Pathway Machine

Energy, Bob. Dynamic energy the Bible calls it.

Are agnostics believers or unbelievers, because, you know, believers don't know - have knowledge - they have faith. Do you want to know why? Let's say your a very wealthy person. Person. Just one. You want a faithful companion, a spouse perhaps. Two people. If you advertise your wealth what will likely happen? If you don't tell them you're wealthy they are far more likely to be sincere. God doesn't want unbelievers. God wants believers. People who want his kingdom over the current system. People who, unlike Adam, appreciate his rightful sovereignty. That's why Jesus didn't want the unbelievers to understand his message. So they, in his words, wouldn't be saved. They don't want it. That's perfect. Everyone wins. Oh. Well, I just got here, maybe you could show me around show me some of those threads you and the others have made before I got here. Maybe someone who actually knows what they are talking about wouldn't hurt the - what? Scientific integrity of the forum. [Laughs] Lot drunk and his daughters? David, Uriah and Uriah's wife? Solomon? Don't even get me started on Solomon. With wisdom granted by God. History? Whew, boy. I'm a bit rusty, but The Historicity of the Bible First we should establish a pivotal date that both Biblical and secular histories largely agree upon, such as 29 CE. The early months of 29 CE fell in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar's reign, who was named emperor by the Roman Senate on September 15, 14 CE (Gregorian calendar). This year also marks when John the Baptist began his ministry, baptizing Jesus six months later (Luke 3:1-3; 3:21, 23; 1:36). Alternatively, we could use 539 BCE, the year Cyrus the Persian overthrew Babylon, as confirmed by historians like Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets. Cyrus issued a decree allowing the Jews to return from exile, likely in the winter of 538 BCE or spring of 537 BCE. This timing would have allowed them sufficient preparation for the four-month journey to Jerusalem, arriving by the seventh month (Tishri - October 1) of 537 BCE (Ezra 1:1-11; 2:64-70; 3:1). Egyptian chronology holds a unique position due to its extensive use in ancient historical studies and because it intersects with the history of Israel at crucial points. According to biblical accounts, Israel entered Egypt around 1728 BCE and experienced the Exodus in 1513 BCE, 215 years later. Pharaoh Shishak's assault on Jerusalem happened during the fifth year of Rehoboam's reign in 993 BCE. King So of Egypt was contemporary with Hoshea, around 758 - 740 BCE, and Pharaoh Necho's battle, which resulted in the death of King Josiah, likely occurred in 629 BCE (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 17:4; 2 Chronicles 35:20-24). Modern historians often diverge from these dates by up to a century, though by Necho's time, the variance narrows to about 20 years. Modern historians rely on documents like Egyptian king lists and annals, including the fragmentary Palermo Stone, which outlines the first five "dynasties," and the Turin Papyrus, providing incomplete records of kings from the "Old Kingdom" to the "New Kingdom." These, along with other inscriptions, were chronologically organized by Manetho, an Egyptian priest from the third century BCE. Manetho categorized Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties, a system still employed by modern Egyptologists. His chronology is supported by astronomical data from Egyptian texts detailing lunar phases and the heliacal rising of Sothis (the Dog Star), allowing for the construction of a chronological framework. Manetho's work survives only through the later writings of historians like Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus, from the third, fourth, and late eighth to early ninth centuries CE. These sources are fragmentary and often distorted, compounded by scribal errors, revisions, and the inclusion of much legend and myth. Part of the issue with Manetho's chronology is that he included local princely lines from which later rulers of all Egypt emerged. Consequently, several Egyptian kings could rule simultaneously in different regions, not just in succession, leading to an inflated total number of years for Egyptian history. Thus, when the Bible places the Deluge at 2370 BCE, it implies that Egyptian civilization must have started post-Flood, even though traditional Egyptian chronology extends back to 3000 BCE. Egyptologist Dr. Hans Goedicke of Johns Hopkins University proposed a controversial theory linking the Biblical account of the Red Sea crossing and the Exodus with a volcanic eruption at Thera in 1477 BCE, suggesting that this event caused a tsunami which drowned the Egyptian army. However, this theory largely ignores the Biblical narrative, which does not mention any such wave. The Hyksos period in Egyptian history requires the same level of skepticism and scrutiny as other historical accounts. Some scholars suggest that the Hyksos, considered foreign invaders, ruled Egypt during the time when Joseph and his family arrived, reasoning that a non-Egyptian might more easily gain a high position under foreign rule. However, this theory contradicts the Biblical narrative where Potiphar, an Egyptian court official, and other native Egyptians surrounded Joseph (Genesis 39:1; Genesis 43:32). Josephus, who introduced the term "Hyksos," acknowledged a connection between these invaders and the Israelites but disputed many of Manetho's details. Josephus favored interpreting "Hyksos" as "Captive Shepherds" over "Shepherd Kings." According to Manetho, the Hyksos took control of Egypt without a fight and proceeded to destroy its cities and temples. He describes a later Egyptian uprising that led to a brutal conflict, culminating in a siege at Avaris, where an agreement allowed the Hyksos to leave Egypt peacefully to settle in Judea and even build Jerusalem. Manetho also adds a fantastical detail, which Josephus dismisses as fiction, about an influx of 80,000 leprous and diseased people settling in Avaris, leading to further complications (Against Apion 1:14; 26; 28). Modern historians accept the idea of a Hyksos conquest but disagree with Josephus's association of the Hyksos with the Israelites, citing a lack of corroborative ancient Egyptian records for the "Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasties." The absence of records leads to speculation of a power vacuum during the "Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties," and it's generally concluded that the "Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties" were under Hyksos control based on limited evidence, folklore, and conjecture. Archaeological interpretations of the Hyksos vary; some describe them as northern invaders with chariots, others as gradual infiltrators. Jaquetta Hawkes in "The World of the Past" (1963, p. 444) suggests they were Semitic traders rather than invaders, which raises questions about how these groups could have gained control during Egypt's peak power in the "Twelfth Dynasty." This reflects considerable confusion in ancient and modern interpretations of the Hyksos period, casting doubt on its validity. Moreover, Egypt's history is intertwined with its priesthood and scribes, which might have led to propagandistic narratives to explain the actions of Egyptian gods in relation to Jehovah and the Exodus. The lack of Egyptian records of the Exodus can be explained by the tendency of pharaohs to document only victories, not defeats, and to erase anything conflicting with their nationalistic ideology. For instance, Thutmose III removed inscriptions of Queen Hatshepsut. Manetho's anti-Semitic bias is evident in his accounts, as noted by Josephus, who quotes Manetho describing the Jewish ancestors as subduing Egypt before being expelled (Against Apion 1:26). Despite the historical inaccuracies in Manetho's work, he acknowledges the presence of Jews in Egypt. Josephus also references other historians like Chaeremon and Lysimachus, who similarly connect Joseph and Moses's expulsion from Egypt. Jeroboam's flight to Egypt under Shishak's rule (1 Kings 11:40) and Shishak's subsequent invasion of Judah in 933 BCE, documented by archaeological finds like the Megiddo stele and Karnak inscriptions, show Egypt's interests in controlling trade routes rather than solely supporting the northern kingdom (2 Chronicles 12:1-12). Pharaoh Necho, son of Psammetichus I, is noted by Herodotus for his naval and canal projects. During Josiah's reign, Necho's involvement in regional politics led to Josiah's death at Megiddo, followed by Necho's actions against Judah, including the imposition of Jehoiakim as a vassal (2 Chronicles 35:20-36:4; 2 Kings 23:29-35). Necho's defeat at Carchemish by the Babylonians soon after marked a shift in regional power (Jeremiah 46:2). Well, that's about half of it. I'm sure you and the others are eager for the other half but too much of a good thing, huh? I wrote that, what? 10 15 years ago on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Steve and I go way back. He used to link all of my response to his site on his site. That's was nice of him wasn't it! Actually, that was taken from an English atheist who used to post there - Jimbo. Or Rambo. I think it was Rambo. He was a history buff and really enjoyed that discussion. I also published it on Sam Harris site the Reason Project when I was an writer there. Nor would I. As it turns out, believing and unbelieving ideologues don't take too kindly to truth. But if you don't mind, in case someone should pass by who does - what could it hurt, huh? Science isn't completely appalled by debate and knowledge, are they? No! And if they are we won't hold it against them, will we? They can just ignore us, and even down vote us with zealous fervor. We don't care, do we!

Sure . . . What gave you that idea. I'm interested in discussing the Bible. That's my thing. It's a religious book. I have a considerable amount of stuff on science and the Bible. If you're talking the Bible I don't care what your approach is. But let's be serious for a minute and drop the territorial pissing, tribal mentality and guarded hostility. I'm talking about you guys. Yeah. My God (science) is better than your God (religion) stuff. Huh? My God isn't religion. I could say lots of stuff about religion and the Bible that was bad. My God doesn't dislike your God. There is no animosity there. My criticism is for those who's "scientific" approach to the Bible is found wanting. That's all. Imagine me making a religion board [shudders] and having a science portion of it devoted to Science and anyone coming there to talk about science my responding to them as if they were washing their dirty socks in the punch bowl. No Kool-aid! No Kool-aid jokes! Yes. I think not only do you owe me an apology but I should be welcomed and honored. Huh? I'm joking. Sort of. You know . . . [looks from side to side] them. Okay. I'll say it again. The first account is chronological and the second is topical. So, in the second aspects of creation are introduced in line with the narrative rather than in the chronological order of the first account. So, it was all created for Adam. Once it was done Adam was created. The last of creation. The topical account is given from his perspective. There's a brief prologue, then Adam was to live in the garden so it is mentioned. Adam was to name all of the animals so they are mentioned even though the first account makes it clear they were created first. My condolences. I've been doing this since 95-96. Well, they are people that are atheists. I'm a person that's theist. As I've mentioned the term believers and unbelievers is more suitable to me, but there's not much difference. I found it necessary to use those terms after they - the atheist people - started developing various terms for their degree of atheism. I don't have the patience for that nonsense. You either believe or you don't.

Sorry, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant the reader. The collective. Royal. It has been my experience that when I post that video the unbelievers don't respond well to it. I think maybe because they tend to be liberal and don't care for Peterson. Okay. It's an interesting one. God doesn't have to exist to have influenced the building of cultures. That I do not know. All art is propaganda they say. I think you've said that before? Someone said something like that. I don't really think in those terms. My interest is specifically in Bible study and I'm only introduced to things like New Atheism through discussions like this. I was talking about the discussions I've had with what I call "militant fundamentalist atheists" and "Nationalistic Apostate Christians." They're just people like you and me. I use words to describe their philosophies as I understand them to have been presented to me. I don't know if it's the same on your end but I only get an empty generic image placeholder with the file name faithless.pdf then a big blank space. I tried highlighting it (C, C & P) and that didn't work. I wonder what claims those would be. I think the atheistic people I've talked to over the last 30 years tend to see religion in the limited Abrahamic sense. They seem oblivious to atheistic religions like Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.

My interest in and knowledge of creationism is about the same as my interest in and knowledge of science. I only know what others have told me. What they believe. So, if you want to share more about that I'm open to it. Care to expand on that?

Both. Could you give me an example of your experience? There are two Genesis accounts, the first chronological and the second topical. They are simply the same events given in a different order. I'm up for suggestions on alternative nomenclatures. Oh, sure. I don't know if they have discussions on the subject. I personally don't recall any. I only speak form personal experience. My take is as follows; linked to Bible hub where you can see the Hebrew for yourself and compare translations. Genesis Chapter 1 [Genesis 1:1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action. At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards. [Genesis 1:2] The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth. The Hebrew word ruach, translated as spirit, indicates any invisible active force. Wind, breath, or mental inclination, for example. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Invisible to man but producing results. Throughout scripture it is often referred to as God's hands or fingers in a metaphorical sense. (Psalm 8:3; 19:1) [Genesis 1:3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable. The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action: A Distinctive Translation of Genesis by J.W. Watts (1963): "Afterward God proceeded to say, 'Let there be light'; and gradually light came into existence." Benjamin Wills Newton's translation (1888): "And God proceeded to say [future], Let Light become to be, and Light proceeded to become to be [future]." The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band. [Genesis 1:4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis. [Genesis 1:5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8 / Proverbs 25:13 / Psalm 90:4 / Isaiah 49:8 / Matthew 10:15) It is interesting - to me at least - that the seventh day continues to this day and will only culminate upon man entering into God's day of rest. (Hebrews Chapter 4) The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18) [Genesis 1:6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes. [Genesis 1:7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6) [Genesis 1:11] The Biblical kind, from the Hebrew leminoh, Greek genos, and Latin genus, differs from the Evolutionist kind. The Biblical "kind" can be defined as divisions in which cross fertility can occur, a boundary between these kinds is drawn where fertilization ceases. Apple trees, for example, don’t produce broccoli, squirrels don’t produce horses. In biology a kind applies to animals and plants which possess one or more distinctive characteristics, meaning the biological term kind may contain several varieties within a Biblical kind. [Genesis 1:14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [3] The sun, moon and stars are set as a sign of the seasons, days and years. A most accurate timepiece. The use of the term “sign” is often mistaken as a reference to astrology, which is incorrect. See What The Bible Says About Astrology and Does The Bible Condemn Astrology? [Genesis 1:16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [1] [Genesis 1:20] The word soul, from the Hebrew nephesh, means "breather." The soul is in the blood, the life itself, of any breathing creature. At Genesis 9:3-4, for example, the Hebrew word nephesh can be translated as life or soul. [Genesis 1:21] Sea monsters, from the Hebrew tanninim, great reptiles. The Hebrew term remes means to creep or move about; an aimless movement. It covers a variety of creatures and distinguishes these animals from domestic or wild birds, beasts and fish. [Genesis 1:24] Cattle; domestic or tame animal (Hebrew behemah). [Genesis 1:25] There are two creation accounts. The first is a chronological account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) and the second is given according to topical relevance. (Genesis 2:5-4:26) They differ in order and are often wrongly thought to contradict one another. [Genesis 1:26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7 / Proverbs 8:30 / John 1:3 / Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love. [Genesis 1:27] Too often it is overlooked by selfish, dominating men that woman too were created in God’s image, and thus deserving respect. [Genesis 1:31] God’s creation is good. There is no sickness, disease or slow progression to death. The small area they reside in is a paradise reflective of the potential, and in fact the purpose of growing throughout the entire planet. It isn’t God’s purpose for us to live in sin on Earth and then move on to heaven. The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say. Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5) Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8) Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13) Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19) Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23) Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

What is the alternative? It isn't evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with creation. There is nothing to compare to creation.

There's several different points I could address there. If it weren't for religion I would have absolutely no interest in discussing science. I'm not conversant and even as an unbeliever for 27 years couldn't possibly care less about science. I have nothing against it, but no interest. To me pitting the two or comparing the two is a necessary evil, so to speak. I think it's silly but am compelled to do so in the atheist arena. I have to get that out of the way first. To me, your aversion to the binary seems odd given that you seem to think of science and religion in that light. It could be that you, not unlike myself, are compelled out of necessity or it could be that I'm overly defensive and am seeing you that way. Ideological fixation. I try to keep that in check but I'm an imperfect person. When someone says something like "science is so much better at it" I just can't understand that thinking. That would seem to be like me saying religion is so much better at analyzing spiritual matters. Duh. Because science doesn't. So then when someone, who appears at least in a casual manner, representing science, says something about angels it's most likely they are responding to religion in a derogatory manner - BECAUSE - of religion being misrepresented in ignorance by casual representatives of it. So that's where I see science at now. When I see an atheist, in debate, making all sorts of ignorant claims about the creation account of Genesis I can't help but pity them because they are responding to creationists. That warrants caution on my part to try and not get into that same trap when criticizing science. It is my opinion that organized religion is a loathsome thing because of the lack of there having been, historically, a separation of church and state. But I don't think religion would have ever destroyed the entire world. I'm making the distinction between the world and the planet. The Bible talks about the end of the world, but it talks about it having ended several times. There is a far more dangerous lack of separation of science and state, in my opinion. As dangerous to science as it was to religion, but far more capable and likely to destroy the entire world. So what I call "science minded atheists" will often scoff at the book of Revelation and the people of its time being superstitious ignorant people describing the end of the world in celestial terms. Stars, sun, moon. But they are the ignorant ones because the book references political and social upheaval using the celestial in a metaphoric sense. Government, people, environment (land, world). The same terminology was used in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel on a smaller scale. Terminology that described the political and social upheaval of Jerusalem (a world or system. arrangement, cosmos) later describes the same on a larger scale. The entire world. There are more examples of this than I could remember. In conclusion, if science is knowledge, you have to know religion to make those comparisons and assumptions. The defense is, then, that science doesn't do that. Of course it doesn't. But they do. They do it in the name of science.

I was raised as atheist/irreligious. Loathed religion. Still do but for different reasons. Organized, not individual beliefs. I wasn't taught Santa Clause and had to be careful not to give that away to kids my age. Had to look at it from another perspective and feel fortunate I wasn't the adorable idiot people often want their children to be. Later, after becoming a believer I had to examine the possible literal existence of God, which reminded me of Santa. Santa does exist, as a mythological person possibly based on a literal person and as a marketing device at the mall and on street corners. God's existence is like that. I believe Jehovah to literally exist and other Gods not to. God is simply a word that means mighty/venerated. The atheist believe that God doesn't exist but that would mean they created him in their image. Not the theists. Doesn't make sense. Our societies were formulated upon mythological presuppositions. That, it appears, is not unusual.

Emotive? It seems to me that it is possible that the offense could be in the reception rather than presentation. If there are two binary descriptive terms suffice. Could it be overcomplicated by unnecessary (Ockham's razor) terms? Liberals destroy conservatives conserve, for example. Apathetic protestation? It doesn't make sense to me. There seems to be an increasing tendency towards hypocritical tyranny. I mean in general, not with you personally. I don't know you from Adam. In order to understand variations in human behavior it would seem necessary to dismantle and perceive vicariously these variations objectively. Okay, I think this is this and that is that, so let's examine them carefully from our own perspective and perception. Judge them on our own fallible position. To conclude that I think this or that is wrong for me is not a negation of an alternative or insistence upon it unless you protest the perspective of another which goes beyond the intent of the original understanding you set out to do in the first place. For example, Brits are much better educated than we are in the states. That's due to the industrial revolution and JD Rockefeller's grooming obedient workers rather than scholars. The Skinner method of education that comes from Prussia where the beliefs of the student, no matter what they are, must be eradicated. Consequently no one believes in anything and intelligence or even understanding is frowned upon as an affront. Killing with kindness. That's fine, but I don't think anyone said you did.

Really? How so? Into what categories do you fit into?

Unfortunately that is true. Jesus was no part of the world and said his followers were to be no part of the world. Satan tempted him with the world and he resisted, they tried to make him king and he fled. Unfortunately many, perhaps most of his alleged followers don't see it that way. But they don't care either. It's just a means to an end. I'm going to have to work on my allusions. I was born and raised atheist/irreligious. Most of the people I've known throughout my life have been atheists. I think there is a definite distinction between the majority of atheists who are apathetic and the minority who are "militant." The ideological struggle I refer to is between the latter and the fundamental nationalistic Christian. There's also a sort of intolerance of anything spiritual, which I get, but the struggle or conflict I refer to is sociopolitical. I don't see the militant atheist as not believing in God I see them as wanting to be God. Sort of a different take on imitatio dei. I myself prefer the terms believer and unbeliever. I also prefer Hitchens' term antitheist. To me a theist is one with God(s) and an atheist is one without God(s) but there is no such thing as the latter because as Penn & Teller said, everyone's got a gri-gri. It isn't about faith because faith is just one way not just belief in the existence of but also trust. I'm irreligious and apolitical. I know politicians exist but I have no faith in them. Demons don't have faith, they know and yet shudder. Just because you have no faith in gods don't mean you think they don't exist. And just because you do have faith in gods don't mean you think they do exist. A god can be anyone or anything that is venerated. Natural, supernatural, human, spirit, mortal, etc.

In the past we've had enough. Maybe you don't realize how your emotional politicization and condemnation without a trial damaged me on a personal level. Talking to you on a personal level is like having a casual conversation with a rapist of ones child. It isn't that you were wrong, though you was, it's the way you handled it. That's water under the bridge, I can't ask for forgiveness and be unforgiving, but nevertheless, I can't talk to you. Just keep it impersonal. I haven't changed so if I'm as bad as you said then that shouldn't be a problem. We've said enough and you were the first to silence me. I know that. To me science minded atheists are basically a product of scientism. Like the religious create an illusion of moral superiority science minded atheists create an illusion of intellectual superiority. You're a fool if you believe differently than them even if they are almost completely ignorant of what you believe. They use science as a crutch for their own sociopolitical gratification much like the self-righteous use God and the Bible. I see the conflict of atheism and theism as an unnecessary temporal façade. We were talking about opinions. Science and theology are fallible. Speaking absolute truths on most subjects isn't scientific it's doctrinal. Or at least opinion. Science is opinion no matter how thorough the methodology or otherwise it would be infallible and therefore obsolete. Science, as knowledge etymologically speaking seems a misnomer to me. With knowledge the investigation is obsolete. this is what theists mean when they say science minded atheists are "religious." Ideology, after all, is the science of ideas. There isn't anything wrong with ideas, even bad ones - we learn by failing. It was my fault, though, as usual I didn't express myself well. By science I mean science minded atheists. I didn't make that distinction although I later clarified it. Stating that it is all opinion in my mind implied that my observations are theological and anecdotal. Faith doesn't warrant scientific explanations or justification. To me that seems obvious. And anyway when you look carefully at words like evidence, truth, faith, they are often misapplied, overestimated, perhaps? My point, this thread, the OP is about the distinction between the philosophical theological concept of the soul compared to the Biblical and practical Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche. One of them is supernatural and can't be tested by science. So it's unscientific to make any claims regarding its existence or nonexistence. That is belief/disbelief. Opinion. Anecdotal. The Hebrew nephesh and Greek psyche are words unhappily translated into soul, but the latter (psyche) also has dimension. From Aristotle's butterfly not dissimilar, I think, to Chuang Tzu's dream. These are things that can take you to other places on a philosophical level without practical or mundane constraints. A sort of intellectual excursion, I suppose. Maybe that's just me, though. Always measuring out the quixotic (impractical) and mundane (irreligious). The OP was about religion, and the soul was used later as an example of how religion and even science can transmogrify an accurate understanding. That isn't to say, though, that religion and science are sentient entities that could perform such distortions. Not that we would need them to anyway. I make the distinction between science and "science" minded, between the Platonic and the Biblical soul. Between the quixotic and the mundane. Between knowledge and ignorance.

No, I don't think it is. Not that that would be exclusively the motivation. The Bible tells the reader not to believe it. Literally the "spirit" or God breathed. To test it. It teaches that salvation comes from contending with God. And the Bible is a fallible translation of the infallible word of God anyway, so it (a collection of books) is only to be used, in the words of Jude, as an example. (Jude 1:7; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 1:8-9; Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:12) So repeatedly in this thread I stress the significance of faith as being broader than the religious connotation. Thinking you are absolutely correct because God tells you so in his book is no greater, in fact less dangerous, than thinking you are absolutely correct because science or anything else tells you so in a book. Absolutely. Dawkins on the Bible Not just because? He seemed to hate religion. A sentiment I share up to a point as well, because it damages spiritual education - but so does "science" when it interferes with spiritual instruction. There is a rule of thumb in science, I think, not to do that with other fields of science. I see Dawkins not as someone who may have a problem with that, and if it exists I think it would be warranted, but he doesn't seem to me objective about it in the sense that he sees the traditional. Turning the table, I see science minded atheists as gross representations of science, though I have little interest in science I wouldn't criticize it based on that misrepresentation. I see the religious in the same light with religion. The traditional and to a lesser extent, theological theists as gross misrepresentations of religion.

I agree with all of this but it bothers me on some level I can't put my finger on. I think maybe because, although true it has the implication, though unintended, of specifying an extremism exclusive to "faith." Best take that with a grain of sand because I can't articulate my discomfort well. Perhaps it would best be articulated in that extremism often only uses faith and other modes of expression as a tool when those things are only useful for their ideological fixation and social control. Someone, for example, who blows up an abortion clinic, protests a gay marriage, wants creation taught in schools, fight wars for democracy, freedom, god and country, don't really care about those things, they only use them for sociopolitical control. That is what I think the entire class struggle between atheist/theist is really all about. It has little to nothing to do with faith or faithlessness. [Sigh] I don't understand exactly why the questions I've asked prior to this are inferior except for possibly that it wasn't written by me and possibly that it presented the opportunity to discuss faith in a negative light. Although all of my posts over the last 30 years do that, they have done it from a different perspective than the unbelievers. This was an experimental post on my part. It was originally posted by @Phi for All . I like that. Very good. Thanks for the insight. I would agree with that but would - again - hazard the exclusive application to faith in this context as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something" excluding "strong belief in the position of science, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." Semmelweis Reflex as I often refer to. I don't know . . . man! You have no idea how much that applies to my faith under constant attack by "science" minded atheists. I've come to understand that it isn't about "science" or "faith" though. I agree with the sentiment as I understand it, but am just reluctant to the specifics. I think. The reason for the hesitancy is the sentiment. That doesn't make any sense I know. What I mean is that it is everywhere and therefor not extreme. The extreme connotation comes from the polarization. That is the most obvious example, I would agree, though it can be a great deal more subtle. By that I mean achieving the same results in a much less obvious fashion. Yes. That. [Chuckles]

You don't get it, as usual. Don't talk to me implies personal exchange. I have no problem with interactions. I have no problem commenting on something you said. None of this is personal to me, but with you it goes one step further. I can't stand talking to you on that personal level. I agree with this. Words are agreements and you have to play by the rules, but where atheists and I often have a problem in that context is when a word has the origins of a different meaning than the one that has become common use. So you have to acknowledge both. For example God doesn't mean supernatural being in control of the universe or creator, it means worshipped. Hell doesn't mean underground place of torment reserved for the immortal souls of the wicked and demons, it means grave. The words soul, cross, hell, god, heaven, make, create, sin, cosmos, spiritism, etc. have meanings which have become obfuscated through translation, syncretism, tradition, etc. That's why I explained in great detail the word soul as affected by religion and therefore misunderstood by "science." I have no idea how this could possibly be relevant. This is a thread about misunderstanding of the soul caused by religion and science by discussing the more accurate meaning of the word or at least the distinction between the perceived and the reality. I don't care about reports, experiments, journals, discipline and sub-disciplines. I don't care about science or theology specifically. What? Science minded atheists claim, if you like, that the Biblical soul doesn't exist. Because they see it as some supernatural part of us that lives on. That comes from Socrates and Plato, Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. For good reason as I've indicated. Because it was traditionally adopted by religion as such, but that isn't what the original word was intended to mean. It's only used as such - by the Abrahamic religions - about 400 years after Christ. It comes from much older traditions but was adopted by the "church" after 325 CE through the influence of Constantine the Great, the pontifex maximus or chief priest of pagan sun worship.

Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

You called me a vile evil unhuman cunt, insisted I be banned, told me to fuck off, publicly announced you were putting me on ignore, encouraged everyone to do the same and falsely accused me of being a holocaust denier. Don't talk to me. My participation in this thread is clear, simple, straight forward. In fact I can summarize this entire thread for you in clear, reasoned terms. Religion, when popularized, politicized and misrepresented and corrupted by ideologues becomes misleading and dangerous. But not as much as science. My simple clear explanation of this happening with the soul was an example of how this plays out. You think the Bible soul is supernatural. It isn't. Its the blood and life of any breathing creature. This isn't even controversial. I provided numerous references from traditional apostate mainstream theological scholars supporting and explaining it. With numerous scriptural references. Either you are screwing with me and pretending to be stupid or you are. I don't know which and I don't care. We've wasted enough time on this thread. If you have a problem with my argument you are going to have to do better than blame me for your inability or unwillingness to comprehend it. If no one cares, really don't care, they wouldn't be here talking to me. Turn the channel.

Are you not #&@&*! reading what I'm writing? The Bible soul is blood. Life. Is your objection to the facts theological or scientific. Blood. Life. They exist, no?!

Well, I, uh . . . okay.

One doesn't care that they suffer? Uh. Cool with me. To each his own. You know . . . sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree? I travel the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking for something Some of them want to use you Some of them want to get used by you Some of them want to abuse you Some of them want to be abused Whatever, you know. Whatever floats your boat. Or ark as Noah and Moses would say. But from the Biblical perspective, as I am want to give, everlasting punishment by God is, ultimately, just death. We are worm food. No heaven. No fiery torment. Hell is a pagan concept. Look at it like this. If a friend is about to jump off a ridiculously high and jagged cliff and you say "you'll be sorry." You don't mean they will literally regret it because they will be dead. Same thing with God's punishment of the wicked. I mean, if that's your thing I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is. Biblically.

WHAT?! What is this? A real discussion? Without the ideology! A serious question? All of us will suffer. Genome? Not sure what you think that has to do with it. Are you paying attention? Is anyone paying attention? You guys! Ohhhh! I'm going to have to keep an eye on you rascals! Seriously? You have some metaphysical concepts that you find interesting - intriguing? I mean, that's cool, I sometimes come off as someone who is dictating or the arbiter of truth and the only truth. We don't have to conform to one another's beliefs in order to be respectful of them. I don't criticize differing beliefs I only correct beliefs about the Bible. So, you are coming from the perspective of the pagan soul? The platonic perspective? Genome has nothing to do with the soul. God allegedly gave us life, our soul, so he isn't going to punish us for it or our suffering, so I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm willing to learn. Explain it to me.

Uh, well, yes . . . usually for my own entertainment purposes. The Biblical perspective is that anything that breaths has a soul. Eye for eye, soul for soul. I.e. blood for blood, life for life. When we die, our soul dies. We are souls. Honestly, most fun aside, it isn't rocket science. Sorry. If you don't get it by now you won't and why bother anyway. Go on and do what it is that you do do. Really. I don't understand why militant atheists bother. You don't have to concern yourself with God, whether he exists or not. You are free to be free from it. You see? It's just dumb fake ideology against dumb fake ideology.

The apes, apparently. [Laughs] And what I've been saying is that there is an obvious and well known distinction between the Biblical and the metaphysical concepts of the soul. You, maybe can see why I'm not terribly impressed when ignorant (I mean that in the nonderogatory sense) science minded atheists criticize the Bible? Ignaz Semmelweis ring a bell? It took y'all a pretty long time to figure that stuff out when the Bible was on about it for thousands of years before science caught on. It was only 1986 when science finally realized that babies could feel. They would perform major surgery on them without anesthesia, only paralyzing them so they wouldn't squirm. You think science has given mankind all of these astoundingly accurate and significant discoveries but people were boiling water long before science figured out how it worked. The Bible described the earth as spherical when science thought it was a turtle resting on the backs of four elephants. It described the hydrologic cycle when your science thought it came from sluice holes in a solid metal dome and even to this day you still blame that on the Bible. And now, I'm talking about real science, not the fake dumb ideology you seemed to have picked up. The stuff I'm talking about isn't spectacular new stuff I just made up. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE. The JWs have been teaching it for over a hundred years and they got it from someone else. I don't have a target, I return the criticism of skeptics - as well as the ignorance and apostacy of believers. I . . . I speak the truth! [slams fist on desk] The known truth! With - admittedly - the odd distraction and error, see if I don't. [1] [1] Excerpt taken from a poem by Vogon Jelts: "Oh freddled gruntbuggly, Thy micturations are to me As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee. Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes, And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles, Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" I can try. The Biblical soul is blood. Life. These are not entirely unknown metaphysical concept. Even to science.

In desperation and abject stupidity I was slandered and falsely accused by idiotic morons. Nothing new, I've been posting on idiotic atheist forums for over a quarter century. Do me a favor, hippie. Don't talk to me. Continue on your protectory. I have. Here and here. It doesn't make it real, no, but it is already real as a pagan concept and a mistranslation of a Biblical concept that is very much real and testable. The Platonic concept is nonsense, the Biblical concept is concrete, real, scientifically demonstrably - well obviously. HEY! I do not have to be deliberately obtuse! It comes quote naturally. But, uh, contextuallessism? I like that. That's just crazy enough to work. Could get you and I a book tour like Chris Hitchens and Al Sharpton. Huh? Think about it. Have your peeps call my peeps.