"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[ddunbar]

Part 3: Reply to Arch's 2nd post

Oh man, what a bunch of sophistry. You are just making stuff up as you go, do you realize that? I mean really, you are just riffing a

mile a minute.

The bible can certainly be tested and falsified to a meaningful degree, in that many of the bible's earth-bound claims can be falsified. Take

fruit of the spirit claims, for example. Nine of them were listed out in Galatians. If the bible claims that the spirit is present in

believers, and not in unbelievers, then it is possible to conduct empirical experiments comparing the fruit levels--of love, joy, peace,

patience, etc.--for the churched vs the unchurched. There would have to be a lot of definitions agreed to, and a lot of statistical vetting

etc., but such an experiment could be carried out. (I submit that if this experiment were indeed carried out under rigorous documentation

agreed to by both sides, there would be no detectable evidence that the holy spirit exists at all. The fruit levels of the churched would be

no more significant than the unchurched, or worse. But that's another kettle of fish.)

...

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Interesting that you left out faith. You're experiment is utterly worthless because we need to be able to measure faith; true faith.

Humanwise, we can't. As only God knows truly who is and who isn't. All of those fruits are of the spirit and are its evidence in its

entirety. Not just one or two. I mean really now. We know the great percentage of humanity has love. Or joy from time to time, etc. etc.

There are other testable claims. If Christianity made no claims of influence on the real world whatsoever, it would be a wholly inert

faith. But when and where Christianity does make claims of bringing spiritual power to bear on the real world, those claims can theoretically

be tested.

No they can't. and you know it. And you know why. You're intelligent enough that I don't have to spell it out. Their claims can't be tested

at all because you would first have to define what spiritual power is. And Christians can't do that in a testable manner. Nothing pertaining

to biblical principles can be tested in any empirical manner.

The bible's internal consistency can also be tested. For example, as has already been discussed on this thread, the bible declares God

not to be a god of confusion. Given all the confusion in the world, and in the pages of scripture itself, such a claim is laughable. The

bible also suggests that God is eternally unchanging--and yet we are talking about the same God that used to accept human sacrifice, and had

rules in place regarding it (Leviticus 27:28-29, Judges 11:30 onward.) There are plenty of other places where the bible steps on its own

toes, or completely destroys its own credibility. Such internal elements can be compared, contrasted, and pondered, and in that sense tested

for their quality and consistency.

Now we're on the same track. I have no problem examining the bible in this manner. None. But that's already been stated.

As for Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss, who says you can't compare them? Is there a rule somewhere? Once again you are just making this

stuff up. What you actually seem to be saying--what it seems you only could have meant to say--is that it is not logical to compare

Shakespeare and Dr. Seuss. But why wouldn't it be logical? How do you know HOW they are being compared? There are all kinds of ways in which

they could be contrasted: narrative style, gender trends, over-arching themes, cultural references, impact on Western thought, blah blah

blah.

Well from my post on the subject of improper comparisons it should be obvious that I'm speaking logically. You can compare whatever you want.

People do it everyday. But what rebuttle is common when the comparison is illogical? "apples to oranges?" "you can't compare those two." Why

are we even going down this road?

Compare a Leprechaun to God? can you do it? Sure? Does it make logical sense to? Not really. They are two radically different things. The

only thing they have in common is that they both haven't been proven to exist. Is there really more than that? "sure, they both have the

ability to bring good fortune." Well good for you, you found another one. But the scope in which each does this is incompatible. Sheesh.

Equivalency. When you compare things in order to make a proper comparison, you start with equivalency. Contrasting, who's talking about

contrasting. I can contrast a planet with a planetiod. But wouldn't I look foolish comparing a planet with a planetiod as if they are

equivalents? The main commonality is that they are both celestial bodies. THAT's it!

Saying it "stops there" to classify the bible as a myth is bullshit too. It's not like the gameshow "Let's make a deal," where you

have to pick a door and stick with what you get. Talk about a hamfisted lack of nuance and subtlety. My God man, people have built entire

careers, entire lifetimes of study, examining the rich and diverse intersections of history and culture and faith and civilization.

Archaeologists and anthropologists do not have two big bins in their offices, one labled 'spot on' and the other labeled 'crap', with

everything getting tossed into one bin or the other. It is possible to study such things from an agnostic point of view, or to have a

tapestry of subtleties in one's view a bit more detailed than 1 or 0.

No, it does stop there in terms of comparative equivalency. Recall, stu asked what's the difference between B. Grimms tales and the bible? I

acknowledged that there are but that there's no equivalency between them except that they can both be classified as myths. It is their most

reasonable commonality. It STOPS there.

If you have a problem with equivalent classifications, take it up with science. For instance, the domain of plants and animals. Why bother to

seperate them? After all they both exhibit life. Let's just compare them all together and make no "stops." Mammals and repitiles? Toss that

out! Genus and species, why bother. Dogs and bears are close enough. Let's just call the lot of them Bears.

So yeah, you compare God myths to God myths. But you can't logical compare God myths to [not] god myths. In logical parlance.

It's just plain stupid to compare Cinderella to a God myth as if they are equivalents.

I'm taking a break from this thread for a while. Genuine inquiries and straightforward discussions are fun, but this particular flavor

of debate is absolutely maddening. (Why is it, by the way, that Christians are far more postmodern than the heathens when it comes to

questions they don't have straight answers for?)

Folks, when you are debating someone and they start making up rules on the spot, saying "this" is simple or "that" can't be done, check their

premises. For the debate to be worthwhile, the rules of engagement need to be agreed to, and artificial boundaries introduced to the debate

are premises themselves that need to be tested. Much of the time, an attempt to overwhelm with a flurry of provisos and diversions and

wherefores is little more than a smoke and mirrors parlor trick. If someone throws too many premises at you in a single post to respond to

them adequately, it doesn't necessarily mean they have a leg to stand on. It could just mean they don't have a realistic position... let

alone a sense of fair play in debate.

Signing off... I've had all the obtuse extemporization I can take for now.

Funny, I was trying to combat that very thing by focusing the discussion away from the interjection of extra-biblical things from a topic

that centers on biblical things. That interjection leads to chaos because then no standard for discussion exists. It becomes a free for all

of ideas. Look back, anyone, a few pages. There was the interjection that prayer do work and miracles do occur still and as proof what was

offered was anecdotal evidence. Then what was asked was to prove a negative - that prayer has no effect. How did it devolve in that manner?

Well, extra-biblical support was offered where biblical support should have been. Then, how is the bible any different that B. Grimm's tales?

And yet I get no credit for acknowledging that they are both myths. Myths because neither could be proven. I simply said that they can't be

compared because of the vast differences in scope, etc. Which is a long was of saying, while they are both myths, they have no other

equivalency other than that they cna both be considered myths. Mush like there is no equivalency between a Porshe and a Horse and buggy other

than that they are both modes of trasnportation. Comparing their ability to reach 0 to 60 is patently absurd and anyone would agree. Matter

of fact, it would universally be considered an unfair comparision.

I mean, really.

Anyway, have a good weekend Arch.

 

[Iatia]

With stuff like : -
The Creator Gods require certain mechanistic forms for testing their creative impulse, for which reason they created the physical worlds.

and

Man is the 'energy life vehicle' needed to bring a unique unfoldment of Light into reality on this planet.

...is directly copied from a book he certainly did not write. I trust the BS meters will be up next time this chap posts stuff representing the Cosmic Christ.

My intention with this was to clarify that if one is to quote the real source without cutting and pasting the amazing concepts of truth that where originally scripted in 1973 - it should be ok for teaching purposes. Not to make a claim that one is the Saviour. Luckily no-one on this forum took him seriously. Just a warning to those who found the information presented interesting as it was snippets of the real truth as I understand it, but certainly not out of the mind of [I am...]

With respect to the truth out there

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Oh don't be doltish. There is no contradiction whatsoever in the above. It makes no sense to test/falsiy God against itself. But it makes plenty of sense to compare the God of the bible against say, The God of the Qu'ran or Gods of the Bagavad Gita. Or the Greek Gods. Or the Egytptian Gods.

Get outa town ddunbar! There is contradiction in what you state. You say.. " It makes no sense to test/falsify God against itself.".. only then to go along and describe how you would do just that!

In what way exactly do you not test/falsify God against itself when.. "...it makes plenty of sense to compare the God of the bible against say, The God of the Qu'ran" ... as you state?
Do you think a different version of God is somehow not God and therefore not a test/falsify against itself?

It is your Porsche anaolgy gone wrong, comparing one version of Porsche against another, not against the Horse & Buggy. It makes no sense to test/falsify Porsche against itself, eh?

Quote from ddunbar:

But to compare the God stories to B. Grimm, Cinderella, Hansel and Gretel, the werewolf, etc... right. You're stretching it. It looks silly to go beyond their material commonality.

Then how come you wouldn't find yourself looking silly going beyond the material commonality when it comes to the Bible? You quote the characters as if what they were supposed to have done or said had important meaning, even if only for comparison. Yet for nothing other than the unreasonable refusal to compare, you dismiss the Grimms characters completely out of hand.

By what you say, it's ok to compare talking snakes of the Bible with a minator of Greek God mythology, but not with a unicorn of Grimm's. Why not?

Quote from ddunbar:

So when you attempt to put forth that the bible and Grimm are equivalents beyond that they can both be classified as myths, you're on shaky ground my friend

Your artifical positioning of the Bible on some higher pedestal than Grimm becomes unfounded just as soon as you make equivalent comparisons to the characters in both.

Of course there are more and other equivalents beyond myth status. They are obvious were you to compare. But I will admit there is an area where comparisons do not match. In more than 200 stories, moralistically it can be argued Grimm's has a distinct edge over the Bible .

 

[acronym]

"MATERIAL COMMONALITY???!!?"

Beyond material commonality?

Are you suggesting, some of grimm's fairytales WERE'NT based on actual events?

These stories are pure folk lore, the historical ground of entire civilisations, THE foundation stones of much european culture.
All of them, based on events beleived to have occured.
Many of the grimm stories , are ripped of from previous fairytales, stories passed down for generations, it was only the advent of commercial printing press that made these fables "COMMON", materially.

Just as the bible was written only by, and for preists, are you suggesting, had the the grimm fairytales been so much more amusing at the time, had they been around-people might be reading about the the red riding hood?

Material commonality indeed.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

Get outa town ddunbar! There is contradiction in what you state. You say.. " It makes no sense to test/falsify God against itself.".. only then to go along and describe how you would do just that!

In what way exactly do you not test/falsify God against itself when.. "...it makes plenty of sense to compare the God of the bible against say, The God of the Qu'ran" ... as you state?
Do you think a different version of God is somehow not God and therefore not a test/falsify against itself?

It is your Porsche anaolgy gone wrong, comparing one version of Porsche against another, not against the Horse & Buggy. It makes no sense to test/falsify Porsche against itself, eh?

I see where your misunderstanding is coming from. A comparison is one thing, but to test/falsify is another. You can't test/falsify something that has no discernable empirical reality - i.e. God. But you can compare Gods and draw reasonable conclusions.

So to test/falsify God against itself or other Gods makes zero sense.

Then how come you wouldn't find yourself looking silly going beyond the material commonality when it comes to the Bible? You quote the characters as if what they were supposed to have done or said had important meaning, even if only for comparison. Yet for nothing other than the unreasonable refusal to compare, you dismiss the Grimms characters completely out of hand.
By what you say, it's ok to compare talking snakes of the Bible with a minator of Greek God mythology, but not with a unicorn of Grimm's. Why not?

No, again, a misunderstanding. You can compare a talking ass, a burning bush, a voice from a cloud, to their equivalents in other stories. That's called a "fair" comparison. It's an easy concept that generally goes without saying in other areas and subjects of life. But to compare a diety to a leprechaun which is not a diety makes little to no sense. Hence why apples to oranges makes for an unfair comparison.

Your artifical positioning of the Bible on some higher pedestal than Grimm becomes unfounded just as soon as you make equivalent comparisons to the characters in both.

You're assuming something that was never stated. I simply said to compare a God to something that isn't makes no sense. To compare the bible in it's entirety to something which doesn't have the same scope and scale makes no sense. Much like comparing Dr. Seuss, whose scope and scale is vastly different than one of Shakespeare's works makes little to no sense. Or Comparing see Spot Run with one of Hemingway's novels. You'd be laughed to scorn. It would be insulting to Hemingway. Can you compare individual characters and themes? Sure. Never said you couldn't. In fact, I did it in a prior post. (King David to King Lear) But to compare the works as if they're equivalents is silly. And you know it. Forget about that fact that I obviously hold the bible in high regard and you don't. It's irrelevant to the conversation. And it appears to make one read into things that are not being said. On a literary level, B Grimm and the bible aren't equivalent. Which you elude to below...

Of course there are more and other equivalents beyond myth status. They are obvious were you to compare. But I will admit there is an area where comparisons do not match. In more than 200 stories, moralistically it can be argued Grimm's has a distinct edge over the Bible .

And that last sentence is a valid opinion.

I find it amazing that if you went on a literary forum and tried to pitch your idea that a lesser or vastly different work is equivalent to an esteemed or vastly different work, you'd be flamed. Called an ignorant buffoon. Etc.

Or, if you went on a political forum that's devoid of anti-semites and/or Muslims and tried to pitch the idea that Israel is just like the Nazis circa 1930's.

Yet, when it comes to the bible, anything, any idea, should be fair game?

Are you not satisfied with the bible being classified as a myth? And that I acknowledge that as a valid classification? What more could you possibly want?

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:
I see where your misunderstanding is coming from

How strange, I see your misunderstanding !

Quote from ddunbar:
A comparison is one thing, but to test/falsify is another. You can't test/falsify something that has no discernable empirical reality - i.e. God. But you can compare Gods and draw reasonable conclusions.

So to test/falsify God against itself or other Gods makes zero sense.

I’ll ask the question slightly differently..
Do you think a different version of God is somehow not God ? Do you see? By your statement above , you will have to be defining someone else’s God (Greek, Egyptian, Grimm) as “not God” so that you can compare them,

Quote from ddunbar:
No, again, a misunderstanding. You can compare a talking ass, a burning bush, a voice from a cloud, to their equivalents in other stories. That's called a "fair" comparison. It's an easy concept that generally goes without saying in other areas and subjects of life. But to compare a diety to a leprechaun which is not a diety makes little to no sense. Hence why apples to oranges makes for an unfair comparison.

Are you being serious here ddunbar?
Do you really think that by categorizing certain Gods into deities, which is a wholly subjective thing to do anyway, you can somehow upgrade them and diminish the Leprechaun (and any other Gods you so declare) into not equivalent and therefore incomparable?

How dare you. What gives you the special privilege to decide whose God is or is not a deity. For your information the Leprechaun is worshipped, and Unicorns especially - ARE deity. If Zeus is , the Fairy Queen certainly is.

Quote from ddunbar:
To compare the bible in it's entirety to something which doesn't have the same scope and scale makes no sense.

Grimms is said to have once outsold the Bible in sheer volume of sales . It certainly has the scale and the scope in numbers published, stories and morality to the Bible, and in many other areas it eclipses it. Grimm is eminently comparable. Don't be mislead if your exposure has only been to the more modern day dumbed down versions of some of the stories.. So now then, it make sense.

I will ignore the inappropriate comparisons you make with other works. Attempting to compare extreme examples of them between each other will obviously sound laughable. You are creating a false scenario. It would not be appropriate to show such descrepincies and then try to suggest the incompatibilities must reside between Grimms and the Bible . It doesn't stack.

Grimms is about morals, life, folklore, meaning, fear, threat, redemption, birth, death, immortality, resurrection, evil, good and DEITY. etc etc etc. Like the Bible.

Quote from ddunbar:
I find it amazing that if you went on a literary forum and tried to pitch your idea that a lesser or vastly different work is equivalent to an esteemed or vastly different work, you'd be flamed. Called an ignorant buffoon. Etc.

Nothing to do with what we are talking about. It is not a vastly different work anyway. You are simply devaluing Grimms against the Bible as a vastly different work , whilst showing no reason to do so whatsoever

Quote from ddunbar:
Or, if you went on a political forum that's devoid of anti-semites and/or Muslims and tried to pitch the idea that Israel is just like the Nazis circa 1930's.

Again that is nothing to do with Grimms and the Bible. Ok, by the stories of the Bible, the biblical deities could be shown to indulge and condone the kind of tendencies Nazis displayed, but that is not what we were discussing.

Quote from ddunbar:
Are you not satisfied with the bible being classified as a myth? And that I acknowledge that as a valid classification? What more could you possibly want?

Fair question. But it is not I who stated so categorically that God stories can only be compared to God stories.

Yet when another God story is produced, with many different kinds of Gods than you are apparently prepared to acknowledge, but in many ways more important and meaningful to folk, especially those of many centuries ago, you impetuously, inconsiderately, high-handedly dismiss it all as unworthy comparison.

The Bible is badly written. It is a poor read. Many of the stories are unimaginative and mind numbingly crass.

Grimms has been described as one of the few indispensable books on which western culture was founded. The stories of Grimm create in the mind a spiritual rhythm. In tales and story the imagination is awakened by fragments from the shattered jewel of belief, which has lay around since a time long forgotten, fitted again to answer the instinct and ordinary intuition. (jesus, i'm a poet)

Imagine a few centuries hence, you are trying to show how obviously the Bible was a 'God story' once, to a supporter of the New Grimm Testament. Then "what more you could possibly want" as the Bible is dismissed in the way you have dismissed Grimms, and in trying to elevate its Gods within to the highest in all history the grimmists say to you, " "Grimm stories can only be compared to Grimm stories". Then laugh you out of the literary forums as an ignorant buffoon to even think the Bible could compare to the New Testament Grimm.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

How strange, I see your misunderstanding !

LOL. Touche.

I’ll ask the question slightly differently..
Do you think a different version of God is somehow not God ? Do you see? By your statement above , you will have to be defining someone else’s God (Greek, Egyptian, Grimm) as “not God” so that you can compare them,

Specifically, not that same God. They have enough there to differentiate. The "Not God" was for things that have not been considered Gods.

Are you being serious here ddunbar?
Do you really think that by categorizing certain Gods into deities, which is a wholly subjective thing to do anyway, you can somehow upgrade them and diminish the Leprechaun (and any other Gods you so declare) into not equivalent and therefore incomparable?

Subjective? I suppose you could say that. Especially considering that idolatry translates into worshipping something as if it is a diety. I guess I was going with what is commonly accepted as a diety. Never heard of a Leprechaun considered a diety. In the classical sense of deities.

How dare you. What gives you the special privilege to decide whose God is or is not a deity. For your information the Leprechaun is worshipped, and Unicorns especially - ARE deity. If Zeus is , the Fairy Queen certainly is.

Sure, you could run with that. But I don't think you'd have much support for it. Never heard or read of the fairy Queen being considered a diety. Nor unicorns. I don't think anyone else has either considering the common understanding of what a diety is. I suppose that is why I was so bold to say they weren't. At this juncture in our culture, I took it for commkon knowlegde that they weren't dieties.

Grimms is said to have once outsold the Bible in sheer volume of sales . It certainly has the scale and the scope in numbers published, stories and morality to the Bible, and in many other areas it eclipses it. Grimm is eminently comparable. Don't be mislead if your exposure has only been to the more modern day dumbed down versions of some of the stories.. So now then, it make sense.

I will ignore the inappropriate comparisons you make with other works. Attempting to compare extreme examples of them between each other will obviously sound laughable. You are creating a false scenario. It would not be appropriate to show such descrepincies and then try to suggest the incompatibilities must reside between Grimms and the Bible . It doesn't stack.

Okey dokey. Your opinion of the matter is as valid. Though it may not be commonly accepted, that shouldn't minimize it in the least.

Grimms is about morals, life, folklore, meaning, fear, threat, redemption, birth, death, immortality, resurrection, evil, good and DEITY. etc etc etc. Like the Bible.
Nothing to do with what we are talking about. It is not a vastly different work anyway. You are simply devaluing Grimms against the Bible as a vastly different work , whilst showing no reason to do so whatsoever

No, not devaluing it. Just seperating it. But what's interesting is that while I allow both to be catagorized as myths, I declare, as most would, that while they have many themes and characterizations in common, on the whole, they are vastly different. While you most likely will not find any academic works which equate the bible and Grimm, that doesn't mean you can't. (If you can make a strong case, by all means...) But I don't think you will find many who agree with your position. Knowing that, I was hoping you'd stop (there's that dreaded, nasty and arrogant wording again) at myth. Because really, what more is there to be said? Think about that for a minute. By classifying it as myth, not only have you (me too, I'm a heretic for certain now) crossed the barrier of what would be considered culturally, common decency, but it allows you to make certain comparisons that technically you wouldn't have been able to do. It doesn't, my friend, get any higher (or lower depending on your position) than to classify the bible as myth. Really, how long have you waited to see a theist acknowledge that it could be classified as a myth? You got it and what do you do? Argue for more. But there isn't more. That's the final level. But Grimm's tales on the whole are not God stories. Sure, the devil may be in a few of them.

Without the classification of myth, what comparisons could be made to Grimm without reclassifying Grimm from myth to something actual? And what is more, many of Grimm's tales are derivative of or influenced from the bible. (Actually they were influenced by others who were influenced by the bible and it's associated religions and wrote or trasnmitted folk tales from earlier years.) That's another aspect that tends to set apart Grimm's works from the bible since it is derivate of it in many respects.

As an example; the B2 bomber. Derivative of secret German design of the 1940s. We don't compare them. But we do state what influenced the Skunk Work's team. Or our Rocket program which is also derivative of German rocket program of the 1940's. We don't "compare" the German rockets which influenced our early design. We simply state what influenced it. The comparitive similarities exists because, well, that's where we got it from. Yes, it's a bomber. Yep, it's a rocket too. But that's it considering the vast difference between the two.

Fair question. But it is not I who stated so categorically that God stories can only be compared to God stories.

Yet when another God story is produced, with many different kinds of Gods than you are apparently prepared to acknowledge, but in many ways more important and meaningful to folk, especially those of many centuries ago, you impetuously, inconsiderately, high-handedly dismiss it all as unworthy comparison.

The Bible is badly written. It is a poor read. Many of the stories are unimaginative and mind numbingly crass.

Grimms has been described as one of the few indispensable books on which western culture was founded. The stories of Grimm create in the mind a spiritual rhythm. In tales and story the imagination is awakened by fragments from the shattered jewel of belief, which has lay around since a time long forgotten, fitted again to answer the instinct and ordinary intuition. (jesus, i'm a poet)

Imagine a few centuries hence, you are trying to show how obviously the Bible was a 'God story' once, to a supporter of the New Grimm Testament. Then "what more you could possibly want" as the Bible is dismissed in the way you have dismissed Grimms, and in trying to elevate its Gods within to the highest in all history the grimmists say to you, " "Grimm stories can only be compared to Grimm stories". Then laugh you out of the literary forums as an ignorant buffoon to even think the Bible could compare to the New Testament Grimm. [/B]

First, I'm not dismissing Grimm. How could I bee if I stated that both Grimm and the bible can be classified as myths?

While Grimm's tales have indeed had a significant impact on western culture, the characters in Grimms tales were not considered dieties except for the one's derived from the bible. And what you said above "in many ways more important and meaningful to folk, especially those of many centuries ago, you impetuously, inconsiderately, high-handedly dismiss it all as unworthy comparison" I'm going to have to ask you to back up considering that where these tales propogated, the church had the ultimate meaning in these people's lives. If it were an atheist culture where these tales had their run, I'd say you have a point. But let's be honest here, in the land where Catholics predominate, superstitions and rituals can run wild. But at the end of the day, it would be silly to suppose that these tales overall had more of an impact than the bible did among the people of the 17th century. (actually I believe it goes back a bit further because the Grimms were influenced by earlier folklore.)

O' ye, (<--nice touch yes?) who says the bible is poorly written, well that's of course a matter of opinion. One in which is not supported by a majority. But a valid opinion none the less. Hey, just think, many of Grimm's tales are under the gun these days because of the classist and sexist overtones in them. Take Cinderella for example. As if girls should still be waiting for Mr. Right...

BTW, I think we're good on this subject. I'm actually kidding about you backing up your quote above which I italicized. It would require too much leg work for a thread that will eventually get buried and forgotten. If it's ok with you, we could agree to disagree. We're not really that far apart on this issue. You got a concession as far as myth status. It appears you're trying to run with Archimedes' attempt at a scathing rebuke. He was trying to be a voice of reason when in fact in the end is just like the rest of us players. (Though his tactic at is is very poor. if indeed that is what he is doing.) We've all have agenda's we'd like to see validated by our fellow man. But I'm just not willing to debase someone else to do it. It's bad form.

Allow me to give you some kudos. I enjoy sparring with you. You maintain a reasonable tone. Have a sense of humor. And can be "tongue in cheek."

I don't recall who had the first word, but in any event, I give you the last. Until the next subject comes up, be good Stu.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:
It doesn't, my friend, get any higher (or lower depending on your position) than to classify the bible as myth. Really, how long have you waited to see a theist acknowledge that it could be classified as a myth? You got it and what do you do? Argue for more. But there isn't more. That's the final level.

Why don't I stop at myth?
You've not noticed.
I do.

Quote from ddunbar:
" [the apostles] ..proves my point about the efficacy of miracles"

You do not.

Myths (Bible stories) and the characters in them, proves your point about the efficacy (not mythical) of other myths (miracles) according to what you say. That is not stopping at myth.
Your argument requires faith in myth for a reality to occur. It does not stop at myth. Archimedes saw straight through it, I'm slower .

Your comment "... if faith, then knowledge damns if it occurs before faith." ....does not stop at myth either.

Faith in a myth (faith in the Bible God for instance), for any salvation suggested as being real, but where knowledge of it's God ,or the salvation itself damns, is asking for trouble. Myths themselves will tell you so.
Any call for an actual unadulterated blind faith in a mythical God offering salvation from evil, sounds just like one of the most wicked of tricks a mythical Devil would pull. To hold any of that or put it forward as any kind of reality or truth, I think, is the danger in not stopping at myth.


Oh, and by the way, no need for me to do any heavy research, AINE - Goddess of love and fertility, a Fairy Queen. A deity. Come on now there is no law which states you must evaluate Gods and deity to the same level a majority of contemporary society might in order to categorize , as you have. In fact that would just be comparing todays Gods with themselves, wouldn't it?

But thanks for the thoughtful words ddunbar. I respect the way you put forward your pov, I don't like your pov of course, but yes, we are good. For now!

stu

 

[lkh]

Proof #20 - Notice your church

Here are six important statements about wealth from the Bible:

Matthew 6:19

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Matthew 6:24
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money.
Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Hebrews 13:5
Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
Phil 2:3
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.
Acts 2:44-45
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
Now, the next time you go to church, look at the building. At any "normal" church in America, the church building is an immense structure worth significant amounts of money. Here is a typical church in Raleigh, NC:
Colonial Baptist Church
The church's web site has this to say: "In May of 1993 the church fellowship voted unanimously to relocate our church campus. As a result of God's gracious plan, our Tryon site almost immediately became inadequate to facilitate our growing numbers. Thus, the church body once again demonstrated its pioneering spirit, faith and vision—vision to be a church not only blessed with a wonderful past, but faith and trust in God for an enduring, effective future. As of May 21, 1996, we became the owners of 33 acres on which to build our new facilities. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!" This church has soccer fields, indoor basketball courts, dozens of meeting rooms and classrooms, several buses, a library, a huge sanctuary and ample free parking.
[One obvious question to ask after reading the church's statement is this: If all blessings flow from God, then why are his blessings so amazingly unbalanced? Why are tens of thousands of children dying of starvation every day on this planet [ref], while Colonial Baptist Church is blessed with such wealth? Why wouldn't God spread his blessings evenly among all his children? Answer: Because God is imaginary.]

If you look at this article you see this description of the Catholic Church: "The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars. A large bulk of this is stored in gold ingots with the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, while banks in England and Switzerland hold the rest. But this is just a small portion of the wealth of the Vatican, which in the U.S. alone, is greater than that of the five wealthiest giant corporations of the country. When to that is added all the real estate, property, stocks and shares abroad, then the staggering accumulation of the wealth of the Catholic church becomes so formidable as to defy any rational assessment."

The contradiction is startling. No where in Jesus' teachings is it suggested that Christians should buy land and build church buildings with indoor basketball courts. No where does Jesus suggest the accumulation of billions of dollars in gold bars. Chistians are supposed to sell everything and give the money to the poor, according to Jesus. Yet church congregations do exactly the opposite on a regular basis. Building a large sanctuary and indoor basketball courts is an exercise in vanity, ego-boosting, selfishness and human pride. These attributes are the opposite of Jesus' prescriptions and everyone knows it.

Church congregations regularly and willfully ignore Jesus' teachings because they know that Jesus is imaginary.

 

[andrasnm]

When a person has a missing limb, the astral body is also severed hence no miracle can be performed for such an individual.
God does not answer prayers but there are higher beings who might. The outcome of the prayer will also be hinged on your level of faith and strength of belief as well as your situation of exploring how you can personally change your dilemma....
i.e.
You cannot pray for 10000 great trading days and lots of money in the end of the session.