User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 39

  1. #1
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default Reasons to Believe organization

    The "Banana People" might have been fruity, but R2B seems to promote itself as a step higher on the "religious science" evolutionary scale.

    Any comments based on this site or opinions as to its value?

    (Also, please feel free to post more questions that you think would be interesting to discuss.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #2
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Heh.

    I have nothing further to add.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  3. #3
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    Heh.
    I have nothing further to add.
    lol -- that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

    (btw, posting this was Crowsie's idea... so I absolve myself of any responsibility, either way.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #4
    shoshaku jushaku rivercrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    1,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    lol -- that's pretty much what I expected you to say.

    (btw, posting this was Crowsie's idea... so I absolve myself of any responsibility, either way.)
    Thanks.
    Who rises in the morning, looks in the mirror and says, "I think I will do something stupid today?" -- James Hollis
    If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
    Whaling is illegal in Oklahoma.

  5. #5
    Senior Member sdalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    298

    Default

    And I quote from the site...

    Founded in 1986, Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior.
    I'm sorry. The Bible was written by man, translated, interpreted and add to by man for centuries, and since man is fallible I therefore believe that it cannot be error-free as they claim. See the this doc for some interesting errors that were made in the bible. I don't claim these to be definitive; I think they make a point and are funny to read.

  6. #6
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sdalek View Post
    And I quote from the site... I'm sorry. The Bible was written by man, translated, interpreted and add to by man for centuries, and since man is fallible I therefore believe that it cannot be error-free as they claim. See the this doc for some interesting errors that were made in the bible. I don't claim these to be definitive; I think they make a point and are funny to read.
    Comments on the site? (As in the actual content, not just one's opinion of the Bible?)

    Besides, well, Christians differ on how they view the Bible. Some view it as "error-free," inerrant, and inspired in a completely divine sense; others read them more as "natural documents" like any other document, that still have value and contain deep wisdom.

    (Note: Some of the error lists floating around contain criticisms that are erroneous from the skeptical side -- they misconstrue or distort what a particular passage was actually saying, such as the infamous phrase "four corners/ends of the earth" -- Doh, this doesn't mean the Bible is saying the world is flat, it's called a metaphor! -- but all of that's besides the point.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #7
    Senior Member Opivy1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Science and religion are opposite and cannot be reconciled because they stand on two completely opposite principles:

    Science believes that something is true if it can be proven and until it is proven, then it is still not true.

    Religion believes that something they say is true and only it is true because they said it and people should have "faith" in it because it was told to them by "God".

    Is there any proof "God" or anything resembling it is true? No there isn't, so by definition of truth in science, it is not true. Now science doesn't claim to know what the truth is, but it doesn't expect someone to believe something just because it says it. There is proof of evolution for one, there is no proof of "intelligent design" which is one of the most unintelligent arguments ever made.

    Religion interjecting itself into science is nothing more than religion's attempt to destroy one of the most rational disciplines in human existence. This is because rational thought and religion have been at odds since a caveman created fire, and the shaman was jealous and threatened and considered him a demon, and had him put to death.

    Are we willing to go back to explaining things the way we did when we didn't know how it worked, "Why does it rain?" "God" "Why did humans become the dominant species?" "God" "Why have we progressed to the technological level we are at?" "God" Religion puts so little faith in human achievement, and expects people to be humbled by its complete lack of reason, like they know something that other people don't, the only thing a religious leader "knows" is people will give him or her money if they are sufficiently frightened, but at the same time hopeful.

    Now the site itself is even worse than the average religious nut job, because it pretends to use logic and rational thought to justify its superstitions. Humans were created after hominids but not from them, they had the "spirit" of "God" breathed into them. Yeah try to find that in the fossil record. It is pretty well known that humans developed from a certain line of hominids, and there lineage can be traced back through the fossil record. Bzzz try again crackpot. As far as the big bang theory, science hasn't even proven that to a fault yet, so even science isn't willing to completely stand behind it yet, so incorporating it into religion is fine, but it is still unlikely that the big bang was started by "God" as opposed to a nuclear reaction.

    On a side note, this whole thing about Jesus being the son of God was never actually decided until after his death. I won't deny that Jesus was a great philosopher and teacher, but he said he was "of God" not "the son of God" it was part of his teaching that everyone was "of God" and therefore was equal. A very radical thought in Roman and Jewish culture, Jesus even taught Mary Magdalene and she was actually the first Christian priest. As far as the bible of today being a literal translation of the word of "God"? That is impossible even if it originally was before, the transcriptions and missing pieces, there are numerous writings left out that were considered part of the bible, and sheer time frame, make it an impossibility for it to be a literal translation. These are the reasons that religion is so ridiculous, if they just would say something to the effect that we believe Jesus of Nazareth was a great teacher because he held views that are useful even to this day. And not "Jesus was the son of "God" who created everything and he came down because when people died they went to this magical realm where they were punished eternally, and that wasn't right, so then Jesus went to this realm, and got all the people out and then took them and himself to another magical realm where everyone is eternally happy and content. He also taught people on earth how to get to this magical realm by denying everything on earth that is enjoyable, and expecting people to pay them for telling them this." How is this any more plausible than any of what is now called mythology?

    This is why science and religion will never meet, science is based in reality and religion is based in superstition.
    Question everything especially yourself.

    Opivy1980

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Opivy1980 View Post
    Science and religion are opposite and cannot be reconciled because they stand on two completely opposite principles:

    Science believes that something is true if it can be proven and until it is proven, then it is still not true.

    Religion believes that something they say is true and only it is true because they said it and people should have "faith" in it because it was told to them by "God".
    True. To summarize it with a bit more alliteration, science operates on reason while religion operates on revelation.

    You can't use the scientific method on revelation.


    There is proof of evolution for one, there is no proof of "intelligent design" which is one of the most unintelligent arguments ever made.
    Well, yes, Intelligent Design is more like an argument from absence or from ambiguity -- "There must be a god, because we don't know how else to explain this." It's the "God of the Gaps" that takes credit for things we haven't figured out yet. Two hundred years ago, God was given credit for many things that we do now understand, because the scientific method was applied. We can't say that some mysterious "God figure" was NOT involved... but we have found mechanisms in the world that can explain how things work without God being involved. That's about all that science can say.

    Religion interjecting itself into science is nothing more than religion's attempt to destroy one of the most rational disciplines in human existence. This is because rational thought and religion have been at odds since a caveman created fire, and the shaman was jealous and threatened and considered him a demon, and had him put to death.
    All right, now you're venturing out of logic into conjecture and showing a bias.

    "God" Religion puts so little faith in human achievement, and expects people to be humbled by its complete lack of reason, like they know something that other people don't, the only thing a religious leader "knows" is people will give him or her money if they are sufficiently frightened, but at the same time hopeful.
    Meh. This is an interpretation of one extreme of religious people. You aren't bothering to deal with the category as a whole, so it weakens your comments (which started out good). I would drop the whole "grinding axe against religion" taint.


    As far as the big bang theory, science hasn't even proven that to a fault yet, so even science isn't willing to completely stand behind it yet, so incorporating it into religion is fine, but it is still unlikely that the big bang was started by "God" as opposed to a nuclear reaction.
    Do we have any idea what happened BEFORE the universe began? Can we? (Perhaps someone with more hard knowledge of this could comment.) From a general theoretical POV, it would seem that we can't determine what the rules of reality would have been before the universe and its rules came into existence, in order to extrapolate things before the origin... hence, how do we figure out how and why the universe began? But then I thought I had read something about residual radiation that supported some ideas (now forgotten by me) about what things were like Before.

    On a side note, this whole thing about Jesus being the son of God was never actually decided until after his death. I won't deny that Jesus was a great philosopher and teacher, but he said he was "of God" not "the son of God" it was part of his teaching that everyone was "of God" and therefore was equal.
    That sounds like a fringe interpretation to me, from what I'd recall, but I'd have to check my sources. Both the words in many of the accepted translations, as well as the context of his words, seems to suggest he thought himself God and/or God's son.

    A very radical thought in Roman and Jewish culture, Jesus even taught Mary Magdalene and she was actually the first Christian priest.
    Again, this sounds like one of the many fringe concepts that the typical scribes don't take seriously. What's your source?

    As far as the bible of today being a literal translation of the word of "God"? That is impossible even if it originally was before, the transcriptions and missing pieces, there are numerous writings left out that were considered part of the bible, and sheer time frame, make it an impossibility for it to be a literal translation.
    Well, I agree that a "literal translation" is impossible as soon as you switch languages. As an editor, I understand the concept of selecting a "canon" where some works obviously seem false or do not jibe with others; I don't think it was a crime for the church elders to evaluate texts based on merit and seeming historicity and reject some of the ones that did not seem to fit. But it does makes it hard to seriously say something is a literal translation.

    And not "Jesus was the son of "God" who created everything and he came down because when people died they went to this magical realm where they were punished eternally, and that wasn't right, so then Jesus went to this realm, and got all the people out and then took them and himself to another magical realm where everyone is eternally happy and content. He also taught people on earth how to get to this magical realm by denying everything on earth that is enjoyable, and expecting people to pay them for telling them this."
    You should probably canvass a variety of Christians to get a sense of the general beliefs here; your description is patently not the mainstream, and especially nowadays with the "Emerging Church," which considers Jesus' ministry in context of the here and now... how the Kingdom of Heaven occurs in how we relate to each other. Your paragraph just gets more and more biased as it nears completion.

    How is this any more plausible than any of what is now called mythology?
    Oh, there's a large difference in the Norse and Greek myths and the books of Genesis, as compared to the New Testament writings. Contextual criticism wouldn't lump them as the same type of literature as all.

    This is why science and religion will never meet, science is based in reality in observable reality while religion is based in superstition on subjective experiences and internal states of being.
    Fixed!
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    Senior Member Opivy1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Here is an example of the uncertainty of the claim of Jesus being the "Son of God"-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God

    So according to the bible now it does say that he did say he was and implied it but historically the question remains. So I guess I was wrong in saying 100% this is true, however there still is compelling evidence that this idea came about after his death.

    Here is proof of Mary Magdalene being the first Christian priest and not Peter-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary_Magdalene

    Now on the the fact that you think reality can be something that isn't observed:

    reality:1. the state or quality of being real.
    2. resemblance to what is real.
    3. a real thing or fact.
    4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
    5. Philosophy.
    a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
    b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
    6. something that is real.
    7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
    —Idiom
    8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually: brave in appearance, but in reality a coward.

    So reality has to be observable otherwise it isn't reality.

    superstition: 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
    2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
    3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
    4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
    5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

    So religious "faith" is superstition by this definition.

    both of these are from dictionary.com

    Now here is proof of the bible being mythology:
    Greek Mythology and The Bible
    Bible Mythology
    Challenge to Christians
    So while the bible might have used historical backdrop as a setting, it doesn't change the fact that it is myth. For example the Oracle at Delphi was used in myth but actually did exist, there is physical evidence of it. Now did she actually speak to the gods and did demigods visit her for inspiration and direction on quests, I doubt it, so how is that any different than what Christians believe about the bible?
    Question everything especially yourself.

    Opivy1980

  10. #10
    Senior Member sdalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Posts
    298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Comments on the site? (As in the actual content, not just one's opinion of the Bible?)

    Besides, well, Christians differ on how they view the Bible. Some view it as "error-free," inerrant, and inspired in a completely divine sense; others read them more as "natural documents" like any other document, that still have value and contain deep wisdom.

    (Note: Some of the error lists floating around contain criticisms that are erroneous from the skeptical side -- they misconstrue or distort what a particular passage was actually saying, such as the infamous phrase "four corners/ends of the earth" -- Doh, this doesn't mean the Bible is saying the world is flat, it's called a metaphor! -- but all of that's besides the point.)
    I'm sorry, you're right. My original comment was not directed at the Bible though, it was directed at their interpretation that the Bible was "error-free" which, based on my readings, I don't believe which is why I made the comment. To be honest, being very extremely skeptical when it comes to dealing with religion (something that I learned from both my mother and grandfather), when I was reading the FAQ about the site, the people that created, and it's contents, the "error-free" comment just did me in.:steam:

    However, after reading your comment I went back and took another look. While I still view their site skeptically, the one thing that really struck me is their attempt to marry up Big-bang theory (or whatever the current prevalent creation theory is) with creation from the Bible. While I have always questioned the issue of time as presented in the Bible i.e. how do we know that a day for God is the same as a day for man? :confused: I have to agree with Opivy1980 in that science and religion probably cannot be joined because they are opposing philosophical systems with opposite operating systems and he states the argument well enough.

    I did find it interesting that they provided quite a bit of content as sound-files. A very "scientific" approach to presenting information instead of as the written work however that mean that you have to listen very carefully to what is being said and a very useful tool to make it harder to be able to argue with then since you can't easily pick out the quote(s) that is(are) troublesome. A transcript would probably have been better.

    Beyond that, I can't really comment more except that while I admire their attempt to join the two, they really shouldn't. Being an SJ traditionalist , I think they should've left well enough alone and focused more in Biblical history and interpretation in the proper context of the times that it was written in.

Similar Threads

  1. I need something to believe in
    By ygolo in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-15-2008, 10:50 PM
  2. Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?
    By Athenian200 in forum Socionics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 09:41 AM
  3. Do we have a "right" to the organs of the dead?
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-23-2007, 05:15 AM
  4. Reasons to move to Rome...
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 04:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO