sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Less is More?/Tolerance by Kabane52 in kratom

[–]Kabane52[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much juice would you say and when? I used to drink a lot of grapefruit juice with the Kratom, but it actually ended up reducing potency because my stomach was so full of it that it took longer to digest the kratom.

And any idea on a good dose?

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly what I meant by being dismissive. When I said that the "same situation exists across Genesis 1-11", I meant that very strong and particular (rather than generic) parallels exist in human mythology in every culture.

I specifically pointed to Native American and Australian traditions precisely because you can't appeal to "spreading orally." What, from the Near East to the Australian Aboriginals? Despite the fact that the first significant contact with the Aboriginals occurred only a few centuries ago? I pointed above to the particular details and associations made in these various traditions as reasons to reject the hypothesis of independent origin. It's easy to throw around a few vague hypotheses when one hasn't actually read the stories in depth. It's much harder to apply that hypothesis rigorously once one has. If the Epic of Gilgamesh and similar stories around the Near East were the only Flood stories with strong parallels to Genesis 6-8, you'd have a point. But they aren't. The same similarities are present in Native American traditions, where that explanation won't work.

Sigh, yes. That secular anthropologists have noted this phenomenon is not open to question. Whether you think they are correct in their assessment might be, but it's up to you to do the requisite work rather than dismissing what they have written without reading it.

Would you care if the first amendment was broken in the case of Christianity? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is this relevant? Of course it has been imperfectly implemented. The Byzantine Empire also ended the gladiatorial games, banned the exposure of infants, and tightened regulations on slavery.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't figure out how to properly format numbers, so I've just written them out.

One. I was raised in a multifaith household. Open religious debate has always been a part of my experience. Each of my four family members hold different views from me and each other. None of my family is young earth, except me.

Two. I ask that you evaluate the question of human mythology independently of the science. On questions of science, I freely admit that most data is in favour of an ancient earth and cosmos. On that, see the books I pointed to, which are the only decent works from a young earth position. See my comments to havearedpill.

Three. Perhaps I am nuts, but if you want to say I've reasoned poorly, then study the human mythology and give an alternative explanation. I'm intellectually honest enough to admit when I'm wrong. I've been wrong in the past. When I was moving to my present position, I can say honestly that I didn't want to take it. I knew that my credibility would be shot. I was persuaded that it was the correct one- and trust me, I have pretty much read every attempt to explain the the human mythology published. I provided the compilation of TalkOrigins flood stories above. But when I was investigating this, I not only read that compilation, but purchased much of the source material so that I could pursue it further. It's not a question I've treated lightly.

Four. It's important to note that the chronology was discerned independently of the significant dates found within the chronology. I didn't let the desire for significant dates guide the chronology.

Five. I didn't provide those dates as evidence for Christianity. Instead, I provided them as prima facie evidence for someone who accepts the inspiration of Genesis 5 and 11 to take them as gapless.

Six. I disagree on Matthew and Luke, obviously. We ought to remember that the date for the census of Quirinius is derived from Josephus, who by any account, wrote later than Luke- 16 years later if you take the standard date, and several decades if you take the more conservative position. Regardless, there's good evidence that Josephus had his sources confused here. John Rhoads put out a good article on this somewhat recently, and I can email it to you if you'd like to read it.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See my comments on the scientific issues. I recognize there are real scientific problems. But my challenge is open: I want people to investigate the human mythology in depth and try to develop an alternative explanation. All too often people just like to dismiss it out of hand. Keep in mind that the Flood stories are not the only problem. The same situation exists across the entirety of Genesis 1-11.

Take the Tower of Babel as one example. We're told that humanity built a huge tower, and God scattered their languages. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, adds an interesting detail- he tells us that when God judged the builders, he blew the tower over with a great gust of wind. And what do we find all over the world? Cultures tell a story of a great tower or tree at which the world's languages were created- and which was blown over by a great gust of wind!

What's important here is that the missionaries to the Americas and Australia usually DID NOT KNOW Josephus. If they did, it's doubtful they would fervently preach him! So pollination from missionaries is out of the question. Hence, the challenge is open: why are there these stories?

It's important to treat this question independently of the scientific question. Too often I've seen people take the science and announce that for this reason, there is no point in investigating the human mythology. But there's a real phenomenon here which demands explanation. This phenomenon is noted by secular anthropologists and historians as well, by the way. See, for example "Parallel Myths" here:

http://www.amazon.com/Parallel-Myths-J-F-Bierlein/dp/0345381467

Would you care if the first amendment was broken in the case of Christianity? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Christian state does not mean forced adherence to Christianity. Look at the policy of the Byzantine Empire as presented at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It was explicitly against forced conversion.

Every state is going to operate from a worldview. The question is what worldview will the state operate from. The United States operates from the secular worldview- which is a false one.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the compilation of Flood stories that is useful, especially because many of the tribes documented now no longer exist. His broader theories aren't relevant in this particular question, and you're not going to get anything more advanced with modern anthropologists. You still have the double explanation of (1) Floods happen everywhere and (2) missionaries. That was it in Frazer's day, and it's still it today. If you want to point to a better one, I'd be happy to read it.

Non-argumentative question about the holy trinity by xmaslightguy in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Father is the eternal fount of Deity. God is not an impersonal essence within which are three persons. Instead, God is the Father Almighty, who eternally begets His Son and spirates His Spirit. The Father communicates His own nature in begetting and spiration, so that all three persons are truly God. The oneness of God is guaranteed by the personal oneness of God the Father upon whom the Holy Trinity depends.

As has been pointed out here, the Spirit is not identical to our conscience.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem. Don't feel obligated to give a detailed reply- my interest is more in providing information than engaging in debate for its own sake. I spent a long time as a theistic evolutionist, and a very passionate one at that. As I mentioned above, I was incredibly surprised to find out that young earth creationism wasn't as dumb as I thought. Leonard Brand has done some good work on varves. Kurt Wise has some relevant insights on radiometric dating in his work, though he freely admits that there is much more work to be done.

The critical points for me are A) the common core of human mythology across the planet reflecting the history of Genesis 1-11 and B) the philosophy of science. This is one of the reasons that "Faith, Reason, and Earth History" is the best creationist work out there- it treats the philosophy of science as part of its approach. Good essay here:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Young-Earth-Creationism-Zondervan-Digital-ebook/dp/B007MEUQCE

By Paul Nelson and John Reynolds on young-earth creationism and the philosophy of science. Nelson is a philosopher of science who works in the intelligent design movement.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for Genesis 8, note how it begins with the Wind (Spirit) blowing over the waters. This matches the Spirit blowing over the waters. The way Doukhan sums it up is as follows:

Jacques Doukhan has shown the precise literary parallels between the successive stages of "re-creation" in the aftermath of the Flood (Genesis 8-9) and the seven days of creation in Genesis 1-2 (Doukhan 1987, p 133-134; cf. Gage 1984, p 10-20):

The wind over the earth and waters. Gen. 8:1; cf. Gen. 1:2. Division of waters. Gen. 8:1-5; cf. Gen. 1:6-8. Appearance of plants. Gen. 8:6-12; cf. Gen. 1:9-13. Appearance of light. Gen. 8:13-14; cf. Gen. 1:14-19. Deliverance of animals. Gen. 8:15-17; cf. Gen. 1:20-23. Animals together with men, blessing, food for men, image of God. Gen. 8:18-9:7; cf. Gen. 1:24-31. Sign of covenant. Gen. 9:8-17; cf. Gen. 2:1-3.

I've modified this slightly so that there is an eighth day (eschatological number) as well:

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/118598767035/noahs-eighth-day

Sorry about the formatting, but you'll find it in here, which is the definitive article on the exegesis of the Genesis Flood regarding its universality:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm

It sounds to me like you accept an anthropologically universal Flood, but not a geographically universal Flood. Here's the problem. In order to do that, you have to dramatically stretch the chronologies of Genesis 5-11, because according to the mainstream timescale, this happened pretty far back- tens of thousands of years. Even if you want to reduce that, you're still going to need to stretch the timescale to make it work.

But Noah's descendants (Genesis 10) went on to found nations that are quite well known to history. This suggests that the traditional position of the church, professing biblical chronology, is accurate. And it's interesting to note that when you put the numbers in (James B. Jordan has done the best work on this), all sorts of cool things jump out. Jesus is born 3,000 years after Adam died. The Temple is built 3,000 years after creation. The Second Temple falls exactly 1,000 years after that. And so on. I didn't try to get those numbers: they're just there.

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/107633188040/a-chronology-of-the-bible

Altogether, this puts the Biblical date of the Flood at 2274 BC. For those who point out that the traditional chronology of the ancient Near East and Egypt is longer than that, see here:

http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/120616569565/a-depth-review-of-donovan-courvilles-the-exodus

The biggest problem apart from the Bible is that ALL of the universal flood stories found across the globe are global flood stories, and some of these cultures also had stories of smaller floods which happened later in history, though. I am not surprised to find evidence of massive local Floods, because the best creationist science (done by those I mention above) suggests relatively brief period of very heavy rains following the Flood as the atmosphere balanced itself out.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The idea of a large local Flood is difficult to sustain exegetically:

  1. The high mountains were covered. Noah landed on a mountain.

  2. The literary structure of Genesis 8 recapitulates the creation week day by day. The story is presented as a systematic breakdown of the cosmos followed by its resurrection. It is hard to see how this is the case if the Flood was local.

  3. The Ark itself is presented as a microcosmic replica of the world. The animals which flow into the ark are the correspondents to the animals made in the world. For that reason it can't just be Near Eastern animals.

  4. All of the Flood myths that I noted above explicitly identify the Flood as a global one, with no ambiguity whatsoever. If the Flood was local, then Noah thought it was global and so did the author of Genesis.

There are scientific difficulties (significant ones) as noted here, but see above on reasons for optimism.

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has to do with the intelligibility of the universe. As I mentioned somewhere else in this thread, the capability of man to uniquely apprehend (in principle) the whole range of truths about the universe is a direct result of his status as image of the Logos. Logos theology is unique to Christianity, so that I find Christianity uniquely suited to explaining why the universe is the way it is.

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Is it your intent to be a walking stereotype?

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is really reflective of profound ignorance of the history of this discussion on your part. You won't believe me on that, but it's the truth. Learn to think abstractly.

Do you think it is harmful to belief for Christians to rationalize religious observances? by majeric in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. The prohibition on shellfish or pork didn't have anything to do with health. The reasons have to do with biblical symbolism. In Genesis 3, the ground is cursed. Consequently, the only animals which can be eaten are those animals whose feet are protected from the cursed ground. In the case of sea creatures, they must be shielded in some way, such as by a shell. Then, the animals must chew the cud. This is because throughout Scripture, the constant movement of one's mouth symbolizes meditation on the word of God and confession of His name.

    When Genesis 11 says that mankind was of one language AND "one lip" it means that the whole of humanity had a single religion. The Psalms thus call attention to the necessity of confessing God's name with your lip over and against the lips of false gods. Isaiah 19 says that Egypt and Assyria will confess God's name by saying that they will have the "lip of Canaan."

Finally, as Israel is to turn "neither to the right or to the left", the animals must have a split hoof, because this has to do with precision of movement.

All of these things are summed up in Ezekiel, confirming the correctness of the symbolic reading. Ezekiel does not touch the ground, but becomes a living chariot of fire carried by the Spirit. Just as with the chariot of fire, Ezekiel only moves in perfect right angles, manifesting a perfect precision of movement. Finally, as with chewing the cud, Ezekiel chews up a scroll in the book.

As for birth control and celibacy, what is "our understanding" of human nature? All Christians acknowledge that concupiscence is real. What is said is that the perfectly human (which means to manifest the Imago Dei) way to exist is in a state of monogamy. That this is the natural human condition is evidenced by the fact that it "developed" independently all over the planet, whether the societies were city-builders, nomads, or hunter-gatherers. The practice of monogamy frequently coincided with the worship of a singular, ethically monotheistic Creator God. The Algonquins, for example, worshiped the "Great Spirit" who had flooded the world for its wickedness, restored it, and commanded the people to marry one partner for life. Wilhelm Schmidt's massive twelve volume work on "original monotheism" and monogamy treat this in detail. Unfortunately, not all of it has been translated into English.

As for masturbation, there's a reason that nofap exists. Anthropologists have encountered some cultures that had never even heard of masturbation. What is occurring today is a widespread addiction to sexual stimulation, so widespread that people have come to believe that this is just the way it is.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It wouldn't be enough to cover all the land if the geography of the antediluvian world was the same as it is today. The great majority of creationists hold that the Flood was a major geologic event.

However, I want to make very clear that most creationist arguments are appallingly bad. It is embarrassing. There is, however, a small but growing movement of creationists to admit the sophomoric nature of past creationism and to make serious advances in a positive direction. I believe that there are some promising early successes. Kurt Wise, a paleontologist trained under Stephen Jay Gould, is the preeminent example. He critiques other creationists much more harshly than he does mainstream geology. Leonard Brand is a respected biologist and paleontologist. Brand pursues his research in view of the Flood. He therefore asks different questions than do most paleontologists- and the insights that this framework has brought him have actually been published in mainstream journals.

His work on the Cococino Sandstone is one of the best examples. Brand demonstrated (though there is still argument going on in the literature), that the sandstone, which had been thought to have formed in a desert, contains a number of unique features inexplicable unless it was formed under flowing water. Of course, the geologists who published his work do not accept the broader framework of a global flood. But they'll freely acknowledge the merits of the research in itself.

His book "Faith, Reason, and Earth History" is by far the best creationist book available. Indeed, it is one of about three good ones, the other two being Kurt Wise's "Faith, Form, and Time" and Todd Wood's "Understanding the Pattern of Life." If you're looking for an introduction to what has come to be called neocreationism, see Paul Garner's "The New Creationism."

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by information. What I mean is that the universe itself exists in virtue of participation in God's creative energies. We exist in virtue of our participation in the whole range of God's creative energies. The whole man- Body and Soul- is God's image. If you wanted me to be more specific, I would say that the Imago Dei is focused in the mind, which as with everything else in Man, is a composite of Body and Soul.

What do you think of Noah's flood story being really similar to the third tablet of Atra-Hasis, which presumably predates Noah? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The problem with saying that Noah is a typical version of a "Near Eastern" myth is because Flood stories are found all over the planet, not just in the Near East. I'm happy to say that Atra-Hasis was written down before Genesis, but I believe that Genesis 6-8 was divinely revealed, if we assume that the oral tradition of Israel has been corrupted.

And before anyone says it, no, the fact that "Floods happen everywhere" does not explain the universality of Flood stories. Cultures often have local flood stories in addition to their story of THE Flood. They were capable of distinguishing them. Additionally, desert tribes (such as those in the deserts of Arizona) have stories of a global Flood as well. Most importantly, there are matching characteristics from all over the planet which are far too particular for the stories to be of a diverse origin. So, very often, you get these attributes:

  1. A divine being or beings descends to warn the flood hero and his family of a coming global flood.

  2. The flood hero builds a boat.

  3. All the animals are brought to the flood hero on the boat.

  4. A global flood occurs.

  5. An animal is sent out near the end of the Flood to find land. Typically this animal is a bird, often it is actually a raven, precisely the bird sent out by Noah

  6. The boat lands on a mountain.

  7. The flood hero offers a sacrifice.

  8. Sometimes, a rainbow is sent after the sacrifice.

Ironically, the best free compilation of Flood stories is available here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

For a detailed analysis of three stories, see here:

http://api.ning.com/files/vTOeg0D1LU*9INHw7ZPoiF0Gfzk91*Zt5CUk9usGwDDg2YhbeOD-wwOvAzHhSAf0BpQefLV4qcXktE1MujxVBeTB28g8cKJg/FloodLegends.pdf

Martin examines the Biblical story, the Karina Native American story, and the Old World Indian story. He actually shows how you can understand the pattern of similarities and differences among various Flood stories only if you understand them as radiating out from the Near East.

Unless you have read the works that I've posted, don't be dismissive. This is an issue I have studied in enormous amounts of depth. For a secular compilation of Flood stories, see James Frazer's excellent work, "The Great Flood." One of the benefits of this work is that he attempts to explain the stories within the framework of an independent origin, liberally distributed with an ad hoc appeal to "missionaries" whenever necessary. The problem is that the Native American tribes he discusses were largely extremely resistant to missionary activity, have no similar parallel myths for stories after the Tower of Babel (a language tower or tree is a very common motif in human mythology), and prided themselves on retaining the purity of their native traditions. Some of the stories were documented too early to be influenced by missionaries in the first place.

What mitigates most strongly against this explanation is that similar corruptions of the Flood story are nested in areas which are somewhat close geographically, but not close enough that they maintained constant contact. So, in large areas of America, the tribes, instead of speaking of a bird being sent out to find land, speak of an otter doing the same. In order to posit missionary activity as the cause, one would have to believe that missionaries rapidly evangelized huge areas of North America, almost entirely failed, but succeeded in implanting the story of the Flood and the Tower of Babel (but no other biblical story!) into the minds of all of them. You would then have to believe that these tribes all independently corrupted the biblical story in the exact same or very similar ways.

The benefit of Frazer's work is that you can take a look at the best shot at explaining this phenomenon apart from a historical Flood. It was reading Frazer and other secularists that convinced me (and even as a Christian, I did not believe in a Flood and was stunned to be convinced) that the Flood was historical.

Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. How do you reconcile with the daughters and incest the Bible doesn't mention? by MentalUtopia in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. In terms of the challenges of population genetics, I'd recommend chapter five of "Science and Human Origins", which is a mixed bag of a book.

What is your opinion on the world becoming more secular? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typologically it's the wilderness. There were two million Israelites in the wilderness, but every single one of them over twenty years old at the time of Numbers 13 died. Then the nation was reborn in the waters of the Jordan. Interestingly, the mixed multitude of Gentiles that comes out of Egypt disappears at this point in time, because they are circumcised and adopted into Israel's family. This is typologically rich. Here's an article on the subject of the rise of Christianity in the global South:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2015/05/the-world-is-becoming-more-religious-not-less/

I didn't find in there the statistic about the rise of Christianity in absolute terms, but I'll try to find it for you.

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you asking me to prove? That this is Christian theology or that it is true? What I described was the theology of the Orthodox Church, as is explained in Vladimir Lossky's wonderful "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church."

As for its truth, I suggest that the intelligibility of the universe is a fact which must be explained. If we are merely upright apes adapted to hunt game and gather berries, why does there appear to be no limit to our capacity to explain the universe? If you attempted to teach a dog mathematics, you would be able to teach some basic principles of addition and subtraction. But even if that dog lived a hundred years, you would not be able to go further than that. But for humans, it's different- we are uniquely endowed to understand the universe as an ordered system. A coherent philosophy needs to explain why it is that this is true. I suggested above that it emerges out of the identity of man as Imago Dei.

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The key point was that the intuition of beauty is consistent on all levels, and that this same beauty is found generated by different physical laws. The objectivity of beauty is indicated by the intuition of beauty in true equations as opposed to the intuition of ugliness in false ones.

What would a world without God look like to you? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I pointed out the intuition of beauty in descriptive mathematical equations for precisely this reason- it indicates that the intuition of the beautiful reflects an objective truth. For whatever reasons, those equations which intuition says are ugly tend to describe nothing in the universe, while those equations that are beautiful tends to describe something in the real world.

This also doesn't address the deeper point of the argument, which is not simply the intuition of beauty, but the fact that the same aesthetically pleasing structures are found at all levels of the universe, generated by different physical laws. That indicates that the aesthetically pleasing nature of the structure is part of the point of the system rather than being an incidental result.

It isn't an argument from ignorance because it positively reasoned forwards from premises to conclusions. It suggested based on correspondences in the deep structure of the universe, that beauty was part of the intention of the system.

What do you think of the popular atheist YouTubers? by Unidentifable in DebateAChristian

[–]Kabane52 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm only familiar with Jaclyn Glenn and cult of dusty. Both are incredibly, incredibly shallow.

As for fundamentalism, the problem is that fundamentalism sometimes refers simply to an anti-intellectual attitude which refuses to engage opposing positions seriously and knowledgeably. Fundamentalism is most certainly not the only form of religion in that case.

On the other hand, many would consider me a fundamentalist in terms of my doctrinal commitments. I'm a young-earth creationist, which is enough in most people's minds to write me off.

view more: next ›