Are Old Testament Stories Allegory or Literal History?

#582
#582
Orange_Crush said:
If you could like your own posts, you'd have a record or sumpin.
Click to expand...

Nah, I've tried ignoring myself multiple times, but it doesn't work. My policy is generally to only click the like button when a post actually makes me laugh, rather than using it as a vehicle to express my agreement with any of the various stuffs that we talk about.

I'm at least a case of beer away from being so delirious that I can make myself cackle with my own lunacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#583
#583
I've been hitting the wine pretty hard. I really like wine highs. I also got ahold of some pipe tobacco that I wouldn't vouch for its lack of narcoticicity
 
#584
#584
apevol said:
Nah, I've tried ignoring myself multiple times, but it doesn't work. My policy is generally to only click the like button when a post actually makes me laugh, rather than using it as a vehicle to express my agreement with any of the various stuffs that we talk about.

I'm at least a case of beer away from being so delirious that I can make myself cackle with my own lunacy.
Click to expand...

See that like under your post? I did that.
 
#585
#585
apevol said:
I've been hitting the wine pretty hard. I really like wine highs. I also got ahold of some pipe tobacco that I wouldn't vouch for its lack of narcoticicity
Click to expand...

Dude, wine hangovers... Ugh... Makes me glad I haven't had a hangover in a decade or so...
 
#587
#587
Orange_Crush said:
Dude, wine hangovers... Ugh... Makes me glad I haven't had a hangover in a decade or so...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've had wine hangovers that convinced me that I was dead and in hell. But that isn't going to happen this time, because I've cracked the code and figured out how to make the night last forever.
 
#588
#588
apevol said:
Yeah, I've had wine hangovers that convinced me that I was dead and in hell. But that isn't going to happen this time, because I've cracked the code and figured out how to make the night last forever.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this, but quoting your own posts just makes the night seem longer.
 
#590
#590
Finding a contradiction within the rational framework of: A has characteristics X, Y, Z does not mean that A doesn't exist. It simply means that A with characteristics X, Y, Z does not exist (assuming the law of non-contradiction is real/accurate).

An important distinction some posters are missing.
 
#591
#591
ClearwaterVol said:
The free will argument absolutely has to do with whether God exists. If God is all knowing then he knows everything from the beginning of time through the end of time. Such a being can have no uncertainty. Therefore, there is no ability change his mind. For if he were to change his mind then he would not have known what was to occur in the first place. Since he lacks free will he is clearly not all powerful because he has no ability to change occurrence of events.

Hence a being that is all knowing and all powerful cannot logically exist.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's a long asked question. But it seems your conclusion ignores a vast amount of ink on the subject.Thus, I fail to see the contradiction.
You are talking about an issue of contingency. I would strongly suggest Ed Feser who does a good job of breaking down the prime mover arguments. I also have a close friend who wrote a paper on the subject. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Found the paper. Free pdf. It's basically a primer in understanding the nature of God, which is fundamental in dealing with the questions you are speaking of. The author is a personal friend of mine, so if you have any questions I have a forum where he would discuss. https://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/makingdivinesimplicitysimple1.pdf
 
Last edited:
#592
#592
Christians will of course disagree with the following, but is there one person here who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham who can offer me one solid reason not to agree with Dawkins on the validity of theology?

Richard Dawkins said:
What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?

Again accused of ignorance of theology. But what is there in "theology" to be ignorant ABOUT? Tell me 1 theological fact & I'll learn it.

The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#593
#593
Deputy Fife said:
Christians will of course disagree with the following, but is there one person here who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham who can offer me one solid reason not to agree with Dawkins on the validity of theology?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone who doesn't believe in God care to convince you to disagree with Dawkins on this? This seems like a random and senseless request, iyam.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#594
#594
I don't like Dawkin's quote because he seems to be switching what he's asking. He asks what the use of theology is to anyone, then switches to asking about facts. Whether he agrees with the application or not, theology has been a great use to billions of people because it gives them comfort, security, purpose, etc. Whether you believe those are false hopes or not is a completely different discussion. He then asks for "facts", which again, depends on what you're talking about, and he's painting with a broad brush.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#595
#595
Also OC I forgot to post, way back if you were being sarcastic, my sincere apologies for getting snarky. It's hard to tell sarcasm sometimes :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#596
#596
Deputy Fife said:
Christians will of course disagree with the following, but is there one person here who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham who can offer me one solid reason not to agree with Dawkins on the validity of theology?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe in the God of Abraham, but I'll give it a brief go with your permission:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?

I've counseled hundreds of people over the years--and continue to counsel people currently on pretty much a weekly basis--during some of the greatest struggles of their lives, seeking purpose, meaning, healing and direction.

Dawkins should better ask that question to them than a faceless audience for polemic purposes.

When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?

What does that even mean? I'll ask Dawkins if his materialist philosophy is demonstrably true. Further, if he's basing his criteria on 'empiricism', I'll ask him to demonstrate, factually, that empiricism is true.

What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?

sub·ject
noun
ˈsəbjəkt/
1.
a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.
"I've said all there is to be said on the subject"
synonyms: theme, subject matter, topic, issue, question, concern, point; More
2.
a branch of knowledge studied or taught in a school, college, or university.
synonyms: branch of study, discipline, field
"popular university subjects"

Theology is obviously a 'subject'. Greater minds than Dawkins have written more volumes of the subject (and better, may I say) than Dawkins has on his polemic philosophies (and even his biological subject of expertise). His tirade equates to little more than an ignorant, condescending tantrum.

Again accused of ignorance of theology. But what is there in "theology" to be ignorant ABOUT? Tell me 1 theological fact & I'll learn it.

One fact that he needs to learn is that theology is a subject. That would be a great first start. Next, having admitted his ignorance on the subject, he may be better served to learn it before instructing others about it.

The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything.

Here Dawkins shows that, not only is he ignorant of theology, he makes a urine-poor philosopher. He's attacked religion and accused it of being (perhaps) the greatest scourge left in humanity. He's accused religious parents of child abuse for indoctrinating their children into religion. He's attributed religion with the greatest atrocities of history.

Now, he wants to convince us that it doesn't actually do anything.

What Dawkins may mean is that theology does nothing 'good', but this is a conversation that will be harder for him to have from is relativistic moral framework. So, it's just more drivel from a drivel-fount.


What makes anyone think that ‘theology’ is a subject at all?

This has been covered already. It's disappointing and embarrassing that he would choose to double down on such easy pickings.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#597
#597
VolsSportsFan said:
Also OC I forgot to post, way back if you were being sarcastic, my sincere apologies for getting snarky. It's hard to tell sarcasm sometimes :)
Click to expand...

I'm the first to admit that I don't make it the easiest to spot. If we both agree, I vote we just call it a 'no harm, no foul'.

:)
 
#598
#598
VolsSportsFan said:
I don't like Dawkin's quote because he seems to be switching what he's asking. He asks what the use of theology is to anyone, then switches to asking about facts. Whether he agrees with the application or not, theology has been a great use to billions of people because it gives them comfort, security, purpose, etc. Whether you believe those are false hopes or not is a completely different discussion. He then asks for "facts", which again, depends on what you're talking about, and he's painting with a broad brush.
Click to expand...

Well said. He begins with 'usefulness', then switches to 'truth'.

One of his problems is his absolute disregard for philosophy, while trying to be (play?) a philosopher. It makes him look stupid and immature.

He digs a bigger hole for himself than he knows when he asks for 'facts', or 'truth'. Especially demonstrable facts. He doesn't seem to have stopped to question the implications of his atheism. If his intellect is the result of blind change and chaos, what makes him think that he can trust his intellect that is both demonstrating, and interpreting demonstration?

You'd think if he were to be an honest atheist, he may demonstrate a bit more humility
 
#599
#599
Orange_Crush said:
Why would anyone who doesn't believe in God care to convince you to disagree with Dawkins on this? This seems like a random and senseless request, iyam.
Click to expand...

The fact that one lacks a belief in God tells you nothing about that person other than....they don't believe in God. The diversity of opinions within atheism is at least as varied as the denominations of Protestantism. There are atheists, for example, who think Sam Harris and Dawkins morons. I'm not one of them, but they exist in droves.

Also, see the post below yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#600
#600
deputy fife said:
the fact that one lacks a belief in god tells you nothing about that person other than....they don't believe in god. The diversity of opinions within atheism is at least as varied as the denominations of protestantism. There are atheists, for example, who think for themselves. I'm not one of them, but they exist in droves.

Also, see the post below yours.
Click to expand...

fyp
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top