The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet Re: Veith as too radical

Sola scriptura requires what it requires. He's hardly bashful.

Aside from Walter Veith's multiple "releases" from formal teaching positions in scientific fields, his books and lectures received admonition from some Seventh Day Adventist organizations sketched out even in wikipedia.

I take it you're not familiar with the entertaining details of those "releases".

In my view it only matters little that Veith's own religious views are controversial among his fellows in religion. Arguing about doctrine and mythical details are of little concern to me being absent objective evidence. My only real concern with Veith is his obviously agenda driven pseudoscience especially in the areas of Evolution and Earth's age, both surviving hundreds of years of expert (and extreme) scrutiny. Science doesn't concern itself with absolute certainty, only levels of probability.

I was wondering whether Wikipedia would be your goto if you bothered to respond to my request. I was looking for something other than what Wikipedia contains. Its auditorial bent on such topics is lopsided. Objective evidence, and evidence uncolored by biased interpretations are vastly different in value.

I am in full agreement with Veith's views expressed in the vast wealth of information he has made available, particularly WRT diet, the Papacy, and particularly the surviving ancient Biblical texts vis-a-vis Biblical translations published after around 1844. Modern translations are missing crucial language in many places. The KJV no doubt has flaws, but missing language isn't one of them.

The probability of accuracy for Evolution and Earth's age are well into the high 90s percentile odds.

Only from the perspective of your humanist world view, where I see boundless supposition mixed with what evidence is available, and supposition-based interpretations of that evidence. Of particular significance is the hard core insistence that there was and/or could not have been a worldwide flood. The evidence supporting the worldwide flood of the Bible is overwhelmingly better IMO than the explanations of supposed evidence it never happened.

To gain any ground against such odds requires extraordinary evidence, much like the nature of fire as oxidation, not "phlogiston", and the existence of Gravity. Veith exhibits none of that level of discipline.

He exhibits more than enough discipline for me. He provides a lot of data poking holes in, and outright breaking of, interpretations of "evidence" inconsistent with the Bible. Unlike most presenters, his style relies extremely heavily on quoting literature from multiple disciplines. It's infrequently necessary to rely heavily on his own words. He supports what he reports.

A common statement he makes at or near presentation closing, as well as variously interspersed earlier: "It's your choice to make [how to interpret/whether to believe]. You must choose one or the other."

Originally Posted by mrmazda I take it you're not familiar with the entertaining details of those "releases".

In truth, you are correct as I most certainly have not studied Veith deeply. Admittedly that's less than ideal, but the fact remains one must choose carefully what to seek in depth, what merely cursory, and what to be simply ignored. If someone says to me, "You may not believe this but in a dream I had...." I really need to hear no more. I will probably listen in trying to not be rude or disrespectful, but nothing that follows such a setup holding anything beyond mild entertainment can follow. I have read verbatim excerpts from Veith that put him and his "releases" in such company.

Originally Posted by mrmazda I was wondering whether Wikipedia would be your goto if you bothered to respond to my request. I was looking for something other than what Wikipedia contains. Its auditorial bent on such topics is lopsided. Objective evidence, and evidence uncolored by biased interpretations are vastly different in value.

I often choose wikipedia because it appears to be somewhat like Linux, OpenSource with "enough eyes" and attached concerns noting more evidence is needed seemingly displaying a level of objectivity and transparency. Some subjects suffer in that environment, but in general it is a decent source especially in more technical areas I find usually reasonably "dumbed down" where possible so even those absent high level University degrees in the field can grasp the basics. Would you really prefer I quote scholarly abstracts from "Nature"? I doubt it.

That said, of course I would "bother to respond" to you. We are all in this together and you've not given me cause to simply ignore you. I am an atheist, but that doesn't imply I'm mean, aloof, or don't view all humans, including you mrmazda, as brethren.

Originally Posted by mrmazda I am in full agreement with Veith's views expressed in the vast wealth of information he has made available, particularly WRT diet, the Papacy, and particularly the surviving ancient Biblical texts vis-a-vis Biblical translations published after around 1844. Modern translations are missing crucial language in many places. The KJV no doubt has flaws, but missing language isn't one of them.

I have no problem with Veith's or Seventh Day Adventists concerns with diet. That is a worthy area of concern and study. I don't care about the Papacy other than looking forward to a day (that I'll likely never see) in which it is dissolved. I am somewhat concerned with any "literal translations" of scripture especially when claiming infallibility. That is obviously fallacious to anyone who hasn't "drunk the KoolAid" and instead has any moicum of critical thinking surviving indoctrination.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Only from the perspective of your humanist world view, where I see boundless supposition mixed with what evidence is available, and supposition-based interpretations of that evidence. Of particular significance is the hard core insistence that there was and/or could not have been a worldwide flood. The evidence supporting the worldwide flood of the Bible is overwhelmingly better IMO than the explanations of supposed evidence it never happened.

I suppose I do have considerable in accordance with Humanism assuming we define that the same way -

Originally Posted by Brittanica Humanitas meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word humanity—understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy—but also such more assertive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence, and even love of honour.

that does seem a pretty decent start to me, but supposition? LOL no way! I trust in The Scientific Method which requires objective, repeatable and falsifiable evidence. There is zero evidence of a global flood, let alone a firmament holding back a "Space Ocean", and mountains of evidence falsifying any claim of a worldwide flood reaching mountain tops. If we add in the parable of Noah we drift into patent absurdity. Granted, such absurdities are to be expected among Bronze Age humans as they simply didn't know any better.

I don't even have to insist that some Divine Creator did not reveal the concepts in scripture, only that they were written down by MEN, and whether willfully or simply due to ignorance, the text is very obviously an interpretation at best, and utterly contradictory, false and immoral in hindsight, totally reflecting Bronze Age human views on Nature and the nature of men. KoolAid.

Originally Posted by mrmazda He exhibits more than enough discipline for me. He provides a lot of data poking holes in, and outright breaking of, interpretations of "evidence" inconsistent with the Bible. Unlike most presenters, his style relies extremely heavily on quoting literature from multiple disciplines. It's infrequently necessary to rely heavily on his own words. He supports what he reports. A common statement he makes at or near presentation closing, as well as variously interspersed earlier: "It's your choice to make [how to interpret/whether to believe]. You must choose one or the other."

I get it that something in your character or belief system needs absolute certainty so I don't deny you that right. If that helps you sleep at night and get going in the morning and helps you maintain a healthy lifestyle, kind, tolerant and helpful to your neighbors, who am I to disagree? I simply must question doctrine, doctrine that insists there has been zero progress in understanding the World for 2000+ years. There is a reason that Veith is written off as pseudoscience. He may be well heeld in diet and to some extent, zoology, but his understanding of Evolutionary Biology and Geology are sorely lacking which is why no credible scientists expert in those fields takes him seriously.

If you need to continue to deny progress in human knowledge and subvert the dictionary meaning of scientific evidence, so be it. I stand firmly against teaching pseudoscience in schools alongside actual Science let alone the utter abomination of making it Law.

I'm seeing text posts and video podcasts "prophesying" apocalyptic Universal End Times if not the "Second Coming" because of today's Total Eclipse of the Sun some even mentioning the names of cities it will pass over such as Ninevah and Rapture. I think it passes over Intercourse, Pennsylvania too but nobody mentions that I suppose that might make some sense to those who insist upon literal and infallible translation of Christian Scripture, and maybe I've just been away from it for too long but I am a bit puzzled by the perceived significance of the number 7. I either wasn't aware or had forgotten that Christian Scripture flirted with Numerology. Anyone here know about this?

Originally Posted by enorbet There is zero evidence of a global flood

From a suitable perspective, the Grand Canyon, curved rock layers, tree trunks reaching through multiple coal layers, specific ocean trenches, polar fossil records, and sea creature fossils on mountaintops are just a few of many evidences of global flood.

I don't even have to insist that some Divine Creator did not reveal the concepts in scripture, only that they were written down by MEN, and whether willfully or simply due to ignorance, the text is very obviously an interpretation at best, and utterly contradictory, false and immoral in hindsight, totally reflecting Bronze Age human views on Nature and the nature of men. KoolAid.

You clearly have little undertanding of the massive volume the Bible speaks. It's exceedingly complex, on top of much that the simplest of minds can understand, yet with no possibility for any human to fully comprehend it all. It's a clear fountain exposing that the more you learn, the more you learn you don't know, and can't ever know, yet it instills hunger for learning all the more. It does explain itself, though not often in simple or clear fashion, like its special significance given to certain numbers, and apparent confusion over whether something has a literal meaning, a metaphorical meaning, or both, or more. That it does do so indicates mind-boggling intelligence went into its existence.

Most Biblical prophesies have already come to pass, with much corroborated by extra-Biblical writings and archaeology. Right now we're watching one of its last ones play out - Israel and its special significance in the middle east: Aliyah; the Balfour Declaration in 1917; its declaration of independence in 1948; (especially) the six day war in 1967; the Yom Kippur war in 1973; and since then, too many battles to keep track of, all the more recent expected based upon the prophecy of Genesis 16:11-12:

11: Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shall call his name Ish'ma-el; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. 12: And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

I get it that something in your character or belief system needs absolute certainty so I don't deny you that right.

I need only the better evidence. I was fed that [b,m]illions of years evolutionary babble all through my secondary and tertiary schooling, and believed much of it for a long time. But I learned more, and did a less public or radical about face in the ilk of Lee Strobel, Walter Veith and a wealth of retired scientists no longer encumbered by dependence on their jobs' paychecks.

I found long ago that irreducible complexity is one concept that for me is sufficient on its own to defend intelligent design, regardless what some underqualified lawyer(s?) failed to "prove" to a court a century ago as a justification for similar deleterious judicial findings since then. Sometimes evidence takes only logic or mathematical probability to recognize or understand. Clearly, different eyes affect the way many evidences are interpreted, if relevant at all.

To at all understand why I have faith in Veith's competence, one may need to listen to more than a few sentences with little or no context, or to the opinions of others with an opposite agenda[1]. These two videos include Veith explaining how modern genetics supports Darwin's evolution of life as being utter nonsense, with a lot of context.
The Genes Of Genesis - The Whole Truth (Part 5) (58min)Title material begins around 6 minutes in, after the dialog with his archaeologist friend Francois.
The Genesis Conflict: The Genes of Genesis (84min)
The first is a repackaging of portions of the the latter and comes from Veith's Clash of Mind project, formerly ADTV Africa. The latter AFAIK first showed up via ADTV Canada.

[1] Also, I like listening to him. His presentational demeanor is soothing most of the time, particularly in his more recent material.

Originally Posted by enorbet I either wasn't aware or had forgotten that Christian Scripture flirted with Numerology. Anyone here know about this?

It's a Jewish thing basically. In Hebrew, as in Latin (and I believe in Greek too), letters are used as numbers because there are no separate glyphs for those. And it became customary after the Exile to interpret names and other words numerically and to draw conclusions about words or names that evaluated to the same number. It's called gematria. The most famous example is the Number of the Beast 666 in the book of Revelation.

Of course all the first Christians (except Luke) were Jews, a fact that later Christians preferred to forget.

Re: Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
There is zero evidence of a global flood

Originally Posted by mrmazda From a suitable perspective, the Grand Canyon, curved rock layers, tree trunks reaching through multiple coal layers, specific ocean trenches, polar fossil records, and sea creature fossils on mountaintops are just a few of many evidences of global flood.

I'm glad you began with "From a suitable perspective" because all of those you mention have explanations from a vast array of experts in each field that actually make sense because they are corroborated by many similar examples and experts in crossover fields (such as Chemistry, Biology, and Geology) have survived rigorous attempts at falsification and do not depend on "Deus ex Machina". In addition and most fundamentally there is not now nor has there ever been a crystalline sphere firmament holding back a Space Ocean and there has never been enough water on Earth to cover the surface up to mountaintops.

Interpret as you choose, but your methodology is fanciful. Nothing, no amount of scientific evidence can sway you. You are locked in.

Originally Posted by mrmazda You clearly have little undertanding of the massive volume the Bible speaks.

You have zero understanding of what I know about Scripture, including Christian Scripture.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Most Biblical prophesies have already come to pass, with much corroborated by extra-Biblical writings and archaeology. Right now we're watching one of its last ones play out - Israel and its special significance in the middle east: Aliyah; the Balfour Declaration in 1917; its declaration of independence in 1948; (especially) the six day war in 1967; the Yom Kippur war in 1973; and since then, too many battles to keep track of, all the more recent expected based upon the prophecy of Genesis 16:11-12:

Even if I temporarily grant you those you've mentioned above for the sake of argument, if I understand your position correctly you assert that your particular interpretation of scripture, as opposed to the hundreds of other interpretations, is that as you see it the Christian Bible is infallible so EVERY item and every prophecy must be true and real. They are not and some are known to be complete fabrications such as the above mentioned firmament and Space Ocean. Another example is in Joshua 6, the Battle of Jericho. It used to be said that the Biblical timeline was off by 150 years but that is less clear since around 1990. What is utterly clear is nobody in their right mind believes trumpets felled any fortress walls. There is zero evidence that is even possible and mountains of evidence it is not.

Sorry, there is no evidence for Magic, and doesn't it worry you just a little, that all accounts of such Divine Intervent apparently ceased 2000 years ago?.

Originally Posted by mrmazda I need only the better evidence. I was fed that [b,m]illions of years evolutionary babble all through my secondary and tertiary schooling, and believed much of it for a long time. But I learned more, and did a less public or radical about face in the ilk of Lee Strobel, Walter Veith and a wealth of retired scientists no longer encumbered by dependence on their jobs' paychecks.

Ah the same Lee Strobel who told the story of a woman who was "dying of Multiple Sclerosis" (which isn't deadly) whose hands and feet were curled up so she could walk, grasp objects, or see, and while surrounded by her friends on her Death Bed heard a voice nobody else heard but she KNEW it was God telling her to rise up and she did. In this case we not only have Magic, we have blatant lies. Yes, Lee Strobel, a very reliable source (sarcasm).

As for the rest you commonly quote people from The Discovery Institute that were proven in a court of Law to Lie Under Oath! How can you live with that? Irreducible Complexity is entirely and objectively fallacious but no doubt you will continue to see it as Irrefutable Truth until the day you die because once again, Deus Ex Machina. There is a reason that term is used as a Plot Device to wiggle out of an untenable plot development.

@enorbet: When someone already knows what “the Truth” is, he will choose “evidence” that “proves” his position. And you can’t argue with them.

Originally Posted by hazel It's a Jewish thing basically. In Hebrew, as in Latin (and I believe in Greek too), letters are used as numbers because there are no separate glyphs for those. And it became customary after the Exile to interpret names and other words numerically and to draw conclusions about words or names that evaluated to the same number. It's called gematria. The most famous example is the Number of the Beast 666 in the book of Revelation. Of course all the first Christians (except Luke) were Jews, a fact that later Christians preferred to forget.

Thanks hazel. I had wondered if it was some remnant of Kabala but have been confused how that hung on for 2 millennia in some areas of Christianity. I also vaguely recall something about "666" as referring to Nero but other than those writing it assuming Nero wouldn't get it but those opposed to Nero would, I didn't quite get the connection.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs @enorbet: When someone already knows what “the Truth” is, he will choose “evidence” that “proves” his position. And you can’t argue with them.

True, the phrase "hook, line and sinker" comes to mind

Originally Posted by enorbet Thanks hazel. I had wondered if it was some remnant of Kabala but have been confused how that hung on for 2 millennia in some areas of Christianity.

There is a link to an early form of Kabbala. The form used now evolved in the twelfth century as a mystical discipline and became a magical system for Christians in the fifteenth century.One of my ancestors btw was a famous Kabbalistic scholar.

I also vaguely recall something about "666" as referring to Nero but other than those writing it assuming Nero wouldn't get it but those opposed to Nero would, I didn't quite get the connection.

Apparently the Greek letters for 666 spelt out Neron Kesar. But I prefer the explanation that Robert Graves came up with. He said that as the Beast was a Roman Beast, the letters must be Roman numbers: DCLXVI. He thought it was an initialism for the charge against Antichrist as INRI was an initialism for the charge against Christ: Domitius Caesar (qui) legatos Christi violenter interfecit (Domitius Caesar who brutally murdered the envoys of Christ). Domitius Ahenobarbus was Nero's real name but he hated anyone using it. Graves thought that the Antichrist being targetted here was not Nero himself but Domitian, whose name actually means "One of the same kind as Domitius". In other words Nero risen from the dead, just like Jesus.

I don't think the Christians were particularly worried about their enemies "getting it". Remember they wanted to be martyred. It was their ticket to heaven.

Many of these things are, of course, "very educated speculation." It is of course impossible now to "know."

But we do know from other extant examples (and there are actually "many"), that so-called "apocalyptic literature" did appear to contain what might well be "coded messages."

You see – when someone else was kicking your nation's butt, and you were suffering grievously at their brutal hand, "literature" which talked about God swooping down from heaven to "kick their butt(!)" was of course extremely popular. We have many surviving examples of this kind of [political?] writing. However, if you were known to be the writer of any such thing and you made any direct reference to "the Powers who were to be kicked," your life would of course become extremely short. (And your intended readers might be justifiably fearful to be identified with you, if a copy were to be discovered by some soldier.)

Regardless of meaning: The reference to "666" in The Revelation of Saint John is, even on its face, "strangely curious." It doesn't even seem to belong there. It stands out. Yet, the very fact that it does "stand out" immediately suggests (at least, to me and others) that it is very likely "a cipher." Which the intended readers undoubtedly knew how to decode.

I'll now leave it to others to decide what it actually meant. (Likewise other oddities, such as referring to an antagonist as "The Beast." I can't recall any other bad-guy being referenced by that name in this anthology.) The entire "second half" of this book spins into an amazing series of abstractions which are actually quite distinctive to it. Most authors didn't bother.