Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

[Greatest I am]

Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

 

Before you jump all over me, remember that I am not an atheist.

 

I believe in a Godhead that is of this world and the reality we see around us.

 

Mine is not the God you believe in because to believe in that one, one must buy into fantasy, miracles and magic. This I have no need or desire to do.

 

The O T, the base of the Bible, is a document that the original writers, the Jews, do not believe in a literal way.

 

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

 

 

Further, believers tend to believe what is written about God even as whoever is doing the writing admit that God is unfathomable and unknowable and works in mysterious ways. A catch 22.

 

As an adult, do you not think it strange and immoral that you would preach to and teach your children that there are real talking snakes and donkeys, that people can walk on water, turn staffs into snakes and that a loving God would use genocide against humans?

 

This being after nearly all of his perfect works have somehow become imperfect and thus showing a creator God who just cannot create creatures that will do as programmed.

 

These things that are impossible to believe unless you have bought into fantasy, miracles and magical thinking.

 

As far as the non believing world is concerned, there is no such thing as miracles and magic. No believer has ever been able to show or prove that any miracle has ever been performed and it would seem to me that if God wanted us to believe in them, he would have left one here for us to ponder. He did not.

 

If your God did not do all of the miracles shown in scripture, is there anything left that shows a real God?

 

God would always want what is best for him as well as what is best for man.

 

Note that 6 million of us starve to death yearly. A yearly holocaust.

 

If God does have all of these miracle making powers, how can things not be exactly the way he wants for both himself and man?

 

Now I know that many will point to free will, but because the Bible shows God ignoring man’s free will to live when he kills us all over the O T, this negates that argument so I hope no one bothers trying to use it.

 

If you believe in reality instead of fantasy and magic, does your God disappear?

 

Does God have to be able to do miracles to be your God?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[lemur]

The O T, the base of the Bible, is a document that the original writers, the Jews, do not believe in a literal way.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but it can cause problems to assume collective authorship of a text or body of texts/discourse to a race, perceived as a collective social body. Individuals alive today who identify as Jewish no more authored the old testament than modern day people with Greek citizenship authored ancient Greek mythology. You have to understand that culture is not unified, homogenous, or without variations and conflicts. Individuals transmit culture among themselves but, while doing so, they develop their own personal variation according to how they understand things, what parts of the meanings they focus on or ignore, etc. I saw Pat Robinson talk about divorce on TV recently and while I recognized the Christianity in his encouragement not to give up a marriage and to respect the relationship you have, he didn't mention allowing a spouse to divorce you and forgiveness for the unforgiveness that comes with that. Surely he knows that part of the bible but for whatever reason it was not what he chose to focus on at that moment - so the people learning about Christianity from his broadcast might learn the Christian culture of not giving up on marriage but at the same time miss out on the idea of forgiving a spouse who divorces you and why. This is not to say that they might not learn that culture of forgiveness for divorce elsewhere, but until they do they're Christianity may not comprehend the concept of forgiveness for divorce. So because no human is a perfect transmitter/receiver of culture, culture always varies broadly in practice although much of it maintains recognizable consistency of information and meaning.

[pwagen]

Are you talking about the Abrahamic god specifically? I'm of the opinion that you don't need to believe in fairy tales or dismiss common sense to believe in a god, even though they sometimes might seem a bit incompatible. However, to take the Bible literally would require you to ignore quite a lot of reality.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but it can cause problems to assume collective authorship of a text or body of texts/discourse to a race, perceived as a collective social body. Individuals alive today who identify as Jewish no more authored the old testament than modern day people with Greek citizenship authored ancient Greek mythology. You have to understand that culture is not unified, homogenous, or without variations and conflicts.

And the Judaism of today is vastly different from the Judaism of two or three thousand years ago.

[Marat]

The Ancient Greeks, who were apparently largely unfamiliar with the Hebrew idea of God, even though it had been developed about 1000 years before Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle lived, often spoke of 'God,' meaning the first uncaused cause of the universe, or some principle serving as guarantor of the validity of justice in the world, or as informing the world with his sustaining power. They also didn't get to this idea via any superstitions about miracles or any particular historical contingencies like his appearing on a mountain and passing down information about himself at a specific time and place, but just derived it from what they thought were the logical implications of nature and justice.

 

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but it can cause problems to assume collective authorship of a text or body of texts/discourse to a race, perceived as a collective social body. Individuals alive today who identify as Jewish no more authored the old testament than modern day people with Greek citizenship authored ancient Greek mythology. You have to understand that culture is not unified, homogenous, or without variations and conflicts. Individuals transmit culture among themselves but, while doing so, they develop their own personal variation according to how they understand things, what parts of the meanings they focus on or ignore, etc. I saw Pat Robinson talk about divorce on TV recently and while I recognized the Christianity in his encouragement not to give up a marriage and to respect the relationship you have, he didn't mention allowing a spouse to divorce you and forgiveness for the unforgiveness that comes with that. Surely he knows that part of the bible but for whatever reason it was not what he chose to focus on at that moment - so the people learning about Christianity from his broadcast might learn the Christian culture of not giving up on marriage but at the same time miss out on the idea of forgiving a spouse who divorces you and why. This is not to say that they might not learn that culture of forgiveness for divorce elsewhere, but until they do they're Christianity may not comprehend the concept of forgiveness for divorce. So because no human is a perfect transmitter/receiver of culture, culture always varies broadly in practice although much of it maintains recognizable consistency of information and meaning.

 

In the years I have been about in places like this, I have yet to speak to a Jew who literally believes that Eden was the fall of man.

 

They tend to agree as, I do, that man gaining a moral sense and becoming like God’s, was an elevation for mankind and not a fall. Fact is that they, in the past as now, think it strange that Christians read their book literally when they, the originators of the O T do not.

 

 

 

Are you talking about the Abrahamic god specifically? I'm of the opinion that you don't need to believe in fairy tales or dismiss common sense to believe in a god, even though they sometimes might seem a bit incompatible. However, to take the Bible literally would require you to ignore quite a lot of reality.

 

 

Pwagen

 

Yes. My primary focus is the Abrahamic God. You are right in saying that reality must be ignored, to some extent, if you are to be a Christian. No virgin birth would kill Jesus’ sacrifice and all of Christianity hinges on it. Many Christians try to deny that they are literalists but they must be if they call themselves Christian. IMO.

 

 

 

The Ancient Greeks, who were apparently largely unfamiliar with the Hebrew idea of God, even though it had been developed about 1000 years before Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle lived, often spoke of 'God,' meaning the first uncaused cause of the universe, or some principle serving as guarantor of the validity of justice in the world, or as informing the world with his sustaining power. They also didn't get to this idea via any superstitions about miracles or any particular historical contingencies like his appearing on a mountain and passing down information about himself at a specific time and place, but just derived it from what they thought were the logical implications of nature and justice.

 

Is this the sort of thing you mean?

 

 

If the Greeks believed in a supernatural guarantor of the validity of justice, they would have thought of that entity as supernatural. That is a miracle.

 

I think that by the time Socrates and the boys came along, they knew that all the old legends had been born I Sumer and Egypt. We may never know. I cannot see the Greek, or any people actually, giving of their hard earned wealth as sacrifices to their Gods without thinking that they would get some kind of miraculous return on their investment.

 

 

[lemur]

In the years I have been about in places like this, I have yet to speak to a Jew who literally believes that Eden was the fall of man.

 

They tend to agree as, I do, that man gaining a moral sense and becoming like God's, was an elevation for mankind and not a fall.

Ok, so there are different interpretations. You could view it as an evolutionary step forward for humans to develop the ability to know good and evil and choose, but you could still see it as a fall in the sense that they become cursed with original sin. Why is it necessary to make it into a Christians vs. Jews issue?

 

 

Fact is that they, in the past as now, think it strange that Christians read their book literally when they, the originators of the O T do not.

If someone would say that if you want to know what Hitler really meant in Mein Kampf, you should ask Germans because it's "their book," wouldn't that seem ridiculous and slightly racist to you? In reality, this debate about how to interpret scripture and who has the authority to do so comes up repeatedly in religious history, as in literary studies. In the 1970s Roland Barthes proclaimed the "death of the author" and the corresponding "birth of the reader" as the determinant factor in the meaning of texts. This was taken as a new idea and described as a cultural turn, but really it's the same thing Jesus was preaching by saying that the Holy Spirit was the ultimate authority - just as it was what Martin Luther was saying when he said that people should be able to read the bible for themselves - just as it was what enlightenment scientists and political philosophers were saying by claiming that empiricism and reason were self-evident and provide direct access to truth. Everyone can interpret a text and argue that their interpretive method is the correct one.

 

 

[A Tripolation]

Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

 

Because any god(s), by the pure definition of the term "god", is irreducibly-complex, and thus makes you irrational in that one area. You can try to be as logical as you want about it, but you're still believing in something that is absurd by principal; something that has given you no reason whatsoever to even believe it exists.

 

Hence, you're believing in fantasy.

Edited May 5, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Greatest I am]

Ok, so there are different interpretations. You could view it as an evolutionary step forward for humans to develop the ability to know good and evil and choose, but you could still see it as a fall in the sense that they become cursed with original sin. Why is it necessary to make it into a Christians vs. Jews issue?

 

 

 

If someone would say that if you want to know what Hitler really meant in Mein Kampf, you should ask Germans because it's "their book," wouldn't that seem ridiculous and slightly racist to you? In reality, this debate about how to interpret scripture and who has the authority to do so comes up repeatedly in religious history, as in literary studies. In the 1970s Roland Barthes proclaimed the "death of the author" and the corresponding "birth of the reader" as the determinant factor in the meaning of texts. This was taken as a new idea and described as a cultural turn, but really it's the same thing Jesus was preaching by saying that the Holy Spirit was the ultimate authority - just as it was what Martin Luther was saying when he said that people should be able to read the bible for themselves - just as it was what enlightenment scientists and political philosophers were saying by claiming that empiricism and reason were self-evident and provide direct access to truth. Everyone can interpret a text and argue that their interpretive method is the correct one.

 

 

 

Certainly. People with interpret from their own cultural base and understanding.

 

Especially when old languages are at issue.

 

Seems to me though that for interpretation of Jewish text, Jews would be the best interpreters.

 

 

Thanks to nuance in language, I would think that a German interpreting Mein Kamph would be a more accurate interpretation than someone who was born to some other language.

 

 

 

How do you figure that man’s elevation and good sense to elevate himself would still lead to original sin when scripture says this--------

 

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Because any god(s), by the pure definition of the term "god", is irreducibly-complex, and thus makes you irrational in that one area. You can try to be as logical as you want about it, but you're still believing in something that is absurd by principal; something that has given you no reason whatsoever to even believe it exists.

 

Hence, you're believing in fantasy.

 

I hope that was a general "you" and did not include me.

I do not believe in the usual Bible God.

 

Regards

DL

[A Tripolation]

I hope that was a general "you" and did not include me.

I do not believe in the usual Bible God.

 

Regards

DL

 

It was directed at you. I don't care what God you believe in. They are ALL illogical. There is NO god/are no gods that are logical and rational. It's as simple as that. Any psuedospiritual definition you want to ascribe to YOUR god will be just as illogical as the Judeo-Christian God, or Zeus, or Thor.

[ydoaPs]

It was directed at you. I don't care what God you believe in. They are ALL illogical. There is NO god/are no gods that are logical and rational. It's as simple as that. Any psuedospiritual definition you want to ascribe to YOUR god will be just as illogical as the Judeo-Christian God, or Zeus, or Thor.

Thor is not irrational.

[lemur]

Certainly. People with interpret from their own cultural base and understanding.

 

Especially when old languages are at issue.

 

Seems to me though that for interpretation of Jewish text, Jews would be the best interpreters.

 

Thanks to nuance in language, I would think that a German interpreting Mein Kamph would be a more accurate interpretation than someone who was born to some other language.

I think you're confounding ethnicity with language proficiency. Ethnic identification serves as a motivator for people to develop high levels of language proficiency for various reasons, but that doesn't mean it is a limiting condition. Plus why can't someone read and interpret a text just as well in translation? It is silly to think that literary analysis is a skill that's directly tied to language-familiarity. Do you think that someone reading Mein Kampf or Das Kapital in English has less access to the author's meaning than if they read it in German? What's more, what if someone is Jewish but only speaks English or Russan, etc. Would their Jewishness still make them better at interpreting the OT and, if so, how?

Edited May 5, 2011 by lemur

[Greatest I am]

I think you're confounding ethnicity with language proficiency. Ethnic identification serves as a motivator for people to develop high levels of language proficiency for various reasons, but that doesn't mean it is a limiting condition. Plus why can't someone read and interpret a text just as well in translation? It is silly to think that literary analysis is a skill that's directly tied to language-familiarity. Do you think that someone reading Mein Kampf or Das Kapital in English has less access to the author's meaning than if they read it in German? What's more, what if someone is Jewish but only speaks English or Russan, etc. Would their Jewishness still make them better at interpreting the OT and, if so, how?

 

Of course not.

 

Knowing a language still says that you will likely understand what the author is saying.

 

I am French. I have seen Nostradamus interpreted by the English yet I look at the same text and wonder where in hell they got their interpretations from. Many of the interpretations they make does not even come close.

 

All you would need to do is look at the various definitions of I am.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[imatfaal]

lemur

The interpretation of text is highly cultural and not a mechanistic process that is objective and value free. Whilst you are right to argue that a reader in English has no less access to works translated from the German than a native - the implied corollary to your question that they have the same access is incorrect. Your use of the word "better" implies the existence of a canonical interpretation that all readers must aspire to reach - this is simply not the case. Each interpretive community will give different weighting and importance to the themes, language, and construction of a piece. Whilst we may fantasize of a correct interpretation, a direct link from the consciousness of the author to the reader, in reality as soon as the work is published the authors interpretation is immaterial and it is the reader's that is privileged.

 

 

 

It was directed at you. I don't care what God you believe in. They are ALL illogical. There is NO god/are no gods that are logical and rational. It's as simple as that. Any psuedospiritual definition you want to ascribe to YOUR god will be just as illogical as the Judeo-Christian God, or Zeus, or Thor.

Trip

 

Great post - reminds me of comment of Julian Huxley I heard on the radio a few days ago in which he said that attempting to prove religion scientifically was like attempting to prove the world was flat musically. It has struck me recently that many of your posts on religion are strangely similar to those of Tom Swanson on the physics boards; both sets of replies are saying "just because you are unable to reconcile quantum mechanics/relativity/religious belief (delete as applicable) with your internal model of how the world and universe works does not necessarily mean that these ideas are wrong". On the physics boards it is experimental proof that is the final arbiter, in religion is is faith and belief ; but in neither science nor religion is a personal preconception of the underpinning logic of the universe useful.

 

 

 

 

And Thor is irrational - both in actions and belief, but who would neg-rep for saying it!!

 

 

[lemur]

I am French. I have seen Nostradamus interpreted by the English yet I look at the same text and wonder where in hell they got their interpretations from. Many of the interpretations they make does not even come close.

But why would you immediately assume differences in interpretation or analysis of meanings are the result of translations and language generally? People can use the same language in many different ways, creating different contexts of meaning and interpretation. Just because something is written in French doesn't mean any literary context of French-language literature will be sufficient for interpreting meanings of any other French-language text. It could be, for example, that someone who has read and studied Freudian psychoanalysis in English will interpret Gilles Deleuze more fruitfully than someone reading the original French text without any psychoanalytic experience. It could also be the case that someone with loads of knowledge of psychoanalysis could have a more difficult time reading and interpreting Deleuze because his language is so critical of psychoanalysis. What effect does the language of writing/translation have to do with any of that?

[Ringer]

Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

 

Before you jump all over me, remember that I am not an atheist.

 

I believe in a Godhead that is of this world and the reality we see around us.

 

Mine is not the God you believe in because to believe in that one, one must buy into fantasy, miracles and magic. This I have no need or desire to do.

 

You realize you do exactly what you ask others not to do in this. How do you know what god any of us believe in?

 

The O T, the base of the Bible, is a document that the original writers, the Jews, do not believe in a literal way.

 

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

 

 

Some Jews do believe the OT in a literal manner, just as most Christians don't.

Further, believers tend to believe what is written about God even as whoever is doing the writing admit that God is unfathomable and unknowable and works in mysterious ways. A catch 22.

 

As an adult, do you not think it strange and immoral that you would preach to and teach your children that there are real talking snakes and donkeys, that people can walk on water, turn staffs into snakes and that a loving God would use genocide against humans?

 

Do you think its strange and immoral to teach children about the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, etc.

 

Further more do you think it's immoral to teach children the planetary-model of the atom because it's not strictly correct? I wouldn't say so because using that model can be useful just as the teaching of theology can be useful.

 

 

These things that are impossible to believe unless you have bought into fantasy, miracles and magical thinking.

 

As far as the non believing world is concerned, there is no such thing as miracles and magic. No believer has ever been able to show or prove that any miracle has ever been performed and it would seem to me that if God wanted us to believe in them, he would have left one here for us to ponder. He did not.

 

If your God did not do all of the miracles shown in scripture, is there anything left that shows a real God?

 

If your Shakespeare did not write all of the plays with him as the author, is there any reason to think there was ever a Shakespeare?

 

God would always want what is best for him as well as what is best for man.

 

Note that 6 million of us starve to death yearly. A yearly holocaust.

 

If God does have all of these miracle making powers, how can things not be exactly the way he wants for both himself and man?

 

Now I know that many will point to free will, but because the Bible shows God ignoring man's free will to live when he kills us all over the O T, this negates that argument so I hope no one bothers trying to use it.

 

As was said before, the god of the OT is unfathomable and by trying to understand it you are doing the same thing you ridicule others for doing.

 

If you believe in reality instead of fantasy and magic, does your God disappear?

 

Does God have to be able to do miracles to be your God?

 

This is a god of the gaps theory and is useless for any real theological thought. Most who believe in god would say that existence is God's miracle so the need for fantasy and magic is null.

 

[Greatest I am]

But why would you immediately assume differences in interpretation or analysis of meanings are the result of translations and language generally? People can use the same language in many different ways, creating different contexts of meaning and interpretation. Just because something is written in French doesn't mean any literary context of French-language literature will be sufficient for interpreting meanings of any other French-language text. It could be, for example, that someone who has read and studied Freudian psychoanalysis in English will interpret Gilles Deleuze more fruitfully than someone reading the original French text without any psychoanalytic experience. It could also be the case that someone with loads of knowledge of psychoanalysis could have a more difficult time reading and interpreting Deleuze because his language is so critical of psychoanalysis. What effect does the language of writing/translation have to do with any of that?

 

 

Apples and oranges.

 

Yes, someone with training in a certain discipline will likely read something in a foreign language, that he has some knowledge of, may read more into the document than a novice reading in his own language.

 

Both could be wrong but the one reading in his own languages, because he knows nuance and possibly a deeper understanding of usage, will still likely get closer to the meaning the writer was trying to convey than someone reading a foreign tongue that he might not know, in terms of nuance and use.

 

Without testing, we may never come to a conclusion and all tests would be different.

 

This following speaks to some of the issues here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mpHpLrJVHY&feature=player_embedded#at=437

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

You realize you do exactly what you ask others not to do in this.

 

No. The Godhead I know is a part of nature and at no time exceeds the bound of nature and physics. I have no proof to show and no dogma to sell. I show my own anecdotal experience and do not argue for belief.

 

 

 

How do you know what god any of us believe in?

 

 

I do not but am obviously addressing the O P to Christians.

 

Some Jews do believe the OT in a literal manner, just as most Christians don't.

 

So I have been told. I have yet to meet one.

 

 

Do you think its strange and immoral to teach children about the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, etc.

 

Not to a certain age. Imagination is quite healthy for children.

Those you mention do not offer to burn you forever in hell if you do not believe in them.

fear makes the morality quite different.

 

Further more do you think it's immoral to teach children the planetary-model of the atom because it's not strictly correct?

 

No. As no teacher will demand that it be believed as correct and exact.

 

 

I wouldn't say so because using that model can be useful just as the teaching of theology can be useful.

 

Aples and oranges.

 

 

If your Shakespeare did not write all of the plays with him as the author, is there any reason to think there was ever a Shakespeare?

 

We have his plays to ponder. We have no miracles to ponder.

 

 

As was said before, the god of the OT is unfathomable and by trying to understand it you are doing the same thing you ridicule others for doing.

 

If someone is trying to give me what they say are true facts about an unfathomable, unknowable entity who works in mysterious ways, then yep, I feel free to ridicule their delusion.

 

This is a god of the gaps theory and is useless for any real theological thought.

 

 

I do not limit theological thought and find nothing wrong in considerations of a God of the gaps.

 

 

Most who believe in god would say that existence is God's miracle so the need for fantasy and magic is null.

 

 

 

So God’s miracle is not God’s magic.

 

What difference do you see between miracles and magic?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Ringer]

I do not but am obviously addressing the O P to Christians.

 

 

 

So I have been told. I have yet to meet one.

 

And I have yet to meet you, does that mean you do not exist? There are Billions of people you haven't met.

 

 

 

 

Not to a certain age. Imagination is quite healthy for children.

Those you mention do not offer to burn you forever in hell if you do not believe in them.

fear makes the morality quite different.

 

Santa will not bring you toys if you misbehave, that is more fearful than something that will happen after death to most children.

 

 

 

No. As no teacher will demand that it be believed as correct and exact.

 

I know of virtually no religious leader who demands everything in the bible is exact and correct. Just because the ones who do are more newsworthy and loud does not mean they are in the majority. And many teachers in the early levels believe this model to be correct.

 

 

 

Aples and oranges.

 

How so?

 

 

 

 

We have his plays to ponder. We have no miracles to ponder.

 

Who is to say those are his plays? Did you see him write them? There is argument over if it was him who wrote them. Even if he did, I was making a hypothetical situation that you disregard.

 

 

 

 

If someone is trying to give me what they say are true facts about an unfathomable, unknowable entity who works in mysterious ways, then yep, I feel free to ridicule their delusion.

 

Obviously you missed the point that I was pointing out your hypocrisy in that you ridicule others for trying to understand something you act as if you understand.

 

 

 

 

I do not limit theological thought and find nothing wrong in considerations of a God of the gaps.

 

A god of the gaps theory is idiocy. If you find nothing wrong with it I don't see how you can have any discussion on theology. I'm not sure what you mean by your limiting theological thought. A god of the gaps theory states god is interacting where our knowledge is lacking, aka what we don't understand is god. This idea is dumb because it implies things we know don't involve god, and things we don't know we won't know because we can't know god.

 

 

 

So God's miracle is not God's magic.

 

What difference do you see between miracles and magic?

 

The point I was making was that Christians believe EVERYTHING is gods miracle even if they don't believe in magic.

 

 

 

[lemur]

Yes, someone with training in a certain discipline will likely read something in a foreign language, that he has some knowledge of, may read more into the document than a novice reading in his own language.

 

Both could be wrong but the one reading in his own languages, because he knows nuance and possibly a deeper understanding of usage, will still likely get closer to the meaning the writer was trying to convey than someone reading a foreign tongue that he might not know, in terms of nuance and use.

You're giving too much credit to the mere fact that someone has been speaking a language since childhood. There are plenty of people who speak a language fluently since childhood but have poor literacy or critical/analytical/interpretive skills. Many people have strong intuitive meanings and assumptions they make when reading text or hearing rhetoric based on organic childhood learning which produce wrong interpretations. Don't believe me, just try teaching any academic/intellectual ideas to many non-intellectuals and see how they understand the things you say. They may be fluent in the language and feel it is their "native tongue" because they've used it since childhood and they speak no other language, but many aspects of it can remain "foreign" to them.

[Greatest I am]

 

Santa will not bring you toys if you misbehave, that is more fearful than something that will happen after death to most children.

 

Citation please.

 

 

I know of virtually no religious leader who demands everything in the bible is exact and correct.

 

Try the literalist and fundamental ones.

 

 

Just because the ones who do are more newsworthy and loud does not mean they are in the majority.

 

How would you know?

You just said they did not exist.

 

 

How so?

 

 

Seriously?

 

Atoms are similar to theology.

 

 

Who is to say those are his plays? Did you see him write them? There is argument over if it was him who wrote them. Even if he did, I was making a hypothetical situation that you disregard.

 

Yes. Because it is worthless.

 

 

Obviously you missed the point that I was pointing out your hypocrisy in that you ridicule others for trying to understand something you act as if you understand.

 

Yes. When they are trying to undersyand how snakes and donkeys can talk.

I will not stop either. It is my duty to correct stupidity.

 

 

A god of the gaps theory is idiocy

 

I know but if a theist wants to bring it up as a part of his theology, why would I not discuss it and refute it?

 

. If you find nothing wrong with it I don't see how you can have any discussion on theology.

 

You want to!

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your limiting theological thought. A god of the gaps theory states god is interacting where our knowledge is lacking, aka what we don't understand is god. This idea is dumb because it implies things we know don't involve god, and things we don't know we won't know because we can't know god.

 

 

 

 

 

The point I was making was that Christians believe EVERYTHING is gods miracle even if they don't believe in magic.

 

 

 

 

 

And I think that believing in miracles is exactly like believing in magic.

I ask again, what is the difference?

 

Regards

DL

 

You're giving too much credit to the mere fact that someone has been speaking a language since childhood. There are plenty of people who speak a language fluently since childhood but have poor literacy or critical/analytical/interpretive skills. Many people have strong intuitive meanings and assumptions they make when reading text or hearing rhetoric based on organic childhood learning which produce wrong interpretations. Don't believe me, just try teaching any academic/intellectual ideas to many non-intellectuals and see how they understand the things you say. They may be fluent in the language and feel it is their "native tongue" because they've used it since childhood and they speak no other language, but many aspects of it can remain "foreign" to them.

 

 

Skilled, un-skilled, learned or not. Sure, if you miss match the contestants in our little test to show the varying aspects that you show, of course we will find them that the odd time the one not reading his native language will win..

 

If the two contestants are fairly well matched in term of education and comprehension skills.

 

The one reading in his native language IMO will win every time.

 

 

This should show we have a draw as neither of us have any test scores to show.

Let's move on shall we.

If not, I threaten to start writing in French. LOL

 

Regards

 

DL