|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Just as an Electrolux salesman is obligated to demonstrate how much dirt an Electrolux vacuum cleaner can suck up, a religious believer is obligated to demonstrate how good religion can make people.
Religion fails to do that.
Throughout history, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.
It may be hasty to say that religion creates atrocities.
We may never know whether or not the Inquisition would have happened without Christianity or the nine-eleven attack without Islam.
We do know, however, that religion is powerless to prevent such atrocities.
I realize that you are making the defense that the Inquisition is not happening NOW, the Crusades are not happening NOW, and the witch hunts are not happening NOW.
But I don't see what the difference is.
The religion which is believed in now is the same religion which was believed in for the last 2000 years.
So it has already been proven that Christianity offers no protection against such calamities.
I think I know what Dawkins would say about all this.
He would say that there has been a trend toward religious tolerance, but that this trend did not come from within religion.
He attributes most other favorable social trends to secular causes.
In The God Delusion, he notes that religion had nothing to do with the women's rights movement or abolition of slavery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| itaewonguy wrote: |
MIND ME TOO! change your Avatar, makes you look like a pedophile!
that girl is probably 15 years old.. for god sake man!!!! |
Yelling at people isn't going to help your case any, even if they do have strange taste in avatars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| meangradin wrote: |
Who is doing that? Where your beliefs cross into my business is when spokespeople for your religion want to change laws in accordance with their religious beliefs. Then it seems fair to examine these beliefs.
I understand this frustration, as the "act theists" are lobbying hard these days. Personally, I see where they are comming from, but there are many of us, who are uncomfortable with this type of faith in action. I see faith as a personal thing, but I have to live according to that faith. However, I don't think it is correct to legislate a country in to belief; one has to make the choice for themself. |
Then we appear to be in full agreement. I think religious convictions are great. I take it on faith my parents love me. The big breasted 20 year old in my avatar loves me. These things get me through the day. It's only when faith claims make testable claims "that 20 year old's 38DD sloops will heal you" that I have issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meangradin
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I continue to get sucked in, but i can't help myself.
I don't think secular humanism is a bad thing; in fact, quite the opposite, as i have worked with non profit groups. But, I draw the line at deifying humanity.
Basically, my love of God, and readings from the New Test., compells me to want to make the earth a better place for everyone (be they a believer or non believer), as cliche as it sounds. I truly believe that my faith has to be put in to action by serving others. IMO, Jesus was the "Prince of Peace," so you can imagine how distressing I find it when certain global leaders claim to represent His ideas, but drop bombs on people, or try to place rules on those who wish to join Him. As Jesus once said, what you do to the worst of my enemies, you do unto me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| meangradin wrote: |
First, I don't see myself as a "neo Christian," but rather merely a Christian. In a parallel way to knowledge in science, ideas and beliefs evolve over time. Therefore, I see my views as connected to the past, but not wholly based in the past. I think you are attacking the straw man when you say that the church has only been a tool of evil, etc... Think about how the rise of protestantism lead to an explosion in literacy, as but one example. Undeniably, the Catholic church has done some awful things in the past, for which many contemporary leaders of the Catholic Church have apoligized (Not that I think they have to). Basicaly, I don't buy the idea that the church is uncorruptable because it is one and the same with God. I think it is an idea that the church tried to sell to the masses. The church is a body for man by man inspired by the Creator. I don't think it anyway reduces my faith that man can be an evil beast, including those that use the church for their own ends. And why would the church be any different than any other organisation that man controls? Even in the time of the Prophets, the churches were running amok.
And really, why should I have to justify the past, to live in the present? |
Maybe I have been a little too indirect. Obviously, you don't see any inconsistency in believing in the "same" religion that got us through the dark and middle ages, but I *do* see an inconsistency. Here it is: they are not the same religions. Your Christianity and the Christianity that was practiced 500 years ago (and 100, 50) years ago are not the same things. That is why I called you a neo-Christian. No problem if you don't want to assume that title yourself, but now you know what I mean when I say it at least.
Back to the point: they are not the same religions. Here's why I feel that this makes your beliefs inconsistent and strange: since you apparently have no problem disregarding the long and dark history of your religion, and instead subscribe to the neo-Christian ideas that the bible is *not* the literal word of God, that the Church is *not* infallable, and that the bible is more like *myth* than scripture, then it is precisely as if you had dug up some 2000 year-old books (or 4000) from a hole in the ground, read them, said "Oh, there's some interesting ideas in here," and started a religion around them. Now, that sounds kind of crazy, doesn't it? But this is exactly what it sounds like to me when you flippantly disregard the entirety of your religion's history. Am I making sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
Justin:
While the Bible may say many things that are inconsistent or false, to be fair everything must be taken in context, and the flat earth and such are not supposed to be taken literally according to Christians.
(And I'd have to agree. Much of the Bible was written as poetry, and similes and metaphors abound. To take it literally would be like taking the line "I'm walking on sunshine" literally.)
Also, I imagine the reason no one answered your dinosaur thing is that it doesn't really have any bearing on the subject. You know not all Christians are young-earth creationists, right? |
In other words, JustJohn, the Bible is still true whilst demonstrably false. That�s what you�re saying. Bible says Earth is flat? Christians in 1455 say Earth is flat and persecute/kill those who investigate the claim (unsurprising, since the Bible endorses totalitarianism and state terror on unbelievers). Christians in 2008 say Bible not to be taken literally. Do what ever it takes to maintain veracity of your beloved book of hate and celestial North Korea.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize Katrina and the Waves wrote "Walking on sunshine" as a systematic and meticulous attempt at science, history, theology and metaphysics.  When you compare Biblical falsehoods to pop songs, you're in trouble. Metaphors by definition use words to designate others. What precisely do you advocate is the metaphorical designation involved in the Genesis 1 creation account conflicting with the order of events that are known to science? In Genesis, Earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects. The order of events known and demonstrable by scienctific evidence is just the opposite. So?
It's an entirely odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the Bible and not to others. When it comes to fundamental questions, by what standards does one cherry pick the Bible? Why bother with the Bible at all if we have the ability to pick and choose what is right and wrong for today's society? I suspect religion to be a parasite on a much older moral and rational sense.
| meangradin wrote: |
| My point is this, I don't doubt your view that dinos existed and whatever before them, but for me, this is not a threat in any way to my faith as I believe that all life was created by God |
Can you give a theistic interpretation for their existence? That's what the thread requires. This is page 12 and no theist has given what I asked for 182 replies ago.
You appear confused by the intent of the thread, meangradin. I'm not asking you to say, basically, how you couldn't care less about the dinosaurs, their evolution, the age of the planet because you believe God created all life in its original form (which is a demonstrable falsehood, disproven by the literature cited in my OP that show how dinosaurs evolved from archosaurs and disproven by molecular studies that demonstrate how man evolved from chimpanzees). I'm asking for an argument from a theist - anything you like - as to the dinosaurs, not asking theists to ignore them. In your next reply if there is one, kindly provide what I asked for.
| meangradin wrote: |
| But, I draw the line at deifying humanity |
An atheistic deification of humanity would be self-contradictory. It doesn't exist.
Stick to the point please. Dinosaurs' evolution - what might have been Yahweh's thinking in your opinion?
| meangradin wrote: |
| Basically, my love of God, and readings from the New Test., compells me to want to make the earth a better place for everyone (be they a believer or non believer), as cliche as it sounds |
Science reveals the true roots of human morality. It stems not from a fictional deity and his regime, but through altruistic genes naturally selected in our evolutionary past. Humans have more sophisticated versions of the kinds of social instincts observable in other mammals. Think of chimps as  and humans as  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
It may be your opinion that science reveals the "true roots of morality", based on some provisional interpretation of evidence that seems consistent with a particular materialistic theory, but that doesn't rule out an original spiritual basis for morality.
The Vedic concept of spiritual evolution through all the various species after devolving from our original constitutional position in the spiritual universes gives a more complete theistic explanation.
Actually, Jesus never denied transmigration of the soul - it was officially denied for political reasons many years later (as Church leaders thought such an idea would lessen their control ...)
Only rebellious souls ever desire to enjoy independently from God so the material creation facilitated those desires, but God purposefully enacted harsh laws of nature in order to make suffering basic miseries and frustrations the norm for living in the material world - regardless of species.
Beginning with the Vedas, God also has given basic laws for humanity through various religious scriptures, which may vary in detail but are essentially one in their aim of trying to understand and love God.
The Vedic literatures describe that in the spiritual world, we can relate to God in various loving relationships (ranging from passive to intimate) but in our conditioned state under the material nature we can only relate to God as the "Supreme Father".
To show its love - and for its own good - a child should obey the father (and later that love can be expressed on other levels...)
The propensity to love that's in every living entity is actually our original dormant love for God.
Because we have long since forgotten that original pure loving feeling - perhaps even before the creation of this universe - we conditioned souls display that love in various perverted ways (though some of us are obviously more perverted than others  )
Even when we sincerely think we are experiencing "true love" it invariably will end in frustration or disappointment.
When the living entity is embodied in a lower species - like a dinosaur - it may think that it can be truly happy only if it could develop wings and fly.
Since "Supersoul" within the heart always understands and fulfills the desires of the eternally related individual soul the particular forms for all 8,400,000 species (representing different levels of consciousness) are created by the arrangement of superior intelligence to suit those desires (according to individual karma.)
At some point, we may all have desired to enjoy materially as dinosaurs (then birds, etc...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
It may be your opinion that science reveals the "true roots of morality", based on some provisional interpretation of evidence that seems consistent with a particular materialistic theory, but that doesn't rule out an original spiritual basis for morality.
The Vedic concept of spiritual evolution through all the various species after devolving from our original constitutional position in the spiritual universes gives a more complete theistic explanation.
Actually, Jesus never denied transmigration of the soul - it was officially denied for political reasons many years later (as Church leaders thought such an idea would lessen their control ...)
Only rebellious souls ever desire to enjoy independently from God so the material creation facilitated those desires, but God purposefully enacted harsh laws of nature in order to make suffering basic miseries and frustrations the norm for living in the material world - regardless of species.
Beginning with the Vedas, God also has given basic laws for humanity through various religious scriptures, which may vary in detail but are essentially one in their aim of trying to understand and love God.
The Vedic literatures describe that in the spiritual world, we can relate to God in various loving relationships (ranging from passive to intimate) but in our conditioned state under the material nature we can only relate to God as the "Supreme Father".
To show its love - and for its own good - a child should obey the father (and later that love can be expressed on other levels...)
The propensity to love that's in every living entity is actually our original dormant love for God.
Because we have long since forgotten that original pure loving feeling - perhaps even before the creation of this universe - we conditioned souls display that love in various perverted ways (though some of us are obviously more perverted than others )
Even when we sincerely think we are experiencing "true love" it invariably will end in frustration or disappointment.
When the living entity is embodied in a lower species - like a dinosaur - it may think that it can be truly happy only if it could develop wings and fly.
Since "Supersoul" within the heart always understands and fulfills the desires of the eternally related individual soul the particular forms for all 8,400,000 species (representing different levels of consciousness) are created by the arrangement of superior intelligence to suit those desires (according to individual karma.)
At some point, we may all have desired to enjoy materially as dinosaurs (then birds, etc...) |
That's just a load of ghee-ridden shit and you know it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
The more ghee the better (I'll die from clogged arteries and go back to Godhead ...  )
That opinion of yours lacks the conviction of one of your most keen insights:
"The more alcohol imbibed and the darker it gets the better I look." - the beaver ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
| That's just a load of ghee-ridden *beep* and you know it. |
I take issue with that second part.
When we hear an opinion which are vastly different from our own,
there is the temptation to doubt the bearer's sincerity.
I realize that, because I feel the same temptation.
This obviously works both ways, because Junior has charged us all with being latent Creationists.
There is one thing which we must all say in favor of theists of all kinds:
they are sincere.
Open any history book and read of the mass murders and mass persecutions which have made to fulfill God's will.
Surely the agents of these extreme measures were not merely playing a chess game.
Listen to the daily tally of suicide bombings in Allah's name.
Surely the agents of these attacks are not merely playing a video game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dome Vans
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
For a thread that is normally confined to the paranoia of the CE forum. Madam Hale has done an anorexic job of bringing that "dog chasing his tail" argument up to the Off Topic forum.
Let the thread die, please Jebus! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
In other words, JustJohn, the Bible is still true whilst demonstrably false. That�s what you�re saying. Bible says Earth is flat? Christians in 1455 say Earth is flat and persecute/kill those who investigate the claim (unsurprising, since the Bible endorses totalitarianism and state terror on unbelievers). Christians in 2008 say Bible not to be taken literally. Do what ever it takes to maintain veracity of your beloved book of hate and celestial North Korea. |
Alright, I'm sorry the first sentence wasn't clear. I meant that regardless of whether or not there are false things in the Bible, you need to evaluate each claim in context. (And if you are trying to refute it you have to refute the intended meaning in order to be successful.) Better?
As for the actual topic: The 4 corners of the earth thing is quite obviously figurative, and what the 1455 Christians thought about it is irrelevant to your initial claim.
| Justin Hale wrote: |
I'm sorry, I didn't realize Katrina and the Waves wrote "Walking on sunshine" as a systematic and meticulous attempt at science, history, theology and metaphysics. When you compare Biblical falsehoods to pop songs, you're in trouble. |
The Bible is not meant to be anything near that description, if that's what you're implying. Perhaps this is where you went wrong?
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Metaphors by definition use words to designate others. What precisely do you advocate is the metaphorical designation involved in the Genesis 1 creation account conflicting with the order of events that are known to science? In Genesis, Earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects. The order of events known and demonstrable by scienctific evidence is just the opposite. So? |
Red herring. It's possible this is a valid "Biblical falsehood," but it has nothing to do with the correction I was making.
| Justin Hale wrote: |
It's an entirely odd proposition that we should adhere to some parts of the Bible and not to others. When it comes to fundamental questions, by what standards does one cherry pick the Bible? Why bother with the Bible at all if we have the ability to pick and choose what is right and wrong for today's society? I suspect religion to be a parasite on a much older moral and rational sense. |
Red herring. I don't care. Not what I was talking about. However, since it has some relevance: You wouldn't get to pick and choose. You look at the context and see if it's literal or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
In other words, JustJohn, the Bible is still true whilst demonstrably false. That�s what you�re saying. Bible says Earth is flat? Christians in 1455 say Earth is flat and persecute/kill those who investigate the claim (unsurprising, since the Bible endorses totalitarianism and state terror on unbelievers). Christians in 2008 say Bible not to be taken literally. Do what ever it takes to maintain veracity of your beloved book of hate and celestial North Korea. |
Alright, I'm sorry the first sentence wasn't clear. I meant that regardless of whether or not there are false things in the Bible, you need to evaluate each claim in context. (And if you are trying to refute it you have to refute the intended meaning in order to be successful.) Better? |
Not really. You're clinging desperately to your beloved book of hate having veracity with a radically different approach to interpretation to its writers' intention and billions of other Christians for 2000 years.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| As for the actual topic: The 4 corners of the earth thing is quite obviously figurative |
Why is it obviously figurative? The biblical writers simply weren't aware the Earth is spherical and the Earth being flat, having 4 corners (Heaven beyond) and resting on pillars seems a reasonable attempt at science given their evidence. This is an example of the Bible still being true whilst demonstrably false. We know the literal claim is false, so Christians say it's figurative, and, Voil�, the Bible isn't false, say Christians. It's figurative!  Risible folks.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| what the 1455 Christians thought about it is irrelevant to your initial claim. |
What Christians thought in 1455 has the utmost relevance, since it illustrates the point perfectly.
1455 Christians: Bible word of God and literally, infallibly true
2008 Christians: Bible contextual, metaphorical and still true
In science and philosophy - which are as superior to religion as astronomy is to astrology - when falsehood is established, we dispense with the notion. In religion, keep belief forever. Israeli archeology debunks Exodus? Never mind, keep belief forever. Genesis totally screws up evolution? Never mind, keep belief forver. It's figurative! Earth's actual history 750,000 times longer than Bible said (and was not in fact created at the time of the Agricultural Revolution)? Never mind, keep belief forever. It's contextual and figurative!
| JustJohn wrote: |
| The Bible is not meant to be anything near that description, if that's what you're implying. Perhaps this is where you went wrong? |
The first book of the Bible alone attempts to document the creation of the whole of reality. The Bible is clearly a primitive attempt at science. Katrina and the Waves' Walking on Sunshine is not and your analogy thus risible.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Red herring. It's possible this is a valid "Biblical falsehood," but it has nothing to do with the correction I was making. |
In other words, you can't answer a simple question about Biblical interpretation. It's not a red herring. A red herring occurs when a totally different topic is introduced and a prior topic abandoned. You say biblical interpretation is to be contextual and nonliteral. I asked you to interpret Genesis' totally wrong account of the origin of the universe and of animals in the way in which you advocate one interpret the Bible. That does not a red herring make.
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Red herring. I don't care. Not what I was talking about. However, since it has some relevance: You wouldn't get to pick and choose. You look at the context and see if it's literal or not. |
In other words, keep belief in the Bible forever.
How ironic that you seem to love the red herring fallacy yet your entire contribution in this thread is a red herring.
1. Justin Hale wants to talk about the dinosaurs
2. JustJohn introduces biblical interpretation
3. Dinosaurs abandoned
Got anything worthwhile to say on the dinosaurs? What was your beloved genocidal celestial dictator thinking by having huge reptiles rule the planet for 165 million years? How ought one incorprate these facts into a theistic view of reality, do you think? Try to make any further reply in this thread address this directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Got anything worthwhile to say on the dinosaurs? What was your beloved genocidal celestial dictator thinking by having huge reptiles rule the planet for 165 million years? How ought one incorprate these facts into a theistic view of reality, do you think? Try to make any further reply in this thread address this directly. |
when god had dinosuars in mind he knew one day he will create steven speilberg so he can bring us Jurassic Park..  oh and not to mention the ton of jobs to go with it...
all part of gods plan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We are often told that the scientific impossibilities in the Bible are figurative, but we are never told what they symbolize.
The four corners of the earth are a symbol of what?
God opening up the windows of the heavens is a symbol of what?
The stars falling from the sky are a symbol of what?
The mountain where one can see all the nations of the world is a symbol of what?
Jesus returning in a cloud of glory is a symbol of what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
