1. Fleabytes

Comment #152687 by Paul Creber on March 31, 2008 at 10:58 am

Quetz,

I think we should call for balance by having an atheist speak at every one of David Robertson's church

Thanks for that. It is exactly the point I made a couple of weeks back on the FCOS forum (http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.135). So far, no-one there has responded.

2. Fleabytes

Comment #148742 by Paul Creber on March 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm

The trouble with us atheists is that we fail to use the Queen's English in the manner in which its Christian designers intended. Our vocabulary is at best sloppy and at worst downright misleading. Here, to help us mend our ways is a brief glossary of terms used by that outstanding exponent of theist-speak, David Robertson. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.


Faith: Belief based upon evidence, but not evidence as the world knows it.
Evidence: Something I have decided is sufficient for belief.
Christianity: The belief held by myself and some members of the Free Church of Scotland.
Fundamentalism (when applied to Christianity): An undesirable heresy espoused by the huge majority of so-called Christian believers.
Fundamentalism (when applied to secularism): Passion, zeal.
Truth: What I say.
Untruth: What other people say.
Reason: Half-baked arguments from myself that pour scorn and ridicule on my opponents.
Theist: Someone who is on my side, not yours.
Deist: Someone who is on my side, not yours.
Agnostic: Someone who is on my side, not yours.
Flew: A very clever man who used to be on your side and is now on mine.
Love: The nature that underpins any action by Yahweh. For example, wiping out millions of people in a flood.
Atrocity: The actions of hateful atheists Hitler and Stalin. For example, wiping out millions of people by means other than a flood.
Apostrophe: Something which, like atheism, the world can live without.
Spelling: What other writers do.
Kirby: A place near Liverpool.
History: Something I have a degree in.
Science: Something I don't have a degree in.
Cumulative: Isolated.
Miracle: An £87.50 bus fare.
Review: Someone's opinion of a book which has not yet been written.

3. EXPELLED!

Comment #147617 by Paul Creber on March 21, 2008 at 1:54 am

A clear case of mistaken ID.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #147495 by Paul Creber on March 20, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Clearthinker (6222): Thanks for the question. I was not saying that God exists because he gave me £87.50. As I pointed out in the original post the evidence I have for God is cumulative and involves many things. One example is that of personal experience and one example of that is answered prayer. I then gave one example of answered prayer. This was not a general prayer which could be explained away by the fact that it does rain. The situation was as I described. We needed £87.50 to pay for taking a group of kids on an outing. We asked noone and told noone but after praying by the end of the day we received that specific amount.

If the evidence you have is cumulative, you need, by definition, to quote many, many more examples. Chronic flatulence may be one of a number of cumulative symptoms indicating bowel cancer, but would you trust a doctor who arrived at this diagnosis by merely observing that her patient farted a lot?
In your anecdote about the school bus, you explicitly accept that mere coincidence is a strong possibility. Having done that, your example, taken alone on its merits, immediately fall apart as a remotely plausible argument for the supernatural. However, if you had followed this up with hundreds of other case histories, for which you could supply watertight witnesses and double-blind testing, you might just begin to capture at least the attention of some of us on this site.
And before you say this would be too onerous a task, allow me to remind you that the anecdote you specify happened many years ago. Since then you claim to have been in regular conversation with Jesus about all manner of earthly events; in that context, and given your insistence on the cumulative nature of your evidence, a request for a few hundred further examples of his miraculous power strikes me as eminently reasonable.
One further point: In the interests of balance, it would also be essential that you provide us with information about your prayer requests over the same period that have yielded precisely zilch. It's possible, of course, that these number a mere handful, but my conversations with other Christians strongly indicate that they may run into the thousands. If that were so, even your cumulative case has nowhere to run and no legs to take it there.

5. Fleabytes

Comment #146140 by Paul Creber on March 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Styrer (6061):

Wonderfully allegorical as they are, as illuminating as they are of what it is like to be alive and to have the privilege of thinking about our existence and of our relationships with other humans, you are really doing yourself an enormous disservice by insisting on perceiving metaphorical significance as suggestive of the reality of a supreme being ready to judge us suitable for either eternal pleasure or for eternal suffering.

Bloody hell. What a superb post. Thank you.

6. Fleabytes

Comment #146002 by Paul Creber on March 18, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Steve Zara (6034) You're quite right, it's just the first chapter. Apologies. And Paula, please allow me to say that I now agree with everything you have written.

7. Fleabytes

Comment #145988 by Paul Creber on March 18, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Steve Zara (6031) Are you saying the comment used for publicity purposes was based solely on Robertson's first letter to Dawkins - in other words the first chapter of the book? If so, you and Paula are dead right, and I am dead wrong.

8. Fleabytes

Comment #145979 by Paul Creber on March 18, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Paula (6024) Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree, Batreader...

Paula, I've agreed with just about everything you've written so far (and that's a lot of words). However, on this very minor point, I suspect you may be mistaken. As I understand it, the Letters to Dawkins on the FCOS site are, as near as damn it, word for word the same as Robertson's book, so that a comment on the letters would effectively be the same as a comment on the book. As far as I can see it would be very similar to someone passing comment on a proof copy of a book, which I suspect we would all find acceptable.

9. Fleabytes

Comment #144253 by Paul Creber on March 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Paula: Here's a genuine one:
"Paula Kirby has written a first-rate critique of The Dawkins Letters." - Free Church of Scotland website.

10. Fleabytes

Comment #137568 by Paul Creber on March 3, 2008 at 7:37 am

Steve Zara (2485)... the moderation process description suggests articles won't be removed, but simply won't be shown until they are approved. Is that the way it works (I have never posted)? I am also intruiged as to what the moderation criteria are.

That is exactly how it has worked since I began posting there last summer. I've certainly never known an article appear and then be taken down. Anyway, I've sent J an email to get his version of events, so perhaps soon all will be clear.

11. Fleabytes

Comment #137081 by Paul Creber on March 2, 2008 at 10:26 am

Paula (2685) As for whether his post will be left on the FCOS forum, I thought I'd read somewhere that they had a policy of pre-moderating posts now - if that's the case (it might not be), it would seem that this one has already been approved by the official censor and presumably will be allowed to stay.

Yes, you're right. It will stay. Robertson is the moderator of this forum, which means that posting there is a bit like turning up for a football match to find the opposing centre forward wearing a referee's uniform. Everything that J and myself have posted there has duly appeared, though it sometimes takes more than a week for our stuff to see the light of day.

12. Fleabytes

Comment #136784 by Paul Creber on March 1, 2008 at 5:02 pm

David Robertson(2362): "...early on in my ministry we decided to take a busload of children on an outing to the beach. We hired the bus and were told it cost £87.50. The only people who knew about this were myself and my wife. We did not have the money and we knew the church did not. We felt a bit embarrassed about going to ask so instead we just prayed that the money would come in. When we left the bus I wrote the driver a cheque for £87.50 (money that we did not have). He told us just to make it a straight £80. As we left the bus some of the parents handed £30. Later that night someone put a cheque for £50 through the door. Now of course you can claim that it was just an enormous improbability. Or (as will doubtless happen) there will be those who say I am lying, forgetting etc. But I know because I was there."

Hang on a minute. A minister of the church decides to take a bunch of kids on a bus trip, but he has no money? Did he expect the bus company to do it for nothing? Did he suppose that the trip would cost 50p? Why did he go ahead with his plans when he discovered there were market forces involved? Why didn't he take out a loan? Why didn't he launch an appeal? Too embarrassed, huh? Was he too embarrassed to push the collection plate around, Sunday by Sunday? Why not simply pray that the collection plate be filled to overflowing?
If indeed this was Jahweh's miraculous intervention, it appears that Jahweh is keen to reward those in a position of responsibility who display a cavalier disregard for simple forward planning.
And no, David Robertson, I would not regard this as an "enormous improbability". If you were to tell us that on every occasion in 20 years that you organised an outing for children, the money to pay for it inexplicably appeared in your bank account or was discovered in a secret location revealed to you in a dream, I would concede a large degree of improbability. What you have described is a recollection from the past that smells very strongly of embellishment or dishonesty, or both. It also carries with it the nasty niff of desperation. Is this really significant evidence of a supernatural creator of the entire universe? And if a busload of children on a church-sponsored trip plunges off a precipice, what exactly is that evidence of?
And - futile question this - has it ever occurred to you, David Robertson, that you might be on the wrong bus?

13. Fleabytes

Comment #134777 by Paul Creber on February 28, 2008 at 7:48 am

Thanks for that Paula. All is now clear. It looks as though RD slipped up a bit in using the phrase "front page". Otherwise, of course, he didn't slip up at all. Roberstson, on the other hand, was just plain slippery.

14. Fleabytes

Comment #134760 by Paul Creber on February 28, 2008 at 7:26 am

DR (1041): PS. Just one question. Why is Paula's article not listed on the front page. It was after all written on the 19th Feb. Is this an oversight or is the webmaster slightly ashamed of it? Just curious.

RD (1061)The reason Paula's article was not listed on the front page had nothing to do with its merits (which are excellent). It had everything to do with its subject matter (your book) which is not interesting or important enough to merit front page treatment, even when it is being deservedly torn to shreds.
Richard

15. Fleabytes

Comment #134753 by Paul Creber on February 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

I think what they are referring to is that it is listed under "latest news" as opposed to "featured".

But it was always in the Latest News section, wasn't it?

Quetzalcoatl: DR was just being snide, insinuating that Paula's article was somehow unworthy, or that the webmaster was embarrassed by it. I corrected him by pointing out where it was.

Yes, very snide indeed. But Dawkins, too, appears to have accepted that Paula's piece was somehow relegated.

16. Fleabytes

Comment #134746 by Paul Creber on February 28, 2008 at 7:03 am

Would someone please clarify something for me? Both Richard Dawkins and David Robertson appear to agree that Paula's excellent review is no longer on the "front page" of this site.
Yet as far as I can see, it has always been on the front page, in the "Latest News" section. It has merely slid slowly down the list of articles, as other more recent material has been added, and in that respect Paula's piece has been treated in exactly the same manner as other contributions.
And if it has not been in some way "relegated", what is all the fuss about?

17. Fleabytes

Comment #132337 by Paul Creber on February 24, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Hi Paula
You could also try Dan Barker at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (http://ffrf.org/index.php). His own story, already published in Losing Faith in Faith, is quite remarkable, and he could almost certainly point you to other case histories.

18. Fleabytes

Comment #132143 by Paul Creber on February 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

The Gripes of McGrath?

19. Fleabytes

Comment #131742 by Paul Creber on February 23, 2008 at 5:38 am

David Robertson (593): "Paula you need to realise that telling partial truth is the same as telling a lie."

In The Dawkins Letters, Robertson quotes Charles Darwin thus: " ...the extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."

In reality, Darwin went on to say: "This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the "Origin of Species"; and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker.
"But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
"I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."
(Darwin's autobiography)
For some reason, glasshouses and stones spring to mind.

20. Fleabytes

Comment #131587 by Paul Creber on February 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm

Paula is absolutely right. Of course David Robertson should be given the opportunity to reply. Like many others here, I suspect that his response will be empty, meaningless and full of prejudice. But what I - or anyone else - suspects is of no import. What matters is that we listen to what he has to say and then address his case. Anything other than that is dogmatic and intolerant.

21. Fleabytes

Comment #130183 by Paul Creber on February 20, 2008 at 6:56 am

A brilliant review, Paula. Perhaps you would like to post The Dawkins Letters segment on the Free Church of Scotland forum, where there is a (somewhat sluggish) ongoing debate on Robertson's book. You'll find it here:
http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=e2b38a9182b864bcc4840c43e437788f&action=forum

22. New atheists or new anti-dogmatists?

Comment #117348 by Paul Creber on January 28, 2008 at 3:45 pm

Artful Dodger: No-one here appears to be saying that tyranny is necessarily inherent in religion either. What we are saying is that when dogma is allowed to trump reason, the potential for tyranny, oppression and conflict is far greater. And the one abiding characteristic of the two great Abrahamic religions on this planet – and their countless splinter groups - is that they self-admittedly seek to win the hearts and minds of everyone. Their more extreme followers, who already number probably in the billions, also embrace an unswerving conviction in the infallibility of their own belief, and with it the certainty of the error of everyone else's. If these competing dogmas recruit substantial numbers, it follows quite logically that the danger of conflict will greatly increase.
As far as Stalinist Russia is concerned, two formidable forces were at work. The first was the subjugation from the top down of the majority by a minority – in other words totalitarianism. The second was Stalin's cynical appropriation of the concept of religion to turn the spotlight of worship upon himself. He may have been an atheist but he transparently employed uncompromising dogma to further his ends. By contrast, when atheist rationalism is abundant in a free democracy, its consequences for the population are demonstrably beneficial, as Benjamin O'Donnell points out.

23. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100416 by Paul Creber on December 18, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I am frequently heard crooning a particularly melodious rendition of "Oh Carol." But my girlfriend's name is Anne. Evidently my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

24. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99442 by Paul Creber on December 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm

Christopher Hitchens is a man of formidable intellect, outstanding eloquence and rare literacy. Yet a little over halfway through this conversation, he abruptly displayed a piece of contradictory nonsense which I very much hope was inspired more by Jack Daniels than by sober analysis. On the one hand, there he was re-asserting that religion poisons everything; on the other, god help us, here was the same Hitchens confessing that he wanted religion's poison to continue its contamination of humanity so that he could sharpen his wits in confronting it. Did I misunderstand this segment or does Hitchens really believe that our quest for truth is, in reality, merely a means of massaging his own ego? Or was he simply pissed?

25. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82413 by Paul Creber on October 26, 2007 at 8:53 am

Steve 99 I am battle-scarred from long debates with certain people on other threads who will go into the finest details of scientific theories in an attempt to defend their views.

You may be battle scarred, but I've seen you in action, and you should see the other guy.
On the fine-tuning thing, I suppose all I'm doing is producing good old Occam's razor to do my scarring for me.

26. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82406 by Paul Creber on October 26, 2007 at 8:40 am

Steve 99 (52) However, the fine tuning problem is far more problematic than just this. According to the consensus (well, my understand of it), it requires very fine tuning even to get atoms or stable nucleii. Virtually all universes for what are thought to be possible values of the physical constants have nothing in them at all.

I'm sure you are right. But my point is a lot simpler (it's in my simple nature). The theist will trumpet that our universe is observably finely tuned, not for matter, not for energy, not for black holes or supernovae, but for life as we know it. Surely the puddle analogy or the sharpshooter fallacy are then sufficient alone to put him in his place.

27. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #82374 by Paul Creber on October 26, 2007 at 7:38 am

Steve 99 (32) I hate to have to say this, but Douglas Adams was wrong. The problem can't be solved in this way. The fine tuning has to be very fine even to get any kind of structure or stability at all in the universe - to use Adams' metaphor, the puddle is entitled to wonder why there are even atoms to form the pothole.

Sorry to add yet another burden to your workload on this thread, Steve. I'm no scientist, and it's quite possible that my thinking is adrift here. I always understood Adams's puddle analogy (a whimsical version of the sharpshooter fallacy) to refer solely to the emergence of life on this planet. In other words, he was saying it is upside-down thinking to marvel at the conditions which allowed life to emerge; right-way-up thinking is to observe that carbon-based life forms adapted to the prevailing conditions. To extend this argument just a tad – is it not perfectly plausible that life forms based on an element other than carbon have emerged in regions of the universe where we would describe conditions as "inhospitable" to life and therefore not "finely-tuned" at all?

28. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #81666 by Paul Creber on October 25, 2007 at 2:34 am

I made an attempt at countering this argument here: http://www.fcosonline.org/index.php?topic=5.msg97;topicseen#msg97 (reply 51)

...but I'm no evolutionary biologist and I may well be hopelessly adrift. Any suggestions for improving or amending this line of argument would be welcome.

29. If you don't accept the supernatural, you obviously think life is depressing, meaningless and cold

Comment #81656 by Paul Creber on October 25, 2007 at 2:18 am

We all make our own "meaning" in life. You make yours by inventing an imaginary friend whose powers put Superman to shame. I make mine by searching for a cure for cancer or tackling global warming. It irks me just a little when you describe my life as meaningless and futile.

30. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81354 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Zakie Chan (28) No problem. But I do find this argument (sometimes called TAG - the Transcendental Argument for God) a particularly tricky one. It was put to Dawkins in his debate with John Lennox, but Dawkins didn't address it. The best response I've seen is from the brilliant Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier), but even that was not entirely satisfying.

31. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81330 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Thank you Quine (15) and Zakie Chan (16) for your responses. I'll take them on board. But isn't this thread supposed to be merely a repository for arguments we atheists might encounter? That's all I was doing...depositing in the repository.

EDIT: Sorry, Quine, I can't resist this one: If I type qwerrtyuiddhfhgjgkghhk..

...is my computer still coherent?

32. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81311 by Paul Creber on October 24, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case, every argument employed by the atheist is, according to his own assertions, incoherent and meaningless. Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.

33. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79828 by Paul Creber on October 18, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Revcort 1305 Now, of course, you've explained the universe by evolution and you deny that Jesus was even a real person, so there's not much more I can give you.

Perhaps you haven't been reading our posts as carefully as you might. I don't think anyone here has "explained the universe by evolution". We have offered evolution as by far the best explanation for the nature, diversity and huge longevity of life, but the universe itself remains largely an enigma, as I'm sure the scientists here will agree.
It is also an unfair blanket statement to suggest that everyone here denies that Jesus was a real person. Many of us accept that he probably existed, but maintain that the tales surrounding his life merely grew with the telling.
Just thought I'd put you straight on those two points.

34. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78582 by Paul Creber on October 13, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Cartomancer 11 Rowan Williams is a wonderful Archbishop of Canterbury. Ticks all the boxes - big beard, soothing authoritative voice, so woolly and liberal that pinning him down on an issue is harder than nailing an ocean to the wall... If all faith-heads were genuinely nice, dotty old avuncular figures like him then I'd have no trouble living in a world full of them. I'm just waiting to see him in the grand final of the world eyebrow jousting championships against Sir Bernard Ingham....

Brilliant. You just hit the nail on the ... ocean.

35. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76978 by Paul Creber on October 8, 2007 at 2:28 am

CHeard 1132 I don't know anything about this Andy Thomson lecture. Where could I find it? Is it substantially different from Hitchens on the same topic?

It's on the home page of this site, right at the top. Well worth watching, Chris.

36. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76639 by Paul Creber on October 6, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Thanks Quine (1118), and I apologise for my cavalier use of such unscientific terms as "loonie", "off his trolley" and "pants on fire". Perhaps I should follow my own advice and read outside the covers of Viz magazine. Thanks for the links.

37. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76629 by Paul Creber on October 6, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Revcort 1088 So, it is clear to me that Jesus was not changing the central teachings of the law. He was not abolishing the law. That was not His intent. He makes this clear. So, while this particular teaching seems to actually be a hard change, it can't be a contradiction or an abolition of the original law. I would say that Jesus had a very clear understanding of the intent or the spirit of the law, so why would He begin this passage by saying, "I'm not abolishing the law" and then proceed to abolish it? This is why I maintain that, while this appears a hard change, it can't be a contradiction of the spirit and intent of the law. If it is, Jesus is a liar.

Thank you for that. I think we can now move on a little. As I see it, there are three principal candidates by way of explanation here.

1. Jesus was the infallible son of god, so by definition he cannot contradict either himself or God (your position).

2. Jesus was a liar (which you seem to regard as the only alternative) or a loonie.

3. The story of Jesus is a legend, based either on the life and words of one individual or on a number of individuals and/or traditions.

As you have probably gathered, we on this site are generally somewhat partial to evidence before reaching any sort of conclusion. And I think I speak for most of the others when I say that we feel justified in asking for particularly persuasive evidence before we would subscribe to option 1. After all, it is a very extravagant claim. And does that persuasive evidence exist? Regrettably no. All we have is a handful of books written many years after the events they purport to describe by unknown writers who were almost certainly not eyewitnesses, and whose various accounts of the proceedings differ on occasion to the point of direct contradiction. This leads me to conclude that option 1 is a very improbable explanation.

What about option 2? The answer must surely be that we simply don't know, and in the absence of the discovery of time travel, we probably never will. The only data of substance that we have about the life of Jesus are contained in the books I mentioned above, and they are of scant reliability as historical documents. It's quite possible that there was a man called Jesus who spent the early part of the first century CE roaming Judea and telling whopping porkie pies, either because his pants were on fire or because he was off his trolley, but we lack any persuasive evidence that this was so. Nevertheless, it is a far more plausible explanation than option 1, simply because we know for a fact that there has always been a plentiful supply of inveterate liars and loonies on the planet, whereas genuine sons of God, as far as we can see, tend to be conspicuous by their absence.

Which leaves option 3, and I reckon this is where the smart money lies. The New Testament and other non-canonical accounts of the life of Jesus were written decades after the events they purport to describe. In key areas, such as the resurrection, the earliest accounts, written merely (!) 20 years after the crucifixion – assuming there was one - are relatively simple, and the later versions have become increasingly complex. By the time we get to the gospel of John, written at least 40 years later, the content and style of the narrative have become almost wildly mystical. This is a story that has simply grown with the telling, and for my money that makes it a legend.

One final point: The burden of proof in all this does not lie with the atheist. We are just putting forward plausible naturalistic explanations which fit the facts, and for all we know they may be hopelessly inaccurate. But the theist is proposing something quite different – nothing less than a man/god coming to earth through a virgin's reproductive system, treating the laws of nature as his plaything and finally coming back from the dead and disappearing into the sky. That's why we insist that it is you who takes the witness box.

In another post, Revcort, you write: How can I know that my interpretation is the correct one? The only answer I can give here is that I must do my best to take into account the entire Word of God so as to avoid errors that can come from isolating one verse or section of verses and making that one thing what my faith is all about, which would be a mistake.

You ask the right question in your first sentence. But then you expect your answer to be found only between the covers of your Bible. Try looking elsewhere as well. You'll find the experience liberating.

38. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76193 by Paul Creber on October 5, 2007 at 2:39 am

Revcort 1080 The purpose of "eye for eye" was two-fold.

#1 To limit the amount of vengeance that could be taken by man.

#2 To ensure that justice was served. (this I had earlier left out- must have been a brain cramp or something because it's even clearer than #1)

The same 2 purposes are served by Jesus's teaching to not take vengeance, turn the other cheek, and go the extra mile.

#1 It limits the vengeance that can be taken by man.

#2 It ensures that justice is served, except this justice is now served by God, not man.

Oh dear. We're in danger of heading into a Groundhog Day loop here. All I can do is repeat my previous point. Jesus is not limiting vengeance. He is outlawing vengeance and replacing it with something very different.
As for justice, I take it that it goes something like this: You strike me on the face. I turn the other cheek, and you strike me on that one. I turn the other cheek, and you strike me on that one. The bout continues until my face looks like a red cabbage and your hand resembles a lamb chop. Referee! A bolt of lightning strikes you dead where you stand.
I guess this is the sort of thing you had in mind. But wouldn't it have made more sense if I had picked up my cellphone and called the cops inthe first place?

39. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76082 by Paul Creber on October 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Revcort 1070 In my understanding of the original command, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life" was intended to limit what could be done legally. It was not saying, "You must take revenge on them." Admittedly, it was not saying, "You can't take revenge either." (there's the difficulty) Jesus is saying don't take revenge at all. As a matter of fact, He says, "If you get slapped on one cheek, turn to them the other cheek to be struck as well." And even further, "If someone sues you for your cloak, give them your shirt, and if someone forces you to walk 1 mile, go with them two." So, my only explanation has two parts...

#1 The intent of the original command was to limit vengeance, not mandate it- so is Jesus' intent.

But Jesus's intent, according to a plain reading of the passage, is not to limit vengeance, but to discourage it altogether and replace it with something fundamentally contrary. If you continue to insist that this is not in clear contradiction of the Old Testament law, you have, with all due respect, emptied the word contradiction of all meaning.

#2 The clarification that Jesus gives takes grace into account. Since all people are sinful and need forgiveness, we must allow for God to change hearts and, if need be, take vengeance on our behalf.

But it is not a clarification. It is a contradiction. Your unwillingness to accept this plainly obvious fact baffles me. Allow for God to change hearts? More to the point, we apparently have to allow for God to change his mind.

One other caveat that might help... in Old Testament days, there were cities of refuge set up throughout Israel. Here's an explanation.
9 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 11 then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee there. 12 'The cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer will not die until he stands before the congregation for trial. 13 'The cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge. 14 'You shall give three cities across the Jordan and three cities in the land of Canaan; they are to be cities of refuge. 15 'These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there. (Numbers 35:9-15)
The New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1996.

So, if I had taken a person's life, I could go to one of these cities of refuge for safety and my life could be spared, if it could be proven that it was unintentional. This can be seen as a foreshadowing of the very grace that Jesus offers here, and the teaching that we should not take matters such as these into our own hands.

I'm quite sure that it can be seen in a thousand different ways. What you need to show is some clear connection between these verses in Numbers – or anywhere else - and the words allegedly spoken by Jesus some 2,000 years later. Sorry, but what you have postulated is highly tenuous, subjective speculation which has no bearing whatever on this discussion.

40. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75790 by Paul Creber on October 3, 2007 at 4:21 pm

J. Little rant there, sorry. Ignore at will.

Ignoring you is something I shall never do, Jonathan. Your posts here and elsewhere always command and deserve attention. On the broader picture you are indeed right. But chipping away at the minutiae of the fiction can also play a role in bringing down the edifice (apologies for yet another sandcastle analogy)

41. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75777 by Paul Creber on October 3, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Revcort (1007) So, for those who have no vested interest in this particular part of this discussion (which is probably most of you), I would say, "please disperse, there is nothing to see here." :D

Well, I dispersed, and so I see did Gr8hands. Now I'm back, and if you don't mind I'll take up the baton from Gr8hands. I assure you, by the way, that my grip will be conspicuously gentler. Please let me know if I display the slightest hint of white-knuckle.
First of all, a big concession: In three of the four examples that you have discussed, I grant that with a strenuous stretch of the imagination it is just possible to view Jesus's alleged words as an extension of the Old Testament Law. But on the fourth – the eye for an eye quote – I am at a loss to see how a plain reading of the text could lead anyone to the conclusion that you have apparently reached.
For the sake of argument, let's take the whole thing out of the Bible and put it in a modern context. Suppose that the legislature of a democracy places a law on its statute books allowing its regional councils to seek redress over criminals. Let's further suppose that those regional councils are permitted to administer a punishment which is at the most commensurate with the crime committed. In other words, if a burglar is caught, the state is empowered to confiscate goods from the burglar to the value of the stuff he nicked, but no greater. I trust that this mirrors your argument thus far.
Now let's suppose that a new leader of the ruling party takes over. One of her first acts after becoming leader is to amend the law so that no retaliation whatever is permitted on the part of the regional councils. Not only that, but the regional councils must use taxpayers' money to pay the burglar twice the value of the goods he purloined.
In what sense is that new law an extension of the old, let alone a fulfillment of it?
If this represents a fulfillment, I might just as well insist that an arsonist represents the fulfillment of the fire brigade.

42. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75441 by Paul Creber on October 2, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Revcort. Thank you for 1001. Am I correct in thinking that the three commentators you quote are Christians? If so, am I correct in thinking that, in an attempt to supply evidence for your beliefs, you are in fact merely offering us an echo of your beliefs?

43. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74082 by Paul Creber on September 27, 2007 at 7:13 am

I posted the above on the alternative (note correct adjective) thread but it appeared here. Anyone know how to post on the alternative thread?

44. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74080 by Paul Creber on September 27, 2007 at 7:10 am

I always knew you were a troublemaker, Jonathan! Perhaps Wee Flea is marking you as a troll.
I doubt that anyone will raise Josh because as far as I know he's in DC at the big knees-up.
Try registering as someone else (Free wee, perhaps) and post that way. Best of luck,
Paul

45. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #73419 by Paul Creber on September 25, 2007 at 1:47 am

Chris (616): I've only just read your eloquent response to Revcort. With forthright, flowing prose and solid, cogent argument, you have accomplished precisely what Dawkins, Harris and others have been asking of moderates for some time. You have emphatically distanced yourself from the insane and dangerous world of the Christian Taliban and at the same time made out an articulate case for reason over dogma. Thank you so much. We have no right to ask anything more of you. Unless, of course, you have any influential contacts in the Islam world…

46. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72912 by Paul Creber on September 23, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Dianelos (144)

Even if you are right and an entire organization of people were needed to create a computer far more intelligent than we are, my argument remains: We would have a case where a particular system would be able to design another system that exceeds its complexity.

I wonder, are you personally convinced by Dawkins's premise that in order to design something of some complexity a more complex designer is necessary? Dawkins in TGD does not explain why he believes that, as if it were obviously true. Do you find that premise obvious in any way?

For your argument to carry any weight, you would have to point us to an aborigine in Western Australia or an accountant in Surbiton who had singlehandedly created artificial intelligence more complex than herself.
It's not merely a matter of an "organisation of people". We are talking about millions of individuals whose combined complexity, down the millenia, massively outweighs the complexity of the end-product.
That's blindingly obvious to me. Do you find it obvious in any way that the converse is true?

47. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72753 by Paul Creber on September 22, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Good point, Jonathan. And is it any surprise that the head of the Anglican church is none other than the primate?

48. Monkeys show sense of justice

Comment #72749 by Paul Creber on September 22, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Richard Morgan: Whereas a rationalist monkey would have given everything a neo-Darwinian explanation and written a book entitled "God is not Grape".

Wish I'd thought of that, Richard. Nevertheless, I shall remain as cool as a grape and not display any sour cucumbers.

49. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #72659 by Paul Creber on September 22, 2007 at 5:32 am

Dianelos Georgoudis (104) There are many computer scientists who believe that they will someday create computers that are far more intelligent than they are. Now here is the question: If Dawkins and you are correct then these people are deluding themselves when they believe they can create things far more complex than they are, correct? Perhaps AI computer scientists are beyond stupid too.

There are indeed many who believe this. And if it ever comes about it will unquestionably be the result of the many talents of many scientists, backed up by many technicians and many dollars from many organisations, themselves composed of many individuals. Not only that, but it will be the result of many strands of research, resulting in many cul-de-sacs and many breakthroughs by many progenitors in the scientific community stretching back many generations and involving many, many human beings.
All of them mind-bogglingly simple, of course.

50. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #72537 by Paul Creber on September 21, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Revcort 569: Hey Paul, I was attempting to prove inspiration. The argument that had been made was that no Bible writers CLAIMED to be writing inspired words.

But that's exactly my point. The two writers you quote could not possibly have been claiming inspiration for themselves, or for any of the other New Testament writers.

So, to YOUR point, I realize that I can't prove the inspiration of the Bible based on what it says about itself- I'm no idiot. (well, that's debatable :D ) No, I would say that the only way to prove the Bible's reliability would to study whether or not its claims are actually true, historically and whether or not predictions made in it or based on it do indeed come true.

And this you have done? Speaking as a fellow non-idiot, I have come to the exact opposite conclusion. I see no evidence, for instance, that around 3,000 years ago the sun stopped in the sky, or that somewhat earlier almost the entire population of the planet was erased by a vengeful god. Neither do I see evidence that the universe is a mere few thousand years old. Do you?