Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

timberlandko wrote:

We've been over this before, RL, in detail - you apparently prefer not to see it. The guesswork and assumptions are yours; to whit (if in brief):

Assumption 1) There may be a deity or deities.
Assumption 2) There is a deity or deities
Assumption 3) There is but one deity
Assumption 4) That deity is independent of time and existence
Assumption 5) That deity is omnipotent
Assumtion 6) There was a creation which resulted in the current state or condition
Assumption 7) That deity soley and independently was causal to whatever you term creation
Assumption 8) That deity is the deity of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia
Assumption 9) That Abrahamic deity is in specific the Judaeo-Christian God of The Bible
Assumption 10) All the foregoing assumptions are, despite total lack of indepent corroboration, given as pertaining to the current state or condition.

That's way, way, way too many interdependent assumptions - by a factor of about 9 - to enable any meaningful conclusion. You just can't get to where you, the religionists, want to go other than by way of all your assumptions - each and every one of which, apart perhaps from the first, remains an unresolved proposition. An "if" or two may not sink an argument, but an argument wholly based on a 9-or-10--or-so-long unbroken chain of "ifs" isn't a valid proposition, its a guess at best.

The topic we were discussing is most closely associated with #6. If you think there was NOT a beginning point for the universe in which matter came into existence, prove the opposite. You cannot, but you believe it anyway.

The difference between us, Timber, is that I am upfront about faith being part of my viewpoint. You are not, even though it is.

would disclose to you that the phenomenon is, at least among those board-certified and institutionally accreditted in clinical neuromedicine, widely thought to be the result of a combination and/or concatenation of a number of processes, not any one process.

Frank wrote:


Life keeps insisting there are only two choices...

a) matter and energy always existed...or...

b) matter and energy were created.

I have offered a third possibility...the fact that "matter and energy" may be nothing more than an illusion.



Comment:
More like you are delusional...
You have lived so long with matter and you still are unsure of it's existence?

If you continue to doubt the tangible then it is no wonder you cannot perceive the spiritual energy of the almighty.

Is this world here just because you think it is Frank?

Though there are many possibilities all existing in the very same place and time, there are still boundaries and many possibilities that are out of our reach...

These possibilities are only in the realm of God...

Rex, while your God is among the possibilities encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum, no matter how improbable - the chain of assumptions required to get there, remember - the universe as we know it and any deity, let alone your specific deity, are not logically concommitant. Interesting is that while strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistently independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data, may be made for the existence of a universe independent of a deity, the converse is not true; no strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistantly independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data may be made for your God. The argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning.

It is like trying to smell the color "9".

"9" is not a color. And even if it was, you cannot smell colors, my friend.

I just noticed ehBeth, you joined A2K on my birthday, what luck!

CarbonSystem wrote:

I just noticed ehBeth, you joined A2K on my birthday, what luck!

You are much younger than I would have thought.

Oh, and welcome to noone - If you are, in fact, one. Or another. This forum is fun; as I'm sure you will soon agree.

With regard to matter and energy possibly being an illusion: I would suggest that our feeble understanding of reality is limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of other 'dimensions', we are unable to articulate their qualities, much less function within their borders. How then, are we to sit in judgement of a God whose name means 'He who causes to become'?

CarbonSystem wrote:

I just noticed ehBeth, you joined A2K on my birthday, what luck!

You are much younger than I would have thought.

Oh, and welcome to noone - If you are, in fact, one. Or another. This forum is fun; as I'm sure you will soon agree.

With regard to matter and energy possibly being an illusion: I would suggest that our feeble understanding of reality is limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of other 'dimensions', we are unable to articulate their qualities, much less function within their borders. How then, are we to sit in judgement of a God whose name means 'He who causes to become'?

neologist wrote:

CarbonSystem wrote:

I just noticed ehBeth, you joined A2K on my birthday, what luck!

You are much younger than I would have thought.

Oh, and welcome to noone - If you are, in fact, one. Or another. This forum is fun; as I'm sure you will soon agree.

With regard to matter and energy possibly being an illusion: I would suggest that our feeble understanding of reality is limited by the constructs of space and time. Though we are aware of other 'dimensions', we are unable to articulate their qualities, much less function within their borders. How then, are we to sit in judgement of a God whose name means 'He who causes to become'?

Hi Neo,

Yes the idea that "maybe all of time and space is just an illusion" sounds like one of our posters listened to the Moody Blues one too many times.

Either matter was created........or it wasn't. Dreaming about life being a dream is just a poor dodge to avoid facing reality.

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, while your God is among the possibilities encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum, no matter how improbable - the chain of assumptions required to get there, remember - the universe as we know it and any deity, let alone your specific deity, are not logically concommitant. Interesting is that while strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistently independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data, may be made for the existence of a universe independent of a deity, the converse is not true; no strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistantly independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data may be made for your God. The argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning.

Hi Timber,

You continue to mischaracterize the Christian view of God.

Christians do NOT believe in a God who is encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum.

God transcends the things He created including matter, energy and time. He cannot be contained by them or measured in comparison with them.

It is like trying to smell the color "9".

"9" is not a color. And even if it was, you cannot smell colors, my friend.

The same way we can sit in judgement of a president whose name means "shrub!"

Refusing to accept that the REALITY of Existence may be so complicated that puny creatures just down out of the trees on a minor rock revolving around a minor sun may not even begin to comprehend its nuances...is a poor dodge to avoid facing reality.

Supposing some of the superstitious drivel these puny creatures have invented to explain this unknown...is an even more obvious dodge.

But it does provide entertainment....and even if this is all an illusion...I enjoy being entertained.

Supposing that ALL of it is superstitious drivel may be a dodge in the wrong direction. The very fact that the bible is subject to so many spurious interpretations should be enough to promote an examination of the reasons why.

real life wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, while your God is among the possibilities encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum, no matter how improbable - the chain of assumptions required to get there, remember - the universe as we know it and any deity, let alone your specific deity, are not logically concommitant. Interesting is that while strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistently independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data, may be made for the existence of a universe independent of a deity, the converse is not true; no strong, academically and forensically sound argument, consistantly independently supported by replicable, mutually corroborative available data may be made for your God. The argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning.

Hi Timber,

You continue to mischaracterize the Christian view of God.

Christians do NOT believe in a God who is encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum.

God transcends the things He created including matter, energy and time. He cannot be contained by them or measured in comparison with them.

It is like trying to smell the color "9".

"9" is not a color. And even if it was, you cannot smell colors, my friend.

You bring another straw man to the party. I do not characterize the Christian view of their God as encompassed within the time/matter/energy continuum - plainly, if absurdly, key to their proposition is that such be not the case, as you point out. I say that nothing within the time/matter/energy continuum precludes the possibility of a god or gods. The existence of a deity or deities, while improbable and unnecessary, is neither proven nor disproven. I state again the argument for your God rests wholly within the argument for your God; it is the perfect example of circular reasoning