ExChristian.Net -- encouraging ex-Christians - Latest Comments in Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:46:00 -0000

Shohn,

Here is a brief synopsis of the "calculation" you directed me to, which can be found here:

1 "divine day" = 1000 years, so
1 "divine year" = 365,000 years.
1 "cycle" = 7,000 "divine years", which is 2,555,000,000 years.
6 "cycles" = 15,330,000,000 years, which is roughly the estimated age of the universe, according to what is known today.

Now, please recall what I said earlier about arguments of this nature. I said that they usually make arbitrary substitutions, often by interpreting things metaphorically, and they overlook those bits that don't fit so well. I should have also mentioned that they occasionally take as literal what was meant metaphorically. So, here is what I see in the above line of reasoning:

1) Psalm 90:4, which is clearly metaphorical, is taken as a literal "equation": Thus, "A thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday," is taken to mean that "1 divine year = 1000 years". So the phrase "as yesterday" is taken to mean 24 hours. This may not seem like such a stretch, but one could have also argued (as is often done in these calculations) that a day really means a year, or that "as yesterday" means "since yesterday", which might have been eight hours, or ten hours, or twelve hours, etc. I'm sure there are also other verses that could have been mined from the Bible to argue for other lengths of time. Of course, the advocate will select from these a length of time that gives the desired result. (By the way, I thought god was supposed to be "timeless", so the very concept of a "divine year" seems peculiar to me.)

2) The phrase "Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one, it shall be desolate…" is interpreted to mean that a "cycle" is 7,000 years rather than 6,001 years. It seems the phrase could easily be interpreted the other way (at least, judging from the translation). I assert that the reason 7,000 was chosen is that it works, whereas 6,001 does not.

3) What happened to the "desolate" year (or thousand years)? I guess we'll just ignore that, as it doesn't seem to help the argument.

4) The argument concludes with "If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation,...". Why assume that? There is no justification given to use 6 rather than 7, or any other number. Here we have essentially an arbitrary fudge factor that could have been just about anything. If the value 3 worked, for example, rather than 6, I imagine the advocate of this argument would have pointed to the "trinity". If 7 gave the right answer, then that would have seemed natural. As is, it appears to be an arbitrary assumption thrown in to get the right answer.

5) It is stated that one "cycle" turns out to be approximately the time at which life arose on Earth. However, the best estimates today are about 3.8 billion years ago, not 2.5 billion years ago. Moreover, why was the origin of life chose? There are many other significant events that could have been chosen. No matter what a cycle turned out to be, we could find a significant event that was "close" to it, and thereby make it seem prophetic. (There are other examples of this arbitrariness too, such as the reference to the time at which "Homo sapiens became the only surviving hominids".)

Now, notice that I made reference several times to selecting numbers that give "the right answer". You might object that the original proponent of this argument didn't know what the right answer was, so he could not have fudged it; that is definitely the impression that the article attempts to leave the reader with. However, there are several levels of indirection and interpretation from the original argument to the current one. Why was the original argument not quoted precisely? I strongly suspect that it is because the numbers need to be fudged to get the "right answer". If I'm wrong about that, please show me where an ancient text states unequivocally that the universe is 15 billion years old. I'd wager you cannot for the simple reason that the calculation was never clearly articulated; it had to be pieced together in a very ad hoc fashion, complete with fudge factors.

There is one more thing I need to point out, lest you think I'm quibbling about small errors. If you follow what I'm saying, you will see that one can "justify" a large range of numbers, from perhaps the millions to a hundred billions of years. By creatively selecting and interpreting various phrases, one can produce just about any answer desired. It is primarily for this reason that I find nothing at all astonishing about such calculations. The one you pointed me to is no different.

Finally, I saw no reference to either special or general relativity in the article you pointed me to. But again, what I expect to see in such an argument is some "creative accounting" so as to get the numbers to come out right, even if what is being invoked is the Lorentz contraction rather than elementary arithmetic. It all comes down to figuring out how to justify the "right" numbers to plug in.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:57:00 -0000

Hey JC,

I gittin da big-daddy impression dat dude-o be phoney-baloney: learning notta, preaching lotta.

I'm out.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

J. C. Samuelson — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 09:47:00 -0000

Shohn,

"This argument states this, and has some validity; however, it worth noting that ..... "

I only have a few minutes as I'm working on making breakfast for the young'un. However, this isn't an accurate restatement of what I said. So, to clear this up...

I said nothing about validity. My meaning was that yes, someone can attempt such a reconcilation of science with Genesis. A person can attempt anything he/she likes. However, I also said that I think the evidence is against the Christian that tries to do this. Furthermore, there is a huge leap to make from reconciling science with the idea of a disinterested creator god who caused the universe to be (little more than the prima mobile, or "prime mover"), to the kind of god that takes a personal interest in and/or influences its creation, particularly in the manner of the Christian God.

So, to sum up the basic idea: 1. You can try to align Genesis with science, but I think the evidence is against you; 2) Doing so does nothing to lend weight to an argument for the Christian God.

Going into detail, as I said, will have to wait. But hopefully this clears things up a bit.

Dave,

Wuz up wit dat, yo?

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:59:00 -0000

So, JC, are you saying that Shohn's point has some validity?

Is Shohn's creative re-phrasing of your comment an accurate representation of your thought?

Just wondering.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:40:00 -0000

J.C. Samuelson,

That's what I'm after man - balance - baby - yes that is it.

Something like this:

This argument states this, and has some validity; however, it worth noting that .....

The chief problem I see is scientists that are ill equipped with "understanding" of scriptural knowledge - what I mean is - I'm looking for making sure that an argument does not fail to consider ALL of the evidence for and against that particular argument, what I've found is that you really have to dig and dig and somewhere in the middle is something that is balanced - I think greater credibility is established if both sides are fairly presented.

For example, someone may say, well the earth was created in six days and that is that.... hold on man what about all those dinosaur bones... well God put them there to test your faith. Yeah I don't buy that.

Then on the other side atheist/agnostic it seems to be some variation of "that is just preposterous" or just a veiled insult of someone's character at times.

Wikipedia seems to do a fair job at this, but I don't think it has all of these arguments condensed into a list or something. There really should be some short hand notation for these arguments - a lot of brain cycles being wasted from the atheist perspective and a lot of soul saving opportunties being wasted from the theist perspective by having to restate each argument every single time.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:32:00 -0000

I also posted links to refutations of your beloved Lee Strobel.

He's a bit far removed from Polycarp, however. Of course, so are you.

So, could you also care less about ex-journalist Strobel?

Have you read a single book by Strobel? Or do you just like to name-drop authors you've never read?

Your comments are what leads me to believe you are disingenuous.

And thank you for confessing you have a hidden agenda.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:54:00 -0000

Webmaster,

Umm, have I been being coy or something? Jim and I have been discussing foothold for quite few comments now.

I do have a secondary purpose and believe it or not it is more knowledge - strange as this may sound I figure what better ground to beat the tar out of some physics than here - atheists do have one thing - they seem to be somewhat unbiased in their science.

What I do find rather ironic and sad, is that an atheist, that is Jim, seems to have more knowledge of the scriptures than a thousand church goers.

Since you continually insult me, may I ask if you reviewed a single site I've posted?

I've looked at everything that has been thrown my way and offered my comments with the exception of your CS Lewis cites - sorry - frankly - I could care less about CS lewis at this point - he has no value to this discussion at where it is at. He had a story - he was atheist - something happened to him. If he disputed all of Christendom so be it I think most of em got it wrong after Polycarp anyway so I don't have a problem with that - he was probably onto something that wasn't warped by men and as usual got chastised by the political wing of christianity.

As best I can tell, you may have missed the entire point of my comment, regarding CS lewis though as evidenced by your posting of links.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

J. C. Samuelson — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:50:00 -0000

Shohn,

"Reconciling the Relativity Theory to the Genesis account by equating six days to 15 billion years when considering the Genesis account with the benefit of the the Hebrew words argument."

One can attempt such a reconciliation, of course. In my opinion, the evidence tends to argue against a favorable result (from your perspective). However, before getting into that (indeed, if it gets to that), it's worth mentioning that a huge leap must be made to go from a deistic creator god to a personal god.

I'd go into more detail, but at the moment I'm having to squint at the screen so I'm off to bed. Somebody wake me when things pick up.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:49:00 -0000

Jim,

Okay glad I haven't been insulting you - I thought I was because of the tone in your notes - I get it now - you're just direct.

Any hoo, I can't seem to find that other site I mentioned previously - I'll keep looking, but this is one below is essentially the same, in fact, it is better. This site should provide some background behind what I'm asking and also has a link to the specific question once you have the background understood.
Missing Link

At the bottom of that site is a link to Doctor Shroder - whom I'm going to assume you've beat up on already, but I think the real question is whether Dr. Shroder's calculations are correct - that is he applying SR/GR correctly or it a stretch just to convince us arm-chair cosmologists? Is it plausible? Perhaps not perfect, but plausible?

I've read some accounts by non-believers that say the math is on with respect to GR/SR, but then there are some counter arguments that say that he used GR/SR inapproriately having something to do with his use of thermo. It has been about 6 or 7 years since I touched thermo so I'm going to rely on your super duper cosmological skills on that part. The specific part I'm after is the GR/SR calculations though.

Point source - beginning of time - all the mass of universe. Measuring time from the perspective of the point source with a reference to the time here on earth. Kind of like the classic explanation of relativity about a spaceship leaving earth at the speed of light coming back a short while later - meanwhile several thousand years have passed on our home planet.

If this same concept is applied from the perspective of an observer witnessing the big bang - would 6 days observer time correspond to what we would know as ~15 billion years?

Stated another way - if the entire mass of the universe is collapsed into a point source irregardless of whether my God created that point source or it showed up as a random cosmic fluctuation - do those calculations mostly align with GR/SR?

If not where are the holes? What parts are valid - what parts are not?hn

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:26:00 -0000

You are right, Shohn. There is no point in my replying to anything you say. It is painfully obvious that you have no real desire to "learn" anything. Your transparent intention for posting here is for no other reason besides practicing a not-so-subtle form of preaching.

If you were sincerely interested in learning a damned thing, you'd read, read, read, instead of playing a childish game of question/answer ping-pong. You feign a desire for knowledge, but deep down you know you are only here in an attempt to peddle your religion.

Others on this site are more patient with disingenuous posters, like yourself, so I leave you to them.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:16:00 -0000

Shohn: "...does the 6 days to 15 billions years math check out or not from a GR / SR perspective?"

I've seen numerous arguments along these lines, but it sounds like you have a specific one in mind. Details please. I cannot make specific comments until I know precisely the argument being made. One general comment: if "six days" is replaced by some other span of time, my first question will be "on what basis is that specific substitution made?" If a time span is chosen simply because it matches what we have learned through scientific means, then it's reading information into the Genesis account that was not there to begin with, and I regard it as nothing more than wordplay or wishful thinking. Same with any substitution. My question will be "what is the justification for that substitution?" The reason for this should be clear: If I am allowed to make arbitrary substitutions, then I can probably turn the Sunday comics into profound prophecies.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:37:00 -0000

Webmaster,

I don't understand why you respond if you find this boring - I'm learning all kinds of new stuff from you guys though.

Jim,

Let's save some time - does the 6 days to 15 billions years math check out or not from a GR / SR perspective? I am making some assumptions that you've heard this argument regarding reconciling the 6 days to the estimated age of the universe before.

If not what parts aren't valid - what parts are?

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:33:00 -0000

Shohn, I have read literally hundreds of apologetic books written in support of Christianity. And, I've only read dozens of books arguing against Christianity.

I had never read a single book critical of Christianity and written by an atheist author until I left Christianity. I left Christianity after really studying Christianity.

Perhaps settling for someone else's synopsis of a topic is not the wisest course of action. The wise person would actually study the subject him or herself.

Why did I leave Christianity? My testimony (it's not that long) is linked to every single page on this site. If you don't know why I left Christianity by now... well, it reveals something about your powers of observation.

Oh, and many (MANY) Christians consider C.S. Lewis to be heretical in his theology. He held to some fairly non-orthodox views, but since you have never read him, you would be ignorant of that.

Click the links I gave you. Educate yourself. Surely if what you are preaching is God's truth, it will stand up to honest scrutiny on your part.

Don't let fear, laziness, or apathy keep you from really understanding all sides of this issue. After you educate yourself, you may not change your mind, but at least you'd then be able to put on a more cogently interesting presentation of your position.

Think about it.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:53:00 -0000

Shohn,

I took no offense at anything you said; I'm not quite sure how you got that impression. I'm just trying to be direct and clear.

I can give a succinct reply to all this talk about me vs. whoever. I do not take anything on authority, as I think that's the surest way to propagate nonsense. I look at what is being said, and how the arguments stand up. While I do acknowledge that "credentials" and "reputation" are important, they are secondary; they are a shortcut, a way of prioritizing what to look at, and a means of tentatively ranking arguments. In the end, however, they are as inconsequential as the weave of one's suit. So, my position is that it is essentially a moot point. To drive this home, one need only recognize that virtually every idea has its brilliant advocates. Even if you were to defer to the judgment of a renowned expert, this is no help whatsoever, as you must now decide which expert to listen to. So, how can I go up against C. S. Lewis? The same way you go up against Robert Price or Richard Dawkins. Even the lofty make mistakes. Surely we can agree on that and put this issue to rest. (By the way, I omitted Strobel intentionally. His name was too incongruous in close proximity to the others I mentioned.)

From what you've written, it appears that your see Biblical criticism as consisting chiefly in finding contradictions or nonsensical statements (e.g. rabbits chewing their cud) in the Bible. I hope that is not the case. That would be rather like criticizing the theory of relativity by looking for typos in Einstein's 1905 paper. The criticism I'm talking about is vastly broader than that, encompassing the entire historical development of Christianity, detailed comparison with other religions, and examination of extrabiblical sources, as well as textual analysis. While I do agree that the Bible is brimming with primitive and outmoded ideas, to me this is not nearly so interesting or telling as the history of the religion as a whole, or how it stacks up against other religions. It also seems rather picayune compared to what we can learn about religious beliefs in general through the lens of science; e.g. sociology, neurology, and evolutionary psychology. To me, there is a dramatic conscillience (to borrow E. O. Wilson's term) of all lines of evidence, from vastly different fields, that all point to the same conclusion: religions and "inspired" holy texts spring from the imaginations of men.

You began to describe some line evidence that you found compelling; e.g. some very old text containing scientific insights that were far ahead of its time. However, from your description I have no way to critique the argument itself, as I have none of the details. I can tell you that I've looked into dozens of such claims, and not one has survived even rudimentary scrutiny. Perhaps the most universal error is in granting enormous leeway to the interpretation of words and phrases, with portions arbitrarily deemed metaphorical to suit the purposes of the believer. What is invariably left out is an analysis of what other conclusions one might draw from the SAME text, granting the SAME freedom of interpretation. It's the classic fallacy of special pleading; i.e. keeping the "positives" and ignoring the "negatives". I could go on and on about this. If you want to give me very specific details about the text you find so amazing, I'll gladly take a look. But I can virtually guarantee that it will entail a great deal of metaphorical interpretation, and turning a blind eye to those passages that don't quite fit. If I'm wrong about that, then produce the text. We'll see.

By the way, your story about the Mormons showing up on your doorstep was very funny. You see, that was god telling you not to dismiss those gold tablets quite yet.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:39:00 -0000

Webmaster,

That's not quite what I said. I never used the word authoritive. I was merely asking the question - what is different here? Is it perhaps that Jim IS smarter and has more knowledge thus allowing his conclusion to be more correct because it is based on a wider pool of knowledge? I'm removing my faith hat temporarily, and then asking is it possible for Jim's conclusion to be made on a wider pool of knowledge, is he reading errant translations, does he lack understanding, or were we all wrong? Does Jim have all the correct information? Is that not fair to ask that?

I'm not afraid of books at all, but many of the arguments are fairly well summarized. What I have found is that each side of this great debate tends to leave out the counter arguments whether by accident or on purpose I'm not sure - so fundamentally - what is it that shapes the conclusion?

Honestly - I've never read a C.S. Lewis book. I just see the conclusion - atheist turned christian guy and wonder what happened, then in your example it was the opposite case - what was it that sent you in the other direction? Was it some particular text or translation that you found or just a feeling - a preconceived notion that you have since been trying to support.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:21:00 -0000

So, Shohn scoots out from under having read, or intending to read, any points of view in opposition to Christianity, unless it's on the Internet, because, I infer, quickly scanning through things on the Internet is quicker and easier.

Books are such a bother.

Hmm.

Then, Shohn holds up C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel has authoritative examples of atheists who became Christians and seems to hint that these two men (because they are published Christian authors, perhaps?) are better thinkers on this topic than Jim Arvo (or anyone else, one assumes -- again, because those tow are Christian authors?). I wonder if Shohn has actually read any of the books written by these two men. I sincerely doubt it.

Regardless, since Shohn prefers reading things on the Net, I challenge Shohn to read a few of the dozens of quick, easy, and convenient Internet articles reviewing Strobel's and Lewis' ideas:

Click here for Strobel

Click here for Lewis

Shohn, in case you are wondering, I've read all of C.S. Lewis' books -- every one. Strobel, I'll admit, puts me to sleep, so my reading of him is spotty.

Sorry for the interruption. You may now return to the regularly scheduled episode of "The Easter Bunny chokes on his cud."

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:44:00 -0000

Jim,

First of all - I never mean to insult so if I come off that way, I apologize. I view this as us having a nice little conversation and I am definitely open to new information so please continue to dispense your best skeptical resources my way, but I prefer Internet sites - it saves a lot of time. That said, I've gone out and looked as many of the skeptics arguments and have found them more or less based on a poor understanding of the scriptures (not that I'm the expert) , in effect, reading the ol' KJ or whatever the most popular translation is lately and coming up with some argument based on an errant translation or lack of respect for historical context. To do this is just as silly as a Christian maintaining that the the dinosaurs never existed or were put on the Ark, etc.

One of my favorites is the Rabbits and the their cud argument - therefore the scriptures are wrong and are not the mighty inerrant word of Yahweh - nevermind that Rabbits lick their arse or something and reprocess their food after eating their own dung.

I do commend you for doing your homework more in depth than the folks described above.

Now this notion about God dying and becoming man - yes I'm well aware that there are plenty of other stories that are similar to this account, but if it were true, and there were a devil, then it would make sense for that devil to try to bring man down for whatever reason so I don't really have a problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is you simply dismissing an argument because it is not the simplest explanation. It sounds subjective and I think may be violating the rules of formal reasoning that you have been teaching me.

Ultimately the path I'm going to go for here is the ol' self-evident argument which you've probably heard about a thousand times, but I hope that it is at least a little bit different this time. This WILL take some time, but we can take it slow kind of like playing Civilization over email.

It is entirely possible that I'll never be able to "gain a foothold" with you, because we are now coming from mostly opposite points of view. My comment about the others have been down this path is that I'm trying to figure out what the difference between former atheits such a C.S. Lewis or a Lee Strobel going to prove this stuff wrong vs. a Jim Arvo or any other noted historians, lawyers, and other individuals from all walks of life. Is it that Jim Arvo is simply a better skeptic than those individuals, has a better reasoning unit in his head, or is equipped with better information perhaps?

Ultimately, I think it boils down to is that people often try to hold to whatever truth they want to believe. From your perspective, I suspect that you'd have to form a hypothesis to test both side of what your intuition tells you and you may have already done this so forgive me if you already have.

That means you'd have to do two things: set out to prove that God is dead and then set out to prove that He is alive. You'd have to test both to be truly fair I think.

Since we have different points of view what you find laughable is actually is kind of interesting.

Not your words I know, but just trying to paraphrase and summarize what I've come to understand of the ol' universe argument.

The universe and a gajillion galaxies and atoms with consciousness simply sprang from a random cosmic tremor and that can be likened to the "origin" of the earth being at the north pole - that is just a matter of implementation to me - it still doesn't answer where the earth came from though, which by the way we are Sooooo freaking lucky isn't made out of blue cheese. I suspect that was an inside joke of sorts.

"You cannot simply pass this off by saying "others" have done this exercise. I have yet to see a single example of this, and I've read Christian literature extensively."

My intent here was to not insult your intelligence. I know that you have done this, so I dismissed it as a conversation that would be fruitless with the assumption that you've already arrived at a conclusion here that is in alignment with your point of view - that is it must be testable and verifiable or there must be a solid historical chain of evidence to which I'd do the tired argument of bickering back and forth about John being the apostle and you'd come up with some other argument about why that wasn't the case because he wrote in 3rd person or there was no way he lived that long or something like that I imagine, and then I'd cite the mentions of James the brother of Jesus in the other accounts, and then I'd cite the "independent" historians who came about a ~100 years or so later who mentioned the martydom, and then you may come back with well they were too far after the fact - weren't eye witnesses, etc, and then I'd say something like which historical documents from that time period CAN we rely on then given that "legend making" was so common, and then I'd probably come back to why are you simply dismissing the gospel accounts, but not dismissing other ancient documents. I know you've been down this path Jim - I was trying to avoid all that because it would have been fruitless and again other have already been down that path and reached different conclusions from you - so what I was askins is - what is different for you? Is Jim simply smarter than the others - does he have more knowledge - was he raised in a different environment - what is it in Jim's neuropathways and connectors that allow him to form this conclusion and more importantly why are his neuropathways trying to test and verify the laws of the universe?
Would those same circuits allow him to "prove" that He loves his wife or kids- afterall love is nothing more than a chemical reaction that was evolved over a couple billion years or something with the express purpose of furthering Jim's genetic code.

Or I could just say "Poof - God did it" and be labeled narrowminded by some very angry ex-christians which in many people highly subjective opinion is the simplest answer.

Anyway, I know I got tangential, but since you are willing to take in new information - basically the "credible" chain of evidence started when I tried to "prove" the biblical accounts wrong because I told myself that this thing should be able to stand up to scrutiny if it is right. I was an auditor for 5 years so I'm not exactly new to being a skeptic, not that that helps you any.

Anyway - I think the easiest way to do this is for me to tell piece by piece where things started to add up and let you point out counter arguments as necessary, and hopefully one day we'll get to the bottom of this mess. At the minimum it should be interesting.

People should really start to use some kind short hand notation for all these arguments to save time. Let's start there instead, because the "historical credibility" game is a tired battle that is too subjective at this stage in the "chain of evidence".

Here is the first piece of your "credible" chain of evidence.

I happened upon some stuff from supposedly around 800-1000 AD that showed that the ol' Rabbis knew about the big bang theory close to a thousand years before we did. Something about a pellet as small as a mustard seed and that the universe was created in give or take 15 billion years. I can't remember where I found it, but I'm sure google can dig it up for you.

This was similar to that yaddayahweh.com site I found that you dismissed eons ago, ironically, it agreed with the some orthodox jewish commentary; however, in another argument you challenged someone with some orthodox jews, which makes me suspect that jewish commentary is being cherry picked no doubt like many of the arguments based on out of context bible quotes.

My approach was a bit different. I went out and started checking the guy's math and contacted several people to verify his accounting and translations and then did my own translations, downloaded the dead sea scrolls, etc. I solicited you to look at one very small piece of it, but I think I bungled the communication of what was needed so let's try it again.

Let's call it the

"Reconciling the Relativity Theory to the Genesis account by equating six days to 15 billion years when considering the Genesis account with the benefit of the the Hebrew words argument.

What are the counter arguments to this? Does the math add up or not?

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 18:12:00 -0000

Shohn,

I just noticed your comment from a week ago. I'll try to keep this short. I asked you to explain why the gospel accounts are "trustworthy", for if you rely on them as a source of information, you presumably some reason to believe they are accurate. You gave me a typical reply--you suggested that my "standards" are too high, and complained that I would likely toss out other ancient texts as well. In other words, you did not even attempt to answer my question, except perhaps to say that "others" have looked into it, and been convinced. I have looked at the arguments assembled by many "others", and I find them to be uniformly poor--most of them even laughable.

What would it take to demonstrate "trustworthiness"? There is no simple answer to that, as it would necessarily entail a complex web of evidence incorporating corroboration from other authors whose work must also be corroborated, etc. It also entails ruling out much simpler explanations. In my view, the gospel stories all admit infinitely simpler explanations than "the creator of the universe actually became human, performed miracles, died on a cross, and rose again, all as part of a pre-planned scheme for salvation". We have numerous other religions to observe, many incorporating the very same motifs, and we have ample evidence of such stories being borrowed or invented through midrashic interpolation. No fantastic explanation is necessary. And no compelling corroboration has been forthcoming. So, I ask again. Why should I consider the gospel accounts to be trustworthy?

I gave you a rather specific challenge: Pick some aspect of the Jesus story, and show me a credible chain of evidence that it is historical. You cannot simply pass this off by saying "others" have done this exercise. I have yet to see a single example of this, and I've read Christian literature extensively. If you actually try to do this, you may begin to see the point I'm trying to make. While it may strike you that there is an abundance of such evidence available, none of it connects back to historically verifiable/corroborated events. What we see is fictional characters attested by other fictional characters, all reported by believers whose stated purpose is to instill belief. There are no moorings to reality; at least none that I have been able to discern.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

.:webmaster:. — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 04:03:00 -0000

Shohn, the site wasn't shut down for an hour. I don't know what you're talking about.

Now, the forum section of the site had server troubles for 12 hours, but this part of the site blazed away without a hitch.

For those who want to believe, everything is a confirming sign.

Shohn, don't be stingy with your prayer. Beg your god to strike this site off the Internet forever!

While you're at it, ask him to kill all the porno sites, the racist sites, the false religions sites, the science sites, the heretical versions of Christianity sites, and every other site that contradicts your narrow opinion of reality.

Oh, and then, pray for all those returning from Iraq without limbs to miraculously grow new ones.

And, pray that all Muslims convert to your version of Christianity.

Then, go to the jungles of Africa and preach the Gospel to those who have never heard your wonderful message of salvation.

Then, give all you have to the poor, take up your cross, and follow your god.

Then, obey the commands of your god and give to all who ask. In fact, I'll ask you right now for $10.00. Shohn, for the sake of Jesus, and in obedience to his command to "Give to all who ask" I'm pleading with you to give me ten bucks.

Please.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

shohn — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:33:00 -0000

Steven,

Self-righteousness is bad. On that I agree with you.

Alan - the site got shut down for about a day or so as best I can tell though I'm sure the answer to my prayer will be chalked up to randomness not quite unlike the existence of the universe. Irony at its best. Also - praying for a "sign" is technically "testing" my God, but I asked Him for just a couple of days worth anyway - as far as I can tell I just got a day. I still pray for my parents to remarry, but I've been waiting on that one for years - we'll see, perhaps you could indulge me by saying a few prayers for my folks in the name of "scientific" testing of prayer ;) Seriously, I have written this stuff down, but its not like it would do any good because someone would just say - oh yeah well you wrote that after the fact not quite unlike many of the prophecies.

Jim,

I haven't forgotten about our little conversation and your questions - I'll work on getting you some better answers particularly the Mormon questions. I'll rant for a bit, but will see if I can't get some better answers on that. Really weird that you should mention the Mormons though - I remember praying one night for some indication from God about the truth and freakin Mormons showed up on my door the next morning bright and early. I let them come and visit with me for about three sessions, but it just didn't add up - I kept asking "why would God need Gold plates - why Gold plates". Maybe he does, but I suppose I'll have to do some more homework here to get better answers.

I do imagine that the feeling I had is probably not unlike how you feel when confronted by "Christians" trying to push the Trinity on you.

Either way - I think some of you questions are fair from your point of view; however, I think you might have gone a bit over the edge with the word "trustworthy".

"Quoting the gospels will not do unless you can first demonstrate that they are trustworthy accounts." - Trustworthy by whose standards - yours? I'm not sure I'd be able to find anything up to those standards, but let's at least try to determine where your standards lie. Would someone have to be a non-believer before they are considered trustworthy, a named eye witness, a noted historian? What is the standard here? Either way, I'd push back to the prophecies.

So let me ask an honest question - if the name of what English translations call "Jesus Christ" were removed and the miracles removed would the "Gospels" then be considered trustworthy from your perspective? I can see from your point of view how you would want to know how to weigh one account or Gospel as having more value or credibility than another (i.e., the Mormons' golden plates and "eye witness" accounts); however, what I'm wondering is at what point would we start to throw out various ancient "secular" texts using the same level of scrutiny?

"Quoting Paul won't do unless you can demonstrate that Paul actually knew something of an earthly Jesus." I still have questions on Paul, but I think the main point is that he liked to have people killed and then one day wakes up and starts founding churches and runs off and has himself killed or something - note - he didn't wake up one day and run off cutting people's heads off on national tv so that he could hang out with some virgins, but rather said he was an orthodox jew and came to know something that changed his life direction.

This is really not all that dissimilar a change of heart, from that Strobel guy that started this conversation, the guy who wrote amazing grace, C.S. lewis, etc. I guess Einstein didn't make the cut though and Hawkings hasn't quite yet. Perhaps he's still waiting on moon made out of blue cheese. Darwin's deathbed stuff I still have questions about, but net net, I know it doesn't matter just because those guys believed in something doesn't necessarily make it true. What is truth? Does truth always have to be testable and verifiable or can sometimes 1 and 1 sometimes just equal 2 that is can it be self-evident as well?

"So, my challenge to you is to link some element of the Jesus story to reality through a credible chain of evidence that can stand up to scrutiny."

There have been plenty of others that have already been down this path and came away with the conclusion that yes this stuff is real. I mentioned a couple of examples; however, the scrutiny that you are seeking seems to be defined by men, which would make me wonder which men are acceptable? Was Newton or was he too far out of touch with modern physics? I certainly wouldn't want you to risk you immortal soul based on my poor skills at debating, arm-chair cosmology, and as you have said critical thinking. So what I suggest is that since you are truly a seeker of truth then be willing to not put your blinders on every time someone mentions something spiritual as an explanation and not give up just yet on your search.

Ultimately, and I mean this as no offense, just reality, I suspect that you are simply at a point I was at several years ago. Yeah - you've got me beat hands down on the cosmology - I just read the critiques on both sides and try to see who is being backed into a corner. I imagine you'll see this as some veiled attempt to relate to you and perhaps it is, but I think its just something I recognize in myself - ironically I've asked most of the same questions that are being asked here in this forum, but just arrived at a different conclusion from this crowd and you, but the difference was at a point of time in my life. What I have realized is that several years ago I would have been arguing along side you not against you.

You seem to be a seeker of "truth", but your truth is defined by what is testable and verifiable - at least I think that is your position. Quantum mechanics as you have maintained is testable and verifiable. I think you may be seeking to define more "how" we came to be. The "how" I think I would largely agree with you on and would probalby not dispute you on most points; however, what I don't understand is okay - something comes from nothing - err at the umm quantum level (sorry for the poor wording). Isn't that still something? I mean the process of something coming from nothing - is that not something?

Stated another way - so the universe may wrap around on itself - okay great, but where did the thing that wraps around on itself come from? Doesn't that bug you even in the slightest? The universe may be finite - okay so it is just there - isn't that not much better than the flat-earthers? I don't mean to insult here, I just don't get it.
The earth is flat and that's that.

Years ago I had lost faith and most of it was due to all the hogwash put forth by modern "Christian" rituals, traditions, dogma, pastors, priests, etc. Turns out most of it was lost in translation. So you might say in a way I am "ex-christian"; where the term christian describes self-righteous - fake - self serving forms of the religion called "christianity" - treating Yahweh as though He were some sort of cosmic ATM. Ultimately, I think the answers to some of the questions you have asked are better captured by what is left of the Hebrew and Greek texts that haven't been transmongrified by evil or careless men. I've been finding lots of holes in our English tranlations - I assume you have as well.

Amazing what modern tools can do for a little 12 year old who has never even kissed a girl and even a non-armchair cosmologist such as yourself. The point to all of this is I think most of your answers are in the more original forms of the text.

If you've already performed the above exercise, then I guess I'll need to pray for you to have a nice little dream of special significance just to you- I'll record it somewhere else so you can verify later if you have to.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Alan — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:23:00 -0000

shohn wrote:

I've had way too many prayers answered to even worry about that one.

Shohn, you also have to take into account people who have prayed just as you do and have received no answer, including many people who post here. You also have to take into account the largest study to date which showed that prayer has no effect.

My guess is that you would ask me to pray for something ridiculous like having this web site shutdown, and then if god didn't answer immediately you would go "see - your god is dead"

Why would I ask you to pray for something ridiculous? Pray for something meaningful, like an unmistakable sign that God exists. But if you prayed to have this website shut down and God answered by actually doing it, that would be far from ridiculous.

I've since started the practice of documenting most of my prayers to see how long before an answer occurs, but I digress.

You're not digressing, you're doing something to support your position - gathering data on the outcome of prayer. I would be interested to see what you come up with.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:53:00 -0000

Shohn, if you're looking for a place to get a foothold, then here is a suggestion. Pick some aspect of the Jesus story--anything at all--and show me solid evidence that it's true. (Please note carefully the word evidence; I did not and shall not use the word proof, as that is an unattainable ideal.) Some words of warning in the interest of saving some time: Quoting the gospels will not do unless you can first demonstrate that they are trustworthy accounts. Quoting Paul won't do unless you can demonstrate that Paul actually knew something of an earthly Jesus. Pointing to supposed "eyewitnesses" will not do unless you can name them, relate exactly what they saw, and how you know your information is accurate. So, my challenge to you is to link some element of the Jesus story to reality through a credible chain of evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. If you think that doing so is impossible without "faith," for example, then please explain why I should have faith in this particular story and not hundreds of others (such as the Mormon story, which has vastly better supporting evidence).

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Jim Arvo — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:06:00 -0000

shohn: "Sounds like I got your panties in a wad,..."

And you sound like you're about 12 years old.

shohn: "There are plenty of 'scientists' that barely knew how to tie their own shoestrings..."

You went on to make a number of irrelevant observations and erect a straw man. Of course one's credentials don't automatically imply anything at all. Every sufficiently large group of people has its dregs.

shohn: "If Jesus showed up and said Hi Jim - stop persecuting me in a dream or even in person, I bet you'd still chalk it up to a chemical imbalance or something in your brain instead of just accepting the obvious."

That's a vague hypothetical. What do you mean by Jesus "showing up" in a dream or in person? How would I know it was anything other than a dream, or an insane person? Regardless of what it means, you have absolutely no idea what my reaction would be, and frankly neither do I. So this is a rather pointless discussion.

shohn: "My continued focus on atoms and quarks is what I thought was a fairly basic question. How is it possible for atoms and quarks to have consciousness?"

How can hydrogen and oxygen be "wet"? Answer: the very question betrays a deep misunderstanding about matter and its properties. If you think it remarkable that an enormous collection of atoms can have any property other than those exhibited by the atoms, then you have not realized that properties such as being "wet" or being "alive" arise from higher-level organization of matter, not from any property already present in the elementary particles themselves. Honestly, if we can't get past that basic point, then it's fruitless to discuss anything that requires more subtle reasoning and judgment.

shohn: "Can consciousness be measured and verified?"

Consciousness cannot even be adequately defined at present, although there are a number of very promising theories that I think are essentially on the right track. Lacking an adequate definition, and therefore tools to "measure" it (whatever that might mean) does not in itself imply anything about consciousness. Lack of knowledge is lack of knowledge; nothing more.

shohn: "...I'm just asking is how would I know I'm not a brain sitting in a jar on someone's desk...."

Simple. You don't. You also do not know for sure that solipsism is not the correct model of the universe. No experiment that you perform could absolutely rule out either scenario. However, there is no positive evidence to support either of those scenarios either, just like there is no positive evidence that there are invisible leprechauns living in my back yard, or that an all powerful being is watching my every move. In fact, one can make up infinitely many scenarios that cannot be disproved, even in principle. If you think that that somehow suggests they are "likely", or should be seriously considered, despite the lack of evidence for them, then all I can say is "Good luck". I, and most of us here, have found it to be far more rational to strive for warranted belief.

shohn: "I agree provided that both are known to be works of fiction;...[Superman comic books and the Bible are] Two completely different things, though on the surface they seem the same."

They are not "completely different things", as I and others have explained at length already. So as not to beat a dead horse, just substitute the "twelve apostles of Mithra", and the analogy will no longer suffer what you view as a roadblock. Do the apostles of Mithra count as witnesses to Mithra? The answer is NO! We have no more reason to believe in the existence/veracity of those "witnesses" than we do in Mithra himself (just like we have NO MORE REASON TO TRUST LOIS LANE THAN SUPERMAN HIMSELF). Do you get it now?

shohn: "Have ever heard of medical miracles? Are documented instances of such 'miracles' hagiography as well and thus in effect equivalent to superman using what I think is your logic?"

I can't quite parse that question, but I think I know what you're asking. First, I am aware of no well-documented miracles; sure, there are unexplained events, but how does one then reach the conclusion that such a thing is a "miracle". I don't know, and neither do numerous philosophers. But, ignoring that for a moment, would such a documented event count as hagiography? No, of course not. That's like asking whether giving somebody a made-up name counts as writing a novel. Hagiography is a genre. It's a style of writing geared toward a particular purpose--to convince others of the divinity or greatness of another. The important distinction here is that hagiography and history are vastly different genres, and no end of confusion ensues when the former is confused with the latter.

shohn: "Also, I haven't heard of anyone dieing for belief in superman just yet so it lost all credibility for me right there."

I know this is going to go in one ear and right out the other, but there have been several characters who risked their lives for Superman (e.g. to spare him exposure to Kryptonite). BUT THAT'S JUST FICTION! you cry. Yes, yes, yes, it's fiction. If you want that fact to help you in some way, you must demonstrate that the martyrs YOU believe in are NOT fiction! What evidence do you have for them and their martyrdom other than several anonymous ancient hagiographic tracts written long after the supposed events? My bet is absolutely nothing.

shohn: "Do you accept that something can not come from nothing?"

No, absolutely not! That notion was put to rest in the early 20'th century. According to quantum mechanics, which is easily the most thoroughly tested and verified scientific theory ever constructed, something not only CAN come from nothing, but does so continually. This has been verified (i.e. observed) through several clever experiments, so it's a tested and verified theory. I've posted at length on this topic many times here already. The "Nothing can come from nothing" mantra is just a bit of quaint armchair physics that rests on nothing more than naive intuition gained from everyday experience. It has no scientific validity at all. In fact, it's demonstrably false.

shohn: "Do you agree that there can be quantum growth in a person's understanding of life, sciences, religion, etc. in the form of an epiphany. For example, a child discovering that Santa Claus isn't real."

I'll take your use of the word "quantum" as metaphorical, and your use of the word "epiphany" in the sense of "sudden insight", devoid of supernatural connotations. In that case, the answer is "yes", of course we all have sudden realizations or "insights". But I suspect you will wish to overlook the fact that such insights constitute "belief", not "knowledge". I have "insights" all the time, which I then go on to TEST. Sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm wrong. That's the nature of intuition.

shohn: "Would you agree that if someone is willing to die for some belief, then there MAY be some truth to the belief...""

You are putting two things together that don't belong together. Let me separate them so that I can more clearly answer your question.

1) Is it possible that any belief MAY be true? Yes. Just about anything MAY be true.

2) Does willingness to die for an idea indicate that one BELIEVES the idea? Yes, martyrdom is a forceful indicator that the martyr BELIEVES in what he/she is dying for.

shohn: "I acknowledge that... just because someone dies for something doesn't mean it is true."

Good.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Steven Bently — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:42:00 -0000

What shohn? You shy away from churches? The very institutions that are built on the commandment of Jesus? God ordained, God-commissioned, God-ran, God-over-seen, Holy-Ghost-spirit-filled-churches?

"Let us not forsake the assembly of God's children." M-L-Acts?

I really think you're a closet Atheist shohn, but you refuse to let go of your childhood indoctrination. We all still remember that crap, it's very hard to let go, it's permentanly ingrained in our memory.

I believe you thought you could tear us down and convert us back to your faiy tale, if you could have you win, but you lose shohn.

There is no more evidence for a Bible God, than Allah, YAHWAH, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Trolls, Leprechauns, ghosts, spirits, miracles, angels, demons, virgin births, resurrections, divine intervention, etc., etc.

A god nor Jesus never wrote one part of the Bible, why not? Because it is the fabrication of superstitious bronze age men.

Re: Don't condemn Jesus! - Letters to the Webmaster

Passerby — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:41:00 -0000

Shohn,
Nice blinders you're wearing.

May you praise your Jealous god.