- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you support government or Christian’s in the United States?
Posted on 4/23/24 at 9:42 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 4/23/24 at 9:42 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
So you copied it from a website who purposely took the book out of context
No. I don’t think azquotes intentionally took the quote out of context. I don’t even think the quote is out of context. It aligns perfectly with every other quote I posted. Those are his words. ‘An atheist (like Dawkins) before Darwin could have said…’ He then goes on to say how that position was ‘logically sound’ but Darwin’s theory made it ‘intellectually fulfilling.’ I don’t see the problem.
quote:
You posted deliberately misleading material.
I honestly don’t see it that way. I’m sorry you do. You seem to forget (or maybe you don’t understand or believe) that I operate with the belief that I will be held accountable, by God, for every single word, thought, and action/inaction. While I am not incapable of folly, I do make a concerted effort to be honest and forthright in my defense of Christianity, and my criticism of opposing worldviews. I assure you, I do not operate under the guise of intentionally concealed deception.
quote:
I know you can do better without posting unambiguously and verifiably false information
Again, I don’t think it was dishonest. The context of the full quote gives me the impression that Dawkins is saying that’s what he would have said- before Darwin- just without complete certainty. But, since Darwin, he is ‘intellectually fulfilled’ in holding that position.
Did you seriously not read the rest of the post? Shame on you!
How are we going to engage in meaningful debate, if you’re not willing to grapple with the entirety of my viewpoint? FWIW, I am ashamed of the way I have responded since I started with DB. I’m going to apologize to him. But, I wanted you to know that I know I was wrong to lower myself to the level of trolling. There’s no excuse for that. I repent. 
2
Posted on 4/23/24 at 10:37 am to Prodigal Son
We will have to agree to disagree. I think your post was misleading and I’d already corrected you on it. Dawkins in that quote wasn’t stating his own opinion but the hypothetical opinion of an hypothetical person in the past. Moving on…
I had gone back and read the Ben Stein thing. In it, Ben is also purposely misleading, or his brain is scrambled. He’s saying Dawkins is not opposed to intelligent design, as if cats and dogs weren’t evolved from a common ancestor. He’s baiting Dawkins and then when Dawkins talks about a hypothetical ID panspermia thing, he latches onto it to say Dawkins is a hypocrite because he acknowledges ID. It’s false. Dawkins still asserts all life on earth that we know of has a common ancestor, and he explicitly states no one knows where that common ancestor came from or how it came about. The panspermia thing is at best a hypothesis.
I don’t understand why the theist can’t separate biological evolution from the origin of life. It’s two totally separate things. Biological evolution is an observable and testable fact of nature. Could life have started due to random chance in a chemical goo? Could life have been seeded by aliens? Could it have been a “god” from another dimension? A sufficiently advanced alien species would be perceived as gods anyway. Even if life started by a “god”, it still couldn’t have been from any of the many deities described in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures, and the life still evolved through natural selection that definitely wasn’t guided in any way by any higher power.
I had gone back and read the Ben Stein thing. In it, Ben is also purposely misleading, or his brain is scrambled. He’s saying Dawkins is not opposed to intelligent design, as if cats and dogs weren’t evolved from a common ancestor. He’s baiting Dawkins and then when Dawkins talks about a hypothetical ID panspermia thing, he latches onto it to say Dawkins is a hypocrite because he acknowledges ID. It’s false. Dawkins still asserts all life on earth that we know of has a common ancestor, and he explicitly states no one knows where that common ancestor came from or how it came about. The panspermia thing is at best a hypothesis.
I don’t understand why the theist can’t separate biological evolution from the origin of life. It’s two totally separate things. Biological evolution is an observable and testable fact of nature. Could life have started due to random chance in a chemical goo? Could life have been seeded by aliens? Could it have been a “god” from another dimension? A sufficiently advanced alien species would be perceived as gods anyway. Even if life started by a “god”, it still couldn’t have been from any of the many deities described in the Hebrew or Christian scriptures, and the life still evolved through natural selection that definitely wasn’t guided in any way by any higher power.
Posted on 4/23/24 at 12:21 pm to Prodigal Son
PS,
You might find this interesting. Switching gears a little because if I made a new thread it would be deleted or anchored.
Have you ever thought Genesis 19:24 sounded funny? Why does it say the LORD twice. Seems very awkward and redundant.
I believe one of those “LORDs”, probably the second one, was originally “Elohim”.
Then look at Amos 4:11. The LORD is speaking, uses “I” in the first person and then references “God” in the third person. God here in Hebrew is Elohim. YHWH compares what he personally did to what Elohim did.
Compare to Deut 32:8-9. I know I’ve made the argument before but this is relevant. See how it reads that the LORD (YHWH) is one of the sons of God (Elohim) who is giving the LORD his inheritance. You can’t inherit something from oneself.
Then you have 1 Cor 8:6. God - Theos - is Elhohim in the OT. Lord - Kyrios - is YHWH in the OT.
Paul wasn’t the only one who thought this way. Clement of Rome held the same views, and wanted to reiterate that the LORD Kyrios and God Theos were separate beings and both were important.
1 Clem 29:2
Why was this so important? It wasn’t heretical at all. There was one God and one Lord. The Bible literally never ever states that YHWH is the only deity. YHWH is constantly compared to the other deities and judges them - it just says no other deity is as badass and special as YHWH. It’s propaganda- why else would YHWH be jealous of them if they weren’t his peers? Nevertheless, people who read the passages and ignore the references to the other gods and cherry pick verses like this:
Isaiah 47:10
Have to come to grips with language such as this. Now, Nineveh wasn’t the only city in existence. This is simply a boast of propaganda. A “boast of incomparability” as the late Dr. Michael Heiser puts it.
If Isaiah literally means that YHWH is the only deity, then you’d have to acknowledge Nineveh was the only city in existence. The same literally Hebrew is used in both passages word for literal Hebrew word in the same order.
Ever heard of Philo of Alexandria? Lots have been written about him but he also expressed the “two powers of heaven” argument, and was a Jew, not a Christian. He lived right before the alleged time of Jesus. Paul and Philo’s lives overlapped.
Christianity didn’t come from rabbinic Judaism. It came from a Judaism that believed in multiple deities, one being an invisible spirit and one being a being that had human form but was divine. Philo believed God formed man in the image of YHWH. John doesn’t contradict the OT when he says no one has ever seen God - because he’s talking about Elohim or Theos. The deity wrestling with Jacob was YHWH. Philo believed all things were made by Elohim and all things were made through his agent YHWH. That’s precisely was Paul believed about Theos and Kyrios. And that’s why Jesus is never ever once stated to be the son of Kyrios… because he IS Kyrios. He’s the son of Theos.
ETA: then if you argue that Theos and Kyrios, aka Elohim and YHWH, aka the Father and Son are “one in essence”, then you have the makings of the Trinity. There’s no need to force the Trinity though because the Bible never says there is one deity. Quite the contrary for anyone who actually read the Bible. YHWH doesn’t even prohibit the worship of other gods in the first commandment - he just says not to put those other gods “before him” or on a higher level of importance.
You might find this interesting. Switching gears a little because if I made a new thread it would be deleted or anchored.
Have you ever thought Genesis 19:24 sounded funny? Why does it say the LORD twice. Seems very awkward and redundant.
quote:
Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven
I believe one of those “LORDs”, probably the second one, was originally “Elohim”.
Then look at Amos 4:11. The LORD is speaking, uses “I” in the first person and then references “God” in the third person. God here in Hebrew is Elohim. YHWH compares what he personally did to what Elohim did.
quote:
“I overthrew you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, And you were like a firebrand snatched from a blaze; Yet you have not returned to Me,” declares the LORD.
Compare to Deut 32:8-9. I know I’ve made the argument before but this is relevant. See how it reads that the LORD (YHWH) is one of the sons of God (Elohim) who is giving the LORD his inheritance. You can’t inherit something from oneself.
quote:
8When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. 9But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.
Then you have 1 Cor 8:6. God - Theos - is Elhohim in the OT. Lord - Kyrios - is YHWH in the OT.
quote:
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Paul wasn’t the only one who thought this way. Clement of Rome held the same views, and wanted to reiterate that the LORD Kyrios and God Theos were separate beings and both were important.
1 Clem 29:2
quote:
For thus it is written: When the Most High divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. His people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, and Israel the measurement of His inheritance.
Why was this so important? It wasn’t heretical at all. There was one God and one Lord. The Bible literally never ever states that YHWH is the only deity. YHWH is constantly compared to the other deities and judges them - it just says no other deity is as badass and special as YHWH. It’s propaganda- why else would YHWH be jealous of them if they weren’t his peers? Nevertheless, people who read the passages and ignore the references to the other gods and cherry pick verses like this:
Isaiah 47:10
quote:
You felt secure in your wickedness; you said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray, and you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me.”
Have to come to grips with language such as this. Now, Nineveh wasn’t the only city in existence. This is simply a boast of propaganda. A “boast of incomparability” as the late Dr. Michael Heiser puts it.
quote:
This is the exultant city that lived securely, that said in her heart, “I am, and there is no one else.” What a desolation she has become, a lair for wild beasts! Everyone who passes by her hisses and shakes his fist.
If Isaiah literally means that YHWH is the only deity, then you’d have to acknowledge Nineveh was the only city in existence. The same literally Hebrew is used in both passages word for literal Hebrew word in the same order.
Ever heard of Philo of Alexandria? Lots have been written about him but he also expressed the “two powers of heaven” argument, and was a Jew, not a Christian. He lived right before the alleged time of Jesus. Paul and Philo’s lives overlapped.
Christianity didn’t come from rabbinic Judaism. It came from a Judaism that believed in multiple deities, one being an invisible spirit and one being a being that had human form but was divine. Philo believed God formed man in the image of YHWH. John doesn’t contradict the OT when he says no one has ever seen God - because he’s talking about Elohim or Theos. The deity wrestling with Jacob was YHWH. Philo believed all things were made by Elohim and all things were made through his agent YHWH. That’s precisely was Paul believed about Theos and Kyrios. And that’s why Jesus is never ever once stated to be the son of Kyrios… because he IS Kyrios. He’s the son of Theos.
ETA: then if you argue that Theos and Kyrios, aka Elohim and YHWH, aka the Father and Son are “one in essence”, then you have the makings of the Trinity. There’s no need to force the Trinity though because the Bible never says there is one deity. Quite the contrary for anyone who actually read the Bible. YHWH doesn’t even prohibit the worship of other gods in the first commandment - he just says not to put those other gods “before him” or on a higher level of importance.
This post was edited on 4/23/24 at 1:13 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News