one time think it was true that we were going to run out of food by 2050?

Do scientists think it is true that Genesis 1 is a myth?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews were never in Egypt?

Do scientists think it is true that Jesus was an ape?

Do scientists think it is true that there is no such thing as original sin?

Do scientists think it is true that the Bible teaches geocentrism?

Do scientists think it is true that the early Jews were ignorant bronze age goat herding desert nomads?

Do scientists think it is true that the Jews invaded an area they called "the Promised Land" and committed genocide?

Do scientists think it is true that a person martyred for writing one of the books of the Bible is just as honorable as a Muslim who hijacks an airliner and flies it into a skyscraper?

Do scientists think it is true that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never existed?

Do scientists think it is true that the Gospels are fiction because they were written after the fact?

Do scientists think it is true that verbal plenary inspiration is a made-up doctrine by those who are desperate to believe in the authenticity of the Bible?

Do scientists think it is true that it took 186,000 years for the first light of SN1987A to reach us?

Do scientists think it is true that U283 decays one atom at a time, as opposed to all at once, like an ice cube?

Do scientists think it is true that O HOLY NIGHT carries just as much evidentiary weight as O NANHE SE FARISHTE?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bhagavad-Gita has as much authority as the Bible?

Do scientists believe it is true that a "child in the womb" is a misnomer?

Do scientists believe it is true that prayer is ineffectual?

Do scientists believe it is true that a search for intelligent life in the universe with radiotelescopes is a viable endeavor; while the belief in angels is a sign of mental problems?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches a flat Earth?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Bible teaches the Earth is locked in space (immoveable)?

Do scientists believe it is true that the Jews used bronze, instead of brass?

Do scientists believe it is true that the NIV is more accurate than the KJV?

Do scientists believe that it is true that correcting their mistakes is taking something that is right and making it more right; while Christians run on the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY?

Do scientists believe it is true that a Christian who questions their work has no right to use a computer?

Do scientists believe it is true that a person who doesn't believe in evolution is a hypocrite if he goes to the doctor?

Do scientists believe it is true that ...

Here's the difference between science and religion....

When scientists realise they were wrong about something, they rejoice since that means they just learned something. And the scientist who points out the mistake is actually celebrated. Also, the more that finding such a mistake turns a field on its head, the more fame and glory that that scientist shall receive.

While with religions... when facts surface that contradict the beliefs, it is not celebrated. Instead, the psychological defense mechanisms kick in and religious dogma is upheld at whatever cost.

So if you are going to compile a list about all the times that scientists came up with the wrong answer, then what you are posting isn't so an argument against science. It is in fact a celebration of science. Because the only reason you know about these mistakes, is because other scientists have exposed them as such.

So knowing about all the things scientists got wrong in the past, is no more or less then a testament to how succesful science in general is at making progress and learning.

 

[AV1611VET]

So knowing about all the things scientists got wrong in the past, is no more or less then a testament to how succesful science in general is at making progress and learning.

That's a QED of this item on the list:

Do scientists believe that it is true that correcting their mistakes is taking something that is right and making it more right; while Christians run on the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY?

(Minus the part about the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's a QED of this item on the listMinus the part about the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY.)

No. Correcting a mistake is ...correcting a mistake. If a thing is correct, it need not be corrected.
That's more something that is correct, but incomplete and then completing it further.

And btw... whenever you say "QED", I actually don't know what you mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

And btw... whenever you say "QED", I actually don't know what you mean.

I use it to mean "demonstrate."

For example, let's say I post something like:

"Every time I say the book of Job mentions electronic communications, someone tells me I'm daffy."

Then later, someone posts and says:

"You're daffy! Where in the book of Job does it mention electronic communications?"

At this point, I'm liable to respond:

"Thanks for the QED."

Meaning, "Thank you for demonstrating my point for me."

Or meaning, "I told you so!"

ETA: And for the record:

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't think I ever got around to posting this yesterday. Busy with family, and thankful for that. Please forgive me that I am limited on this device to save text, so I'm going to put my responses together. I really get the sense that no one is interested in what I might have to say, and I myself am not at all interested in debate, so from either of our perspectives ...

However, for the sake of respecting your persons, I will reply.

*******************************

What's the difference? They believed in something so strongly that they not only died for it, they killed their own children for it. Seems like a show of greater faith than simply dying yourself. Martyrdom is evidence that strongly held beliefs can push you to do drastic things. It isn't evidence that you have good evidence to have such strongly held beliefs. Jonestown isn't even the only suicide cult.

Well that would matter if all of us had completely made up our minds. I'd like to hear a good argument for God's existence, but I see lots of bad ones. If we can't get past the bad ones, what chance is there we'll ever get to the good ones? Some atheists may say there is no good argument for God's existence, but not all of us.

And if someone didn't look into Bigfoot at all before deciding they didn't believe he existed, then they're as foolish as the people who think he's real after never actually finding any evidence. That isn't me using Bigfoot as an analogy for Christians, by the way. Bigfoot and God are supported by two completely different types of evidence.

My apologies, if you are sincerely asking, I hope to have more time later.

The differences between the kinds of martyrs are several things. The ones I am pointing to, are not living in fear of being martyred, but nor do they seek it out. They are not looking to escape from the world. They are not looking to enforce their beliefs on anyone else. Their main concerns are the continuation of the truth within the community of those who believe. And they are usually seeking forgiveness for the ones who are in the process of abusing them.

The whole scenario of the kinds of Jim-Jones-esque cults are of a completely different nature.

******************************


(ETA after reading later posts - Jihadist bombers are likewise a completely different sort of person, which I see was brought up later. If you were familiar with the writings of the first few centuries of Christians, much of which is not in the Bible, but is alluded to there - though missed by many Christians today, including most in the US ... )


*****************************

That just proves that christians exist and that they really really believe in their religion.

It doesn't prove, or even remotely supports, one iota of the actual contents of the religion.


Otherwise, you might just as well say that jihadi suicide bombers are evidence of Islam being correct.

From the outside looking in, I can see why you would say so.

And perhaps with the confusion of denominations and the varying beliefs within Christianity, it becomes even more difficult to make my point. In a sense, I had difficulties as a Christian as well, reconciling many things.

However, I will only say that I have had sufficient experiences in my life to know that there is a kernel of truth within what I believed. But the Christian landscape in which I found myself frustrated me as well. I saw evidence of true expressions of faith in terms of changed lives, but I also saw hypocrisy and close-mindedness and less savory attitudes towards fellow persons in some places. And I was increasingly unwilling to be subjected to attempts to work up emotional responses in the name of "worship".

My first background is in science, by the way. I don't deny science - not at all. But I also have an understanding that is is a process by which we investigate and acquire knowledge (which sometimes turns out to be incomplete, imperfect, or even erroneous) and not a monolithic body of absolute knowledge, nor an entity in its own right as if it were a "player" against "religion".

Incidentally, not every Christian regards the events of Genesis as literal, but I'm also not interested in getting into that debate with either side.

But my own experience with faith was something that I could not deny, and I'm thankful that I don't have the doubts that some actually struggle with.

My struggle was in dealing with what I recognized as not authentic, many times, in many churches, and dealing with the inconsistencies in their beliefs.

Christianity was never meant to be so.

Eventually I found my way to the earliest expression of the faith, and the body of writings from them. From those who have lived their lives according to that understanding. And I found a Christianity that made sense and integrated many truths that have, sadly, been lost to many of the warring denominations today. I don't fault them, because they for the most part are trying very hard to carry on in what partial understanding they have been given, and have no wrong intent.

But through most of history, Christianity was very different than it is today. And through many counties of the world. Church history explained much of this to me. The split that created the Catholic Church is responsible for much of it, because later splits (and continued splits) were reactions against what happened as a result of that.

I imagine this sounds triumphalist to non-Christian ears, as it often does to denominationally separated Christian ones. But it is not. Believe me, I can take no credit for what happened through the millennia. I'm just thankful that I encountered people who encouraged me to read widely enough to learn what is there.

I may change my signature soon, but there is much truth there. If anyone is actually interested in anything I've said.

*******************************

And well enough, I usually get the same answer about being legislated against by Christians. I have mixed feelings on that, as I don't believe in legislating certain things. The things I DO believe in legislating involve the fact that God created ALL persons with a certain dignity, in His own image, and that should be respected. But I am jealous also for the freedom created within this society (the US) meant to protect religion. But again, the confusion out there creates a very complex set of situations that is beyond the scope of this thread.

******************************

Again, I'm truly not interested in debate. I'm willing to answer any sincere questions, and would invest a great deal of time to do so. But I'm not out to attempt to argue anyone to faith. And my own faith is built on quite a firm foundation and is a waste of someone else's time to attack. I may very well not represent the kind of religious oppresssion you seek to oppose anyway.

Peace to you all.

 

[Moral Orel]

My apologies, if you are sincerely asking, I hope to have more time later.

The differences between the kinds of martyrs are several things. The ones I am pointing to, are not living in fear of being martyred, but nor do they seek it out. They are not looking to escape from the world. They are not looking to enforce their beliefs on anyone else. Their main concerns are the continuation of the truth within the community of those who believe. And they are usually seeking forgiveness for the ones who are in the process of abusing them.

The whole scenario of the kinds of Jim-Jones-esque cults are of a completely different nature.

******************************


(ETA after reading later posts - Jihadist bombers are likewise a completely different sort of person, which I see was brought up later. If you were familiar with the writings of the first few centuries of Christians, much of which is not in the Bible, but is alluded to there - though missed by many Christians today, including most in the US ... )

There are lots of differences, and I agree with the ones you've listed. But the core of what gives people the power to accept martyrdom, as opposed to it being inflicted on unwilling participants, is belief.

Christians believed it was okay to be martyred because they aren't tethered to this world, the Jim Jones cult believed they should be fearful of remaining alive, the Heaven's Gate cult believed they would be happier in the afterlife (which is still kind of part of the Christian belief system), and jihadists believe they should be angry and violent, and again, that they will receive a blessed afterlife.

Whether those beliefs are positive or negative, I don't see as being relevant. The point is that the beliefs are unfounded and unsupported by evidence.

There was no evidence that the government was coming to torture the Jim Jones cult other than Jim Jones' claims. There was no evidence aliens were going to pick up the Heaven's Gate cult if they killed themselves other than their leader's claims. There is no evidence that jihadists will receive a pleasant afterlife for doing their evil deeds other than their leaders' claims (I'm not even sure that "64 virgins" thing is in the Quran).

It is their beliefs, right or wrong, good or bad, that give them the motivation and personal fortitude to martyr themselves or to allow themselves to be martyred. Whether a religion is built on fear or love doesn't matter when it comes to motivating people to do something drastic.

 

[keith99]

Well if Genesis 1 is an allegory, I'd like to know what this tree represents if not science.

What apple? I ask because the Genesis account does not have an apple! The apple comes in through popular retelling of the story. Genesis specifies the tree as being 'The knowledge of good and evil'. That is about as far away from science as one can get. Science says nothing about what is good or evil, it speaks only of what is and how it works.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are lots of differences, and I agree with the ones you've listed. But the core of what gives people the power to accept martyrdom, as opposed to it being inflicted on unwilling participants, is belief.

Christians believed it was okay to be martyred because they aren't tethered to this world, the Jim Jones cult believed they should be fearful of remaining alive, the Heaven's Gate cult believed they would be happier in the afterlife (which is still kind of part of the Christian belief system), and jihadists believe they should be angry and violent, and again, that they will receive a blessed afterlife.

Whether those beliefs are positive or negative, I don't see as being relevant. The point is that the beliefs are unfounded and unsupported by evidence.

There was no evidence that the government was coming to torture the Jim Jones cult other than Jim Jones' claims. There was no evidence aliens were going to pick up the Heaven's Gate cult if they killed themselves other than their leader's claims. There is no evidence that jihadists will receive a pleasant afterlife for doing their evil deeds other than their leaders' claims (I'm not even sure that "64 virgins" thing is in the Quran).

It is their beliefs, right or wrong, good or bad, that give them the motivation and personal fortitude to martyr themselves or to allow themselves to be martyred. Whether a religion is built on fear or love doesn't matter when it comes to motivating people to do something drastic.

I can't really speak for anyone else.

I think the Apostles were the best example. If one was simply asked to accept a belief, it should prove easy to abandon under threat. After all, when Christ was arrested, they scattered for the most part. Peter denied him in fear of being associated with Christ.

But later, they were all (except John) martyred, and their writings and witness leading up to their deaths testified to something deeper than simple belief.

As I said, for me, there is too much personal experience. It's difficult for me to doubt. I can doubt my reasoning on the subject, or what I've been told, and so the details in this way. But there is a core of SOMETHING that can't be denied, and when history is examined, the conclusions I have accepted are the most reasonable explanation. The evidence in the lives of those who have put their beliefs to work is far more convincing than my own, as well.

But if you stand afar off and wait and ask for someone to "prove" things to you, then I'm not really sure how to respond. What proof is ever enough? If someone were to perform something miraculous in front of a skeptical observer, that person could claim sleight of hand, technology, hallucination, or who knows what.

Maybe there are deeper questions. Perhaps what bars one from considering the possibility is relevant. (And I'm not saying you personally, I don't know you.)

But no one was ever really convinced by proof. Having witnessed miracles wasn't enough to keep the Apostles from abandoning or denying Christ in the face of His arrest and trial. It wasn't enough to convince to religious Jewish leaders who opposed Him.

Yet I know others like myself who do know, through life experiences, despite living many centuries after these events took place.

Those who like a reasoned approach and arguments sometimes enjoy books like those by Lee Stroebel, though it's been so long since I read him that I can't recall whether all of his theological conclusions are sound, but as I recall the historical questions were good ones.