BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

How about a discussion of the Bible, Cover to Cover?
https://www.booktalk.org/how-about-a-discussion-of-the-bible-cover-to-cover-t6937.html
Page 1 of 3

Author:  stahrwe [ Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  How about a discussion of the Bible, Cover to Cover?

Is this the format to solicit this as a discussion book?

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:02 am ]
Post subject: 

This is a really tough post for me. I have written a few paragraphs and then deleted them several times now. There just doesn't seem to be a soft way of saying what I feel needs to be said.

But I will try. Please don't take what I'm saying personally. But this is how I really feel and I'm only being honest and trying to give you a fair response.

BookTalk.org is an almost spam-free forum community. Our site is designed in such a way as to deter uneducated trolls and troublemakers from ever even creating accounts in the first place. If you've ever participated in another online forum you might have noticed the immature fighting and name calling. And I know that you have endured your fair share of attacks here on BookTalk.org, but I've read every one of them and, for the most part, the attacks were primarily in the form of sound arguments. Had this been a different type of community the attacks would have been more childish and aggressive.

We don't want to attract people that add more negative than positive. And Bible Thumpers, for lack of a better way to describe them, add no real meat to the discussions. We're targeting this community to a more educated niche and a Bible forum would be a magnet for the wrong sort of people. Most of the Christians that participate in online forums couldn't pass a 3rd grade science test. I don't say this as an insult. I mean literally....they would fail the exam.

I have participated in dozens of online forums including Christian forums. There is a TREMENDOUS lack of education in Christian online communities. We don't want those people joining BookTalk.org. We really don't. For me to have the motivation to do all of the work that is required to keep this site running smoothly I need to enjoy logging in every day. And I enjoy logging in right now because I am humbled by the minds that have made BookTalk.org their home. I stand to learn something just about every discussion here. But if we started to attract people that believe in miracles, walking on water, heaven, Satan, etc. we would drive away the more educated members. And our focus would shift very quickly. We select our books democratically. If we gain uneducated people and lose the brighter people what happens to BookTalk.org?

Author:  stahrwe [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:04 am ]
Post subject: 

Chris,

I appreciate your position, on the other hand, it seems to me that several of the discussions are assumed to be one sided on issues, why ask Are you an atheist or have a discussion Creationism vs Evolution unless you are interested in opposing viewpoints. I have attempted to be civil and polite in my posts and responses, but ultimately it is your group and you have the right to determine its membership. There are answers to every challenge posed to me about the Bible. However, many of the answers involve more than just a sentence or two (see post regarding geneologies) which is why I suggested the full book study. I wish you the best in the future and if you ever have any questions I can help with feel free to ask.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

We don't have to study the history and written mythologies of Santa Claus or the Eastern Bunny in order to debate their existence. Likewise, whether or not Jesus and/or God exist is not contained in the Bible. We reject the Bible as truly historical and factual. Using the Bible to support arguments is circular reasoning. What does it matter that a book in the Bible says "X" about Jesus when you know that the book was written at least 70 years after Jesus was reported to have lived?

There is no soft way of saying that we're not going to dumb down BookTalk.org by adding a forum to discuss the Bible. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but adding such a forum could be the beginning of the end for this community. We would attract people that would drive away the intelligent and educated members.

Author:  geo [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 

stahrwe wrote:
. . . on the other hand, it seems to me that several of the discussions are assumed to be one sided on issues, why ask Are you an atheist or have a discussion Creationism vs Evolution unless you are interested in opposing viewpoints.


Actually the Bible can be discussed as literature or as an historical document and I think it would be worthwhile to do so. I took a course in college called 'The Bible as Literature' and, if memory serves, the class focused entirely on the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament do contain some beautiful, poetic passages and it is a remarkable document in many ways. However, I agree with Chris that such a discussion here risks degenerating into 'debate' over the alleged divine nature of the Bible. No thanks, we get quite enough of that as it is. The Bible is self-evidently written by humans and anyone who persists in believing it is as divine is simply holding on to a delusional belief. Which is fine if that's your personal belief, but it's not something that can be discussed in reasonable or logical terms. Your answer to everything is goddidit. Creationism versus evolution is not a debatable issue because the Creationist position is based on a supernatural belief that cannot be grounded in science or reason no matter how hard you try. It really is as simple as that.

Gould had it partially right. The two areas do not overlap.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Author:  stahrwe [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

geo wrote:
Creationism versus evolution is not a debatable issue because the Creationist position is based on a supernatural belief that cannot be grounded in science or reason no matter how hard you try. It really is as simple as that.

Gould had it partially right. The two areas do not overlap.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria



Stahrwe: I totally disagree with this assertion. It is my opinion that we are on the verge of a systhesis of science and religion. In a theistic universe, the created, including science, cannot be separated from the creator. I regret that I will not be using this forum as a sounding board for my thoughts. That's too bad too because if CERN manages enought TeV we might just get to see the fingerprint of God.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
CERN manages enought TeV


What does this mean?

Author:  geo [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

stahrwe wrote:
I totally disagree with this assertion. It is my opinion that we are on the verge of a systhesis of science and religion. In a theistic universe, the created, including science, cannot be separated from the creator. I regret that I will not be using this forum as a sounding board for my thoughts. That's too bad too because if CERN manages enought TeV we might just get to see the fingerprint of God.


Note: CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) runs the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) and TeV (trillion electron volts) is a measurement of energy.

(I googled it.) :D

Just what would the fingerprint of god be exactly? If it's a previously unknown phenomenon, discovering it would place it firmly in the natural realm, would it not? And God by its very definition is a supernatural entity. So if you are waiting around for a scientific experiment to verify God's existence, I'm afraid it'll be in line right after the second coming of Christ.

Anyway, I really like your enthusiasm Stahrwe. Seriously. Have you ever thought about why you want God to exist so badly?

Author:  stahrwe [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm not talking about a physical smudge like they lift on CSI but something. That book you all despise so much tells me that Jesus holds the universe together, so as physicists get closer to the ultimate particle forces, might we glimpse God's fingerprint. Certainly much of QED seems more mystery and philosophy than empiricism, from Shrodinger's cat to quantum tunneling physical reality is not as easy to 'measure' and explain as one might think. I have not doubt that God exists. Thirty years ago I would not have said that. Then I was where many of you are now and I wasted a lot of time. Now I am wondering if scientists might find God in the paradoxes of their equations or the investigation of fermions and bosons.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Then I was where many of you are now and I wasted a lot of time.


You were never where we are today. This is an offensive statement and I think you know it. Very few people go from being educated to uneducated without some sort of head trauma.

I don't know many people that, at one time, had a decent grasp of science, and then later discarded all that they learned only to appear completely ignorant of science. This is what you're saying you did if you're saying you once were like us. I highly doubt you at one time were a critical thinker with an above average grasp on biological evolution. You've shown us that you don't even understand the most basics of earth science. Are you arguing that you at one time did?

Author:  CWT36 [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

stahrwe wrote:
= That book you all despise so much tells me that Jesus holds the universe together, so as physicists get closer to the ultimate particle forces, might we glimpse God's fingerprint.


I don't despise the Bible, however I do despise what you do with it. It is a book of myth, it is not a book of science.

stahrwe wrote:
= Then I was where many of you are now and I wasted a lot of time.


I've said it elsewhere, you obviously are a person of intelligence. You are wasting your time today. Why put so much time and effort into parsing a book of myth in order to pretend it's a book of science. If you could take your intelligence and apply it to reality based work you would most likely achieve something pretty impressive.

But you won't, and that makes me angry. You'd rather put your efforts into saving the souls of a bunch of educated atheists. You my friend, are wasting your time.

Chris pointed out that you have entertained several debates, and then left us hanging. I have at least two unanswered questions out there that you have chosen to ignore. If you respond to my questions I will continue our discussion. If you choose not to, I will presume that I also have been wasting my time trying to have a reasonable dialogue with you.

Author:  stahrwe [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Regarding the YEC debate, I posted that my support of same is based on what is commonly calle Mature Creation, and the example I gave was of Adam being examined by doctors the instant after his creation. He would appear to be 20 years old instead of zero. There are also arguments based on timelines provided by the Bible but there we run into a Catch 22. In order to fully explain and backup my arguments, I need to support it from the Bible and you consider that circular reasoning. I would argue it isn't with one example. In 70 AD the nation of Israel was destroyed and Jerusalem razed to the ground. For 1800 years prophecies in the Bible which predicted the return of Israel were discounted as figurative. Then, in 1948, Israel was reborn.

As for me leaving two of your questions unanswered, what were they?

Author:  Interbane [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

By mature, you also mean that light was created halfway enroute to Earth, dinosaur bones were "placed" in the ground for humans to discover, etc?

Author:  CWT36 [ Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

stahrwe wrote:
As for me leaving two of your questions unanswered, what were they?


These are the two posts that went unanswered:

CWT36 wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
CWT36 wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Sometimes the pain we experience has a purpose we cannot understand at the moment. Google: Jim Elliott

Also, as stated before, what you are demanding is a restoration of humanity to the Garden of Eden. ...


This is not an answer to my question. I asked;

A loving being would stop someone elses pain and suffering if they could? Correct?

It's a clear question. If the answer is yes, it's yes. If the answer is no, it's no.


Stahrwe

Define loving being.
Define pain.
Does pain include withdrawal effects from abused substances. Isn't such pain an incentive to others not to engage in those behaviors and in that sense a good thing?


Let's use your definition. Give me a one sentence definition of each.




Quote:
You want to talk about Noah's ark? I want to know how where he found the penguins and the polar bears. I want to know how he kept the whales alive in the ark. How did he carry enough food and fresh water? What did he do with the thousands of pounds of elephant dung? How did he keep the carnivorous animals from eating their prey? When the flood receded and the animals returned to dry ground, where did they find food in the flood ravaged land? When the whales and the two plankton returned to the ocean, how did the two plankton that were on board the ark multiply exponentially fast enough to provide food so the whales could survive?


I realize this is more than two questions, but I am counting all the Noah's ark questions as one.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Mature Creation = God created all of the glaring inconsistencies, contradictions and illogical nonsense just to trick humans and give us the impression that the universe and earth are billions of years old.

Stahrwe, do you honestly believe this? I mean seriously honestly?

You're a big fan of the Institute for Creation Research aren't you?

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... ew&ID=1088

This is the crap that they teach:

Quote:
Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start.

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/