@DavidStratton : If we don't look to rightly understand what is written in the Bible how can we tell others if its true or not? Its not that you'll just look stupid. That image makes others reject God. This b/c their research shows otherwise, that the earth is old. This why I waited to speak up until I actually was sure what the word day was referring to. We can't teach what we don't know so its very important that we know what is actually written in the Bible.

Otherwise, it only sevres to continue propigating confusion. Again, God isn't the author of confusion. (ESV) Prov 1:22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? (Ref: Hos 4:6).

Also, Solomon was declared the wisest human to have ever lived & he still is.

@fredsbend i can relate to this feeling - I used to be a practicing Christian... events turned me away and changed my perspective

My family is, however, an eclectic mix - Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim, Buddhist, Pastafarian and of course, Atheist

we get along very well - we have a rule at family gatherings that we never discuss religion, politics or sport

After reading the Bible and Scientific texts thoroughly, I find that the Truth is that the Earth is old

@fredsbend : The problem with assigning labels in attempt to define God &/or His characteristics is that it sets limits, usually unrealistic. This b/c we are trying to do so from a human POV. Whereas, God on the other hand, properly defines Himself ( in as much as 1 who occupies infinity could) in the Bible. However, we must set aside our human POV & look to understand Him from His POV as written in the Bible. Otherwise, you'll just end up going round & round with human guesses.

the human Bible, written by, interpreted and translated by humans

@BruceAlderman : When I was very young my parents went to a Baptist church. In about my junior high to early high school yrs I attended a Methodist church youth group & sometimes I attended services. I was often bored at services, which were aboout the same every week. Often I would walk out of the service & reflect on the sermon, thinking I already knew that. Youth group wasn't much better & we rarely read the Bible. Mostly, it was like attending secular type groups, planning & doing mostly

things secular society does, parties, dances, little plays, maybe a field trip once in a while. The only time it might be a little more religious was for Christmas or Easter. Then I went to Brigades, a group that was at least spending more time reading the Bible & at least knew about being Born Anew. B/c their Bible knowledge was limited I didn't take it very seriously but at least they were trying. After high school I pretty much didn't want anythhing to do with organized religion.

interesting, @user9712, during high school and early years in University, I was very religious, and used to carry the Bible with me everywhere... something happened sonn after, faith was shattered - now, no Bibles are in my house... the Truth for me is Science

Later, I visited coffey houses & said the sinner's prayer again but they didn't seem to know much about the Bible either. A few yrs later I ran into some religious groups but didn't find much on God there either. Then I ran into people that seem to know quite a bit about the Bible & I once again prayed the sinner's prayer with them (I figured that it couldn't hurt to say it again, what did I have to loose?). Well the shock of my life! For days I felt like my feet couldn't touch the floor &

I could hardly sleep (didn't feel tire though) & all I wanted to do was read the Bible. Within about 6 months I knew more of the Bible then most of the clergy I had run into in my life. However, like anything I ran out of steam after a while. A couple of yrs later, I was talking about physics with someone & realized something amazing had been in the Bible for 1000s of years & that began a much bigger Bible study & thus evidence that the Bible waa in fact written by God not man, that it was man

i believe that the Bible was written by intelligent, wise and honest humans, using their literary skills and ingenuity

that was making many mistakes, not reading the Bible &/or not carefully enough &/or they were not being careful not to go beyond what is written. It makes all the difference in the conclusions drawn by various people, clergy & churches. For instance, I had worked at a church for nearly a year & not once did I see a Bible opened nor discussed. I hung out with some 7th Day Asventists, same problem. But the truth that stands forever unchanged is in the Bible.

That should read "not carefully reading the Bible enough...".

the 'message' in the Bible does not have any bearing on my research

@Amaterasu : Many believe that. However, having studied the whole Bible, some parts many times over 45 yrs, I can state with absolute certainty that God wrote the Bible, through Jesus, using men who ranged from very intelligent to some of average intelligence. However, many didn't know each other, some living 1000's of yrs later who didn't have access to other's writings yet God's never changing system (constants) is present through out the whole Bible & all of it adheres to the absolute truth.

@user9712 I am afraid that is not even a remotely convincing argument

I still believe what I said about the Bible, additionally, it is a fine historical text (one of the best in my view). To me, Science is the Truth.

to clarify - I consider Science as a method, a process and in itself being Truth through verifiable evidence

@Amaterasu You could say Science is a method (to put it simply), however you can really never reach absolute truth through it (and it never claims to do so)... Not sure you meant that though. :) And if this is unclear, I can try to be more specific. :D

@Amaterasu If by that you mean, "there's no science in the Bible", I agree.

@Amaterasu ... And if by that you mean, "the Bible is an attempt at a historical work." You're off your rocker, my friend.

They Bible, though it contains some history and refers to things that scientist can study, is neither a historical work, nor a scientific one. Nor did the early Church think of it as either.

So, framing the Bible as a "fine historical work" is to frame the Bible about as incorrectly as you can. To me, that sort of invalidates your opinions of it.

@svidgen There is the possibility to glean history from all ancient works, even if they were not written for history's sake. Undoubtedly, some of the Bible was written for history's sake, but some of it was certainly not.

@Amaterasu Do you mind sharing what happened?

@user9712 Here's the rub about the Bible and Christianity in general: It is a revealed religion. Ultimately, I'm actually placing faith in the people who wrote it. Until God reveals Himself to me as the Bible claims happened to Moses, Abraham, Paul, et al. I'm left with simply believing that those men (or the authors) aren't wrong or flat out lying.

Which leads me to my problems with God supposedly being omnipotent and all loving, which is well supported in the Biblical text. It leaves me wondering why I, a devout Christian all my life, have never felt a real connection to God, despite me practically begging for anything for the last ten years.

So I'm done with that. If He is really omnipotent and all loving then it is totally in His control to reach out to me. Good friends pick up the phone and call once in a while. So I'm waiting for His call, but I'm done leaving messages on His machine.

@Nelson ^^^

@fredsbend Well ... no, it wasn't. The Jews and early Christians didn't care so much about writing their history down. They cared about writing their "story" down -- very different. And although it relates to history, it's usually a mistake to interpret Biblical accounts as history.

Most of the Bible is explicitly not history. And that which "is history" can still be presumed to be "history" from a religious perspective.

That's not to say that the accounts are false, or that you can't learn something about history from them. But, they're not written for the sake of knowing the history. The history, to the extent that it's documented, is written and filtered for religious purposes: To tell the Jews how they relate to God, how faithful God is to them, and how their own unfaithfulness to God has always resulted in bad things ...

... All of which parallels the progression of personal spirituality.

@fredsbend Maybe you missed this one: usccb.org/bible/1kings/19:12 ... God, like the Tao, is silent.

Or this: usccb.org/bible/exodus/33:18 (through verse 23) ... You cannot see God's face. God is never revealed that way. You always see Him in passing. In plain dry terms, a genuine experience of God is only really known in retrospect.

... part of the obstacle to folks finding God [in Christianity] is this idea that He makes grand appearances. That He's a wonder worker. That His job is to answer our prayers and make us feel good. But, that's a gross misreading of both the Bible and Christianity.

@fredsbend I hope you don't feel alone in your experience. The stage your in, if I understand it, is a stage well-known to the saints. And it's well covered in scripture if you know to read it as a living analogy of the spiritual life. You're in the desert, you know?

You're in a state of spiritual desolation. And you want things from God. And its not wrong to grumble and demand things from Him. But, it's an arid state. It's supposed to be. God necessarily withholds Himself and holds Himself at a distance (in the fire and smoke) from folks periodically to advance them. And you generally need someone (Moses) to keep you on the path during the dryness.

So, if I could offer some encouragement, since we're off topic here again, return to your Christian roots -- wherever those might be. Walk the walk. For awhile, it'll be tough. It'll be arid. But, I suspect the Christian tradition that led you into the desert can get you through it to a state far better than you were going in.

From personal experience, this sort of thing has happened to me a lot ... and I still consider myself a spiritual novice. Novice of novices. ... But, in retrospect, I'm still way better off after each period of desolation than I was going into it. And I'm incredibly thankful that I've had networks of Catholics to keep me motivated, and brilliant Catholic (and other Christian) authors to assure me, in various terms, that the intense dryness is a necessary stage in spiritual growth.

So, go boldly forth, man. And keep at least one thing in mind: When God withdraws, He has withdrawn precisely to force you to advance towards the promised land. Stick with the practices that led you into desolation, reiterate over your doctrines, find a spiritual advisor, and be prepared to change a little, for the better. You know, release your death grip on who you think God is, let God be God ... and once you take that step, you'll find God's more astounding than you previously thought.

@fredsbend This happens to us all at times, and sometimes it lasts for years. I've talked a little about my experiences with God, but those are now in the distant past. I've been experiencing a spiritual desert since somewhere in the mid-1990s. And apparently Mother Teresa went nearly half a century without experiencing God's presence before her death.

@Alenanno i do not believe 'absolute' Truth exists at all

@svidgen no I do not mean that

@svidgen I did not say that, and saying that I am 'off my rocker' merely because you disagree is arrogant - let me make this clear - do not put words into my mouth - I never mentioned that the Bible is an attempt at a historical work - YOU said that, that is YOUR interpretation and an incorrect one. I say exactly what I mean.

@fredsbend long story - but svidgen's assumptions about different meanings in what I am saying ad attempts at judgements/insults are some small part of it.

and by small part, I mean small part - not a major part. The major part was the result of a great deal of pain inflicted on friends and family by the Church - which I can not and will not discuss any further

@fredsbend Thinking about it, and reflecting on somethign you said earlier (can't find it) - this statement of yours pretty well sums it up for me

@Amaterasu No insult intended -- I was quite confident you didn't think the Bible was an attempt at a historical work. But, I wanted to be clear that's what we meant. The Bible is not intended to be read as history. So, to praise the collection as "a fine historical text" is to misunderstand it.

@Amaterasu I'd be interested to know what you meant. Because, contrary to your asserting that you "say what you mean", all language is multi-interpretable.

@svidgen you have to understand that is how I see it - if you see my previous conversations, I am an Atheist - terms like 'absolute Truth' etc have no meaning to me (anymore)

@svidgen I am saying that I say what I mean, especially when I type it in to a chat room

@Amaterasu What does absolute truth have to do with whether the Bible is praiseworthy as a historical text?

but it appears that everything I say will be judged

I stopped believing in Christianity a while ago

@Amaterasu Fine and good. But don't fail to recognize that what you say, especially in a chatroom, is almost never interpreted how you mean. Most of us, I think, are ready to clarify our statements with that in mind.

@svidgen but do not say and assert your meaning to what I say as being the truth of what I was thinking

@Amaterasu Not judging you. Only trying to clarify some things. I'm not really even suggesting you misunderstand; but that if you meant something that I'm confident you didn't mean, you'd be mistaken.

@Amaterasu Only clarification is intended.

Hence, the conditional mode of my clarifications. You know ... if-statements.

please understand that I am not as stupid as some in here seem to think - just because I do not believe in what you believe does not make me an idiot

@Amaterasu Nor am I suggesting you're stupid.

And in general, most of the atheists I've had the privilege to know are of a supreme intelligence.

I am a Physicist, Geologist and Teacher

But, and perhaps to illustrate my point about how it's worthless claim you "say what you mean", the rift between atheism and theism is almost always a matter of a communication barrier.

It's clear, as a theist who's had serious periods of doubt and disbelief, in watching theists and atheists interact and debate, that they're not speaking the same language. Common theists are largely oblivious to the complaints of the atheist. And atheists are largely oblivious to what ... dare I say "real" theists mean by "God."

@Amaterasu Yeah. Don't care, really. Not relevant.

I couls spend some time explaining what I actually mean when I refer to the Bible as a 'fine historical text', however, from experience, this usually turns into people trying not accepting my views as being how I see things - but invalidating my views nd me

I'm a computer scientist! ... Doesn't make what I say and believe any more or less relevant.

@svidgen fine, whatever - thank you for reminding me why I left the Church

@Amaterasu Well. Maybe I'd tell you you're wrong. Maybe I wouldn't. Maybe you'd invalidate what I think. Who knows?

I'm not sure why the fear of being told "you're wrong" should stop you though. As far as I can tell, we're all wrong on a pretty regular basis.

That said, I'm not asking you to clarify. I don't need you to. You "say what you mean." And that's fine. We read what you said. And I said what I meant in response.

There's no pressure to clarify if you're not interested in the possibility that someone in this room has misconceptions.

... Or the possibility that we agree, but we're just using the wrong words to reach that agreement. Often the scarier prospect. Agreeing with someone you're sworn to disagree with ...

@svidgen I am not 'sworn to disagree' with anyone

@Amaterasu Wait. You left the Church because your degrees and accomplishments weren't recognized as relevant to your theology?

@svidgen you're assuming again - where did I say those words?

those exact words?

@Amaterasu OK. Now you're getting ridiculous. ... To recap, you gave me your credentials. I said, "I don't care." As to mean, "your credentials aren't relevant here." To which you said, "thanks for reminding me why I left the church" ..

And if you're going to nitpick over precise wording and ignore the meaning behind the words, you're absolutely right: we'll get nowhere here.

@svidgen you never said that, you just simply said my credentials were not relevant

I do not assume meaning behind your words

@Amaterasu Yes. You do. It's automatic. ... I'd think someone with a bunch of degrees and accomplishments would have some idea how much assumption goes into interpreting text.

The whole conversion from words to meaning is a huge chain of fuzzy interpretation.

No, actually, I don't

Language is inherently non-legalistic and imprecise ... It's the very reason we need legalists.

and there are some who, for whatever reason, take another's words at face value

Anywho. I can't bicker with you all day. The conversation will get nowhere.

@Amaterasu Meaning what, exactly?

Suppose I say, "I need to run to the bathroom." ... Wouldn't taking me at "face value" mean that you think I'm actually going to run to a bathroom (THE bathroom) and then do nothing?

There are some people, who either by choice or via a condition, only interpret what a person says as being exactly what they say

You wouldn't [correctly] understand me to mean, "I have to pee and/or poop?"

@svidgen I am autistic and take things at face value

And before you answer, let me be clear -- I'm not attempting to judge you here. I'm attempting to make a simple point so we can stop bickering.

@Amaterasu Yeah. I score off the charts on autism tests too. Reading between the lines is a highly conscious effort for me.

@svidgen likewise, but many things I do not get

It's highly unnatural for me. And I still have frequent communication faux pas. Hence, I implore you to make a conscious effort to read between the lines here; and to acknowledge that even the brain of an autistic person constructs language in nuanced and personal ways. It's unavoidable. Language is inherently ambiguous.

And again, I'm pressing on this in hopes that, should I see you in the rooms here again, we can have some understanding. Not to judge.

When time permits, I may be interested to know more about your personal story and reasons for your beliefs/disbeliefs. As I said, it's often a communication issue. But, I'd be interested to know at some point whether your disbelief in God stems from emotional reasons, a tendency towards skepticism, or having been incorrectly told what or who God is.

As for now ... I'm afraid I have to have a snack. Lest I pass out ...

Truly, I'm sorry if I came across in an offensive manner.

@svidgen It was a very painful episode from the Church to me and my family

But, I will not be returning to this discussion

take care

@Amaterasu Fair enough. Godspeed!

I do not stay where I feel I am not welcome

Enjoy the snack - which I might do as well

@Amaterasu Let me know if you're interested in chatting one-on-one. No hostility. Just interest in finding some mutual understanding.

@svidgen You can't apply your definition of history to an ancient people that thought differently than you. "Their story" is the same thing. I said glean history from it. I didn't say pass it as a textbook.

@Amaterasu To be precise, it doesn't exist to us. As in, it's impossible for humans to reach it, and there I agree with you. But absolute truth might exist per se, just impossible to attain for humans. That's my take at least.

They way you talk about it makes it sound like there is not a single story that might be rooted in fact, or even might be factual in itself.

@fredsbend A little OT but: who is that in your avatar? :D

@svidgen I'm not complaining about not physically seeing god. I'm complaining about not have any connection with God at all on any level! Moses spoke to God plainly. Why can't I? See this

@Alenanno I googled "wind in face" and settled on this one.

We're pretty easy on topics, here, and in the Upper Room too.

@fredsbend Ahah cool, I see, thanks. I hope I didn't interrupt your thoughts though.

np

@svidgen I appreciate your encouragement. I have thought something similar. We will see I guess.

@Amaterasu I understand. Sometimes people can be just awful. My journey to where I am started almost two years ago and was basically forced on me by some of the leaders at the Church I was attending. I don't want to get into it either, but, hindsight being very clear, they were much more concerned with being self righteous than with my welfare.

Nothing new though. I had been complaining about the vast number of "fake Christians" at this mega church for years earlier.

I also keep coming back to something Gandhi supposedly said and was parroted by Sulla Erma:

> I'd be a Christian if I ever met one.

@fredsbend Right. I was objecting to the statement that some of it was written for history's sake -- which isn't accurate in the modern sense of the word. And it's moot to speak of it in the ancient Jewish sense.

Alternatively, I have also heard:

> I like your Christ; I do not like your Christian.

@svidgen Okay, so we are probably on the same page.

@fredsbend It's easy for spiritual leaders to get self-righteous. If you think of how easy it is for those of us who aren't spiritual to get self-righteous, how much more-so for the leaders. But, I'm always reminded that Jesus affirmed the leadership of the Pharisees, but denied their actions.

And in the Catholic Church, for instance, that's a big theme. The teachings of the Church proper have been consistent since day 1, as evidenced by the writings of the Church fathers. And according to those very teachings, it's to be expected that the leadership itself will contain evil people -- or even good people who get caught up in evil things.

@svidgen I guess. The event I'm referring to was just a catalyst; it got the ball rolling. I did not loose faith because of their poor actions. I didn't loose faith at all; the faith left me!

But, even in ancient Judiasm, where there was some significant variation in the teachings, Christ was pretty clear that a Jew should do as their leaders instruct, but not as they do!

@fredsbend Quite possibly. Faith is a gift. Your job is to be open to it. But, God must provide it.

@Amaterasu This room was created with debate in mind. It's expected to be challenged here. Also, I don't think anyone, including svidgen, is attacking you or calling you stupid. Just challenging you because that is the room's purpose.

@svidgen Interesting.

@fredsbend Oft-overlooked, that Moses sees God "face to face" in 33:11 is followed quickly by God telling Moses in 33:20, "But you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live."

> I never said she took my money.

@svidgen and @amaterasu The above phrase has seven words and has seven distinct meanings depending on which word you stress.

That doesn't include how context may require more than one word to be stressed.

@fredsbend And on that point, you should be somewhat comforted on two points. Firstly, the gift of having "seen God" in scripture is a very rare occurrence. Secondly, to "see God", at least in this occurrence, is directly contrasted with the "cloud" that accompanies the rest of the Israelites' view of God.

So, it's not that Moses actually "sees" God. Or even that Moses knows God in any sense of perfection. Only that his vision of God is like seeing God face to face as compared to everyone else in his camp.

@svidgen Uh-huh. And that is a really convenient platform for charlatans.

Here's a cosmic joke. God gives you eyes and other senses along with a rational brain, then demands that you have faith in him when it defies the tools he has given you.

@fredsbend It can surely seem that way.

"Faith in Him!? He won't even talk to me!"

My own Father is kind of a prick, but at least he talks to me. My Father in heaven hasn't said a single word to me.

Even the worst father is more real than God, yet, the Bible compares the two.

@fredsbend I presume you're told your heavenly Father He's a jackass. ... In all seriousness, that's always helped me in the past.

You mean tell God He's a Jackass?

@fredsbend Biblical fathers are quite a bit different than the modern western father. For starters, biblical fathers saw their children as gifts. Modern fathers? ... Mostly accept their kids as a necessary consequence to getting laid.

@fredsbend Yes. Tell God He's a jackass.

At the risk of conflicting upon anyone's beliefs here: It's not at all irreverent or wrong to speak your mind to God. It's more irreverent to pretend He doesn't already know.

@svidgen No, I haven't tried that. I have said something like "I'm done talking. It's your turn. Your the omnipotent God. Be real in my life. Until then I will just assume you don't care about me or don't even exist."

More often than not, you just need to acknowledge what you think. And you need to acknowledge that God knows what you think. And when you say it out loud, your "inner voice" has a greater opportunity to react.

And, though mental prayer is highly praised, I always find it's helpful to say it out loud.

I really need to work. ttyl.

Thanks.

See ya.

@svidgen @fredsbend This is something I've done many times. Not "jackass" precisely, but I've told God he was "dumb" and "mean" because of what he was letting happen to people I cared for.

God can handle it, and he even understands the mental state we're in when we say things like that.

@BruceAlderman I guess, but I feel like a dumb whiny kid if I were to do it. If he's omnipotent and all loving then there must be a very good reason. Otherwise, He just seems crazy.