Evolution or Creation?

[leprechaun]

Well, maybe I am getting confused between proof and evidence, but clearly there is more evidence for evolution than there is for god.

No, you're not. Proof would mean that we can be absolutely sure that it is correct. We merely have loads and loads of supporting evidence. I'm not arguing with the statement that there is more evidence for evolution than god, that's my whole point. Simply that the way you worded your post, you invalidated our argument; saying that "the majority here only care about arguments with some kind of proof" is kinda a bad idea when we don't have absolute proof ourselves.

 

[leprechaun]

Is quite pertinent.

And

Is just taking the piss. But funny.

 

[Jaghatai Khan]

Is just taking the piss. But funny.

That's mostly true,however. And funny as ****.

 

[leprechaun]

But, finally, I have this to say.

Why does it matter so much where we come from and how we got here? That's all far in the past, and what's done is done. What matters is not arguing about how we came to exist, but how we go on from here and use our existence, regardless of how we began. It's here whichever way is true, get used to it.

 

[Yoshiboy]

But, finally, I have this to say.

Why does it matter so much where we come from and how we got here? That's all far in the past, and what's done is done. What matters is not arguing about how we came to exist, but how we go on from here and use our existence, regardless of how we began. It's here whichever way is true, get used to it.

Because follows of the bible, if they realize that creationism is wrong then they might start to think all other parts of their religion is wrong or inaccurate. Which undermines the whole of religion - which is based on faith.

 

[Archonsod]

Great, I take a week off and you lot kick off again

Fair point. But scientists often provide different sciences. Meat is good, meat is bad, alcohol is bad, alcohol is not so bad after all, really... and so many laymen will believe the scientists who bring them the most preferred news.

Not really. The media provide such 'conclusions', depending on whichever scare theory is likely to be seller of the month. Most scientists will happily tell you the advantages and disadvantages of such things. Everything we consume contains pathogens, it's one of the primary reasons for the existence of an internal immune system (and one which is strongly concentrated on the digestive tract at that). Most problems in the modern era have nothing to do with the contents of food, and everything to do with the modern diet.

No, that's dealing with absolutes. What you mean to say is: by those standards, China might be a conspiracy of cartographers. Or someone else's conspiracy. For all I know, I may be but five minutes old, with my brain in a research lab somewhere and all my memories have simply been fed to me. I don't believe that, but I can't know one way or another, can I?

No, but whether you are or not is irrelevant. You have no way of proving either way, hence it's moot - you'll never experience being the brain.

I've never heard this from a creationist, but I do hear a good bit of post-modern relativism coming from evolutionary circles.  That is one of the weaknesses of evolution.  Again, I've never heard any creationist say "The Bible must be true because we can't know truth."

No, but I've often heard them say that God must exist, as we can't prove he doesn't exist. It's pretty much the same thing, except worded differently. We can't prove God doesn't exist, nor that reality is actually real, however this is no basis for concluding the opposite is true.

Oh, and if Archonsod is peeking in here, I did finally find more information on the thermal problem of the earth if all geological events occured within a short timespan instead of 4.6 billion years.  There are several problems with the athiet's assumptions regarding the theory and quite a lot of the data is subjective.  As a result, the light/stars argument is much better than the thermal issues of a young earth.  I can probably pm you the link if you're interested (or someone else is).  The article is written by an ardent evolutionist.

Would love to, give me something to do on my weekend shift . Your wrong on the light thing too - it doesn't have mass or particles.  Quantum theory lets you switch them around in certain instances (where both a particle and a wave exhibit the same behaviour, or at least can be explained in the same terms), but this doesn't actually  change the quanta itself. Science has light made up of photons - photons aren't (or at least, aren't yet) proven to exist, they're merely an easy way of referring to a group of concepts and facts, in much the same way as gravitons represent the force of gravity (which is neither a particle nor a wave). In fact, according to Einstein, if light had mass we'd all be dead, since we'd be continually bombarded by particles of infinite mass.

You say all people who claim to be Christians are Christians (thus including the large numbers of cultural and pseudo-intelectual Christians).  I say that only those who really are Christians are Christians

Technically, the term Christian would apply to anyone who believed in Christ. Whether they believe in the biblical version (or the bible itself) isn't necessarily relevant (correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there a few orders which denounce the New Testament as a lie and worship a different version of Jesus?). Restricting your definition only to those who follow your interpretation of the bible is like a Catholic denouncing Protestants as Pagan. According to their strict definition, it may be correct. However, to an outsider (i.e. anyone who doesn't believe in christ) the distinction is irrelevant. It's something of a cop out - it would be just as easy for us to redefine the term athiest to exclude those who are detrimental to our own cause!

The argument you've issued above, as well as the "God can do everything, so can he make something that he can't lift" arguments are classical anti-theism or in some cases anti-creation (remove God from the equation and you're left with only one option, unless Aliens are the intellegent designer Wink) arguments

They're not straw man arguments (well, unless you'd classify 'disproving' god as a straw man position in this debate).

The straw quality comes from the fact that you're setting up a position that no one has argued in order to take it down and score a victory.  Maybe your intent, however, was completely rhetorical rather than argumentative.  I'm not sure about that.

I believe several people waaaaay back actually did argue it (the whole "life came from rocks" portion, and the old "the universe is too complex to be the result of random chance"). That is, the fact that God is allowed to essentially be the result of random chance (unless you believe he himself was created) yet the universe (and by extension all life) is so complex that it must be designed.

Circumcision, you know cutting off the foreskin, is one of those things. How could primitive man, more than 2500 years ago know that cutting it off would be more hygienic ? They wouldn't/shouldn't, I at least can't explain it. How could they also know that taking a bath is good for their health ?

Your retroactively applying modern day explanations to ancient practices there. Our ancestors had little to no idea that circumcision was healthy (indeed, I'd debate this fact  - in a modern day setting with modern antiseptics, detergents and hygiene it is healthy. In the ancient age, I'd suspect the risks of infection of the wound shortly after the procedure would outweigh the benefits). In all likelihood, it was probably used back then in a similar vein to it's continued use in Africa (and other) tribespeople who are not Abrahamic in the slightest - it's a right of passage. Interestingly enough, it's not even restricted to the Semitic world. The Romans certainly encountered it father afield (Tactius himself notes it down as a punishment among certain tribes of the Celts.) Similarly, Aboriginal tribes in both South America and Australia utilised Circumcision as a method of marking important tribespeople such as the head man or shaman.
An interesting tangent on the health benefits - the Foreskin actually plays a rather important role in the bodies' immune system. There's a fair argument that part of the reason we see benefits today is because of the weakening of the human immune system in our modern environment.
Similarly, bathing leads to good hygiene, but of much more use to ancient man is that it removes dirt, body odor and parasites making social interaction much easier. Funnily enough, Man isn't the only species which indulges in bathing. Romans weren't the only ones either - the Greeks took regular baths, as did the Egyptians. The Japanese bathed twice a day, the Chinese were also studiosly clean. Ironically enough, it seems regular bathing was more scarce afterChristianity had become the dominant Western religion, though this is more than likely down to social conditions rather than God's fault

Until the 18-19th century, no one took baths, except to wash of the mud and dirt that was on them.

I think you'll find the Romans were rather famous for it several thousand years prior to those dates, generally bathing on a daily basis in clean water, and despite what JA said it was actually hygenic (fresh running water was used wherever possible, the baths themselves were regularly cleaned, and they even used heat as a method of sterilisation. The main health risk of a Roman bath had nothing to do with the water, and everything to do with the use of lead in the pipes and aquaducts).

Both you and JA are ignoring two facts here. Firstly, people don't always need to be aware of all the benefits (if any) of something to do it (eg. smoking). Secondly, such things are generally found out the hard way, by trial and error. You don't need to know that crop growing depletes the nitrates of the soil and requires the field to be sown with nitrogen fixers to restore fertility. You can figure out the Norfolk Crop Rotation system by simple observation - if I keep pigs in my cornfield one year, the corn I sow the year after yields a better crop. Did some lawgiver tell people that circumcision before 7 days was fatal? probably not. Probably they noticed children circumcised immediately after birth died, while those circumcised later survived. As for Germ theory - that originated (as far as modern medicine is aware) in Ancient Greece, and is by no means a modern invention.

The problem with using such examples is that the world went through a dark age where much knowledge was lost. In truth, if you discount everything which is merely a refinement of an older concept, you find pitifully few actual innovations between the modern and ancient world.

Yes, off course it only took about what... 100 years and about 2 million scientists to figure out how molecules fit together and you're going to explain to a sheppard (sp?) who has no idea things are actually built out of tiny atoms quantum physics? Are you kidding ?

Actually, the concept of Atoms also dates back to Ancient Greece....

Yes, you can say, God didn't offer any proof, but it's a book (or multiple books) written more than 2500 years ago with the most accurate telling of history. Isn't that enough proof ?

They're not that accurate at all by normal standards. In fact, they're downright questionable on the historical content (it's 100% on other stuff, however one needs to remember that this would be contemporary to the writer rather than historical. It is after all a collection of seperate books pieced together over several hundred years). I also know of very few historians who give the bible any credit as a source, seriously at least. The only reason the bible is usually considered in historical circles is as an example rather than a source.

Do what makes the most people, the most happy and the least people the least unhappy. Also taking into account the greater good.

So you'd switch relativism for utilitarianism? both are just as flawed as each other...

 

[Kissaki]

No, but whether you are or not is irrelevant. You have no way of proving either way, hence it's moot - you'll never experience being the brain.

That's just the point, isn't it? One cannot know. Only believe with varying degrees of certainty.

 

[LzrdDragoon]

I completely agree with Dalagga

But maybe god just sped evolution up???

Lol hilarious

AND NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THAT GOD HAS POWER TO DO MIRACLES SO NOAH THEORY SCREWD

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

First of all enough squirming around your point about god telling us to bath. Like Lep pointed out, animals do it. Even simple animals adapt and find ways to better there life. You're just being stupid and believing something because you think it SHOULD be true. Look at it from a logical neutral perspective for once. AW is correct, its not that hard to draw conclusions from trial and error. Many, many scientific discoveries are found out through trial and error, in fact most clinical drugs. People have never relied on gods word to make them bath and never will.

Like I said, God never said to take a bath.  I think you skimmed over my words again. 

No. If gods word is absolute and god speaks the absolute truth then you can only interpret it literally. If the word truly is absolute then it will be relevant to you now, I'm afraid absolutes aren't affected by the passing of time, or the context or the genre of the book. That would make them relative and thats not what you believe is it? Face it, the likelihood of an absolute in the universe is second to none. The least proof of all would be an old book saying that there is. How can you say gods word is absolute when you adapt it because of factors like literally genre, time or context. It simply does not work.

God is absolute and his Truth is well, but words are not.  Their meaning changes over time.  Any person on this forum (well, most) know that.  If I started talking to you via the lingua franca of 2000 years ago (probably Koine would be the best bet) I bet you wouldn't understand a lick.  If I talked to you (I'm not sure where you are from) and I said that I'd like to have a fag, you'd assume I was a homosexual (though if I was from England, I'd want a smoke).  You absolutely must interpret the original words based upon the original, unchanging meaning as seen and known by the original audience.

Genre is important because of the types of Hebrew literature.  Here's an example from now to bring you up to speed.  When you say to your girlfriend "Your lips are like silk and your breath is like honey" you aren't literally saying that her lips feel like thread made from worms and her breath smells like a bee's excrement.  When you see the words "Like" or "As" on this forum or in any book, those are indicators that the following description IS NOT literal but rather a descriptive metaphor.  Someone that has an English background, help me out here if that was convoluted. 

Adapting the meaning to the context?  I'm not saying to MY context but the context of the passage.  Words are meaningless without context.  Here's an example:

I'm afraid...

See? I took your words out of context.  You are afraid (but not really).  I hope you see that words need to be interpreted in their context.  Someone with an English background please explain this better than I did if that was hard to understand.  I was forced to take English, but ended up learning more via studying Russian. 

Then why are you even in this thread? If there is no proof for god, there is no proof for creationism so there is no argument for you. I think the majority here only care about arguments with some kind of proof or logic.

Proof isn't equal to evidence, by the way.

Edit:

Well, maybe I am getting confused between proof and evidence, but clearly there is more evidence for evolution than there is for god.

Ah, yea, you did get your definitions in a cross.  This thread, at least in part, is about evidence.    Proof would be something close to God writing his name on the clouds and saying "I exist", though at least some in the world would be convinced it was a hoax.

I'll pass on the circumcision argument for reasons I've already mentioned and others as well.

From the wee little man: 

Why does it matter so much where we come from and how we got here? That's all far in the past, and what's done is done. What matters is not arguing about how we came to exist, but how we go on from here and use our existence, regardless of how we began. It's here whichever way is true, get used to it.

I believe, like most on this thread (be they athiests or creationists) that evolution and creation are incompatable.  Specifically, that the Bible and evolution are incompatible.  If evolution is true, there is no need for God (other than gods made in ones own image to make people feel good/have worth/etc). There would be no meta-narrative in this instance (and indeed my generation leans heavily towards postmodernism), no meaning for life.  No purpose.  No cosmic ideal.  To each his own way and life.  Evolution would mean a sort of libertarianism (with regards to social issues) and narcissism most likely being the highest ideal in this resulting system, though some may lean towards a modified Epicureanism.

If creationism is true, it implies that God created, and therefore has ownership rights over creation.  We'd best go from there and find out who he is and what he wants.

The embodyment of clumps of grass roots and dirt (ARCHONSOD) 

Would love to, give me something to do on my weekend shift Smile. Your wrong on the light thing too - it doesn't have mass or particles.  Quantum theory lets you switch them around in certain instances (where both a particle and a wave exhibit the same behaviour, or at least can be explained in the same terms), but this doesn't actually  change the quanta itself. Science has light made up of photons - photons aren't (or at least, aren't yet) proven to exist, they're merely an easy way of referring to a group of concepts and facts, in much the same way as gravitons represent the force of gravity (which is neither a particle nor a wave). In fact, according to Einstein, if light had mass we'd all be dead, since we'd be continually bombarded by particles of infinite mass.

Light doesn't have "rest mass" (normal definition for mass) yet it does have energy.  Here's a fun little quote:

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?" this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container.  The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}.  By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of.  However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Here's the link to the article on heat and radiation.  Like I said, I think they make some bad assumptions which are faulty to their system, but it still is an interesting read.    I stumbled across it a month and a half ago, but I didn't even think to PM it to you.  Sorry about forgetting until now.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-misc.html#appendix2

Technically, the term Christian would apply to anyone who believed in Christ. Whether they believe in the biblical version (or the bible itself) isn't necessarily relevant (correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there a few orders which denounce the New Testament as a lie and worship a different version of Jesus?). Restricting your definition only to those who follow your interpretation of the bible is like a Catholic denouncing Protestants as Pagan. According to their strict definition, it may be correct. However, to an outsider (i.e. anyone who doesn't believe in christ) the distinction is irrelevant. It's something of a cop out - it would be just as easy for us to redefine the term athiest to exclude those who are detrimental to our own cause!

It isn't excluding those who believe differently.  It is excluding those who reject the Biblical Christ.  You can't know the historical Jesus outside of the Bible (and some of you will say you can't know him from the Bible).  If you reject the Bible as God's word and yet still say you follow Jesus, you're just following a man called Jesus of your own making.  There are few references to Jesus outside of the Bible and Apostolic Father literature as it is, and you can't come to know more about Jesus via a few vague (and one apocryphal-- Josephus) references.  Literally, Christ is the Koine word for Messiach (Messiah) in the old testament.  If one were to reject that Jesus had come as the Messiah of God (some of which include deity) then they by definition couldn't be Christians (followers of the messiah).

The argument you've issued above, as well as the "God can do everything, so can he make something that he can't lift" arguments are classical anti-theism or in some cases anti-creation (remove God from the equation and you're left with only one option, unless Aliens are the intellegent designer Wink) arguments

They're not straw man arguments (well, unless you'd classify 'disproving' god as a straw man position in this debate).

Since I'm running low on time (shift ending) I'll link from an athiest regarding that argument...
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox

They're not that accurate at all by normal standards. In fact, they're downright questionable on the historical content (it's 100% on other stuff, however one needs to remember that this would be contemporary to the writer rather than historical. It is after all a collection of seperate books pieced together over several hundred years). I also know of very few historians who give the bible any credit as a source, seriously at least. The only reason the bible is usually considered in historical circles is as an example rather than a source.

Actually, they are very historically accurate, especially considering that ancient histories quite often were not very accurate at all.  Archaeologically speaking, it is easy to show that the Bible has much to offer.  If you look at other books (like the modern book of Mormon which claims there were civilizations that didn't really exist in North America and we have no evidence at all for) you'll see what I mean.    Of course, historicity doesn't necessarily mean tht the book is from a Divine origin, but gives a little evidence towards that since books that are ahistorical wouldn't even be considered.

Both you and JA are ignoring two facts here. Firstly, people don't always need to be aware of all the benefits (if any) of something to do it (eg. smoking). Secondly, such things are generally found out the hard way, by trial and error. You don't need to know that crop growing depletes the nitrates of the soil and requires the field to be sown with nitrogen fixers to restore fertility. You can figure out the Norfolk Crop Rotation system by simple observation - if I keep pigs in my cornfield one year, the corn I sow the year after yields a better crop. Did some lawgiver tell people that circumcision before 7 days was fatal? probably not. Probably they noticed children circumcised immediately after birth died, while those circumcised later survived. As for Germ theory - that originated (as far as modern medicine is aware) in Ancient Greece, and is by no means a modern invention.

The problem with using such examples is that the world went through a dark age where much knowledge was lost. In truth, if you discount everything which is merely a refinement of an older concept, you find pitifully few actual innovations between the modern and ancient world.

A great loss was felt when the Library of Alexandria was burned...   Looking at the Hygenic practices of the Hebrews, especially considering the neighbors around them, you'd have to either assume that they were especially astute or that God had helped them in that process.  Like you mentioned, even the Romans had a problem with hygene and health.  Overindulgence and eating pork didn't help them.  Temple prostitution isn't healthy.  Bathing in either stagnant public baths or baths fed via lead pipes wasn't a good choice either, though all things considered, I'd take the lead.

Germ theory originated with Ancient Greece?  Now that I wasn't familiar with, though it doesn't surprise me.  Care to share more (the name of the guy with the theory will suffice and I'll go from there)?  Thanks.

Actually, the concept of Atoms also dates back to Ancient Greece....

Aye, but it wasn't accepted because it wasn't understood.  My point exactly.  (You've got to love those Greeks, though they in turn borrowed a lot from earlier cultures).

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Do what makes the most people, the most happy and the least people the least unhappy. Also taking into account the greater good.

So you'd switch relativism for utilitarianism? both are just as flawed as each other...

How can anyone criticise utilitarianism in this way? Utilitarianism surely just recognises the goal of any way of thinking: maximising happiness (enjoyment or whatever). The idea is flawless, its implementation might be iffy. But that's true of all ideas of this sort.

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

How can anyone criticise utilitarianism in this way? Utilitarianism surely just recognises the goal of any way of thinking: maximising happiness (enjoyment or whatever). The idea is flawless, its implementation might be iffy. But that's true of all ideas of this sort.

The reason why Utilitarianism is flawed is because we are flawed.  Utilitarianism is broken due to:

1) Our inability to compare relative pleasure via quantitative means, thereby rendering the system as very subjective.
2) Our inability to predict all possible outcomes of our actions (you can't predict the consequences for everything so you might be WRONG in what brings the greater good).
3) Utilitarianism is also broken since it rejects rights (which can be interpreted as a moralistic code and thus would be tossed out the window if it didn't promote the greatest good).
4) Utilitarianism dismisses or devalues the importance of intentions (is intending something to harm, but it actually turns out to be for the greater good alright in this system? What happens when we intend good but it turns out bad for everyone?)
5) The sacrifice of individualism.  According to this system, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (or individuals).  The harm or even killing of a few can be tollerated as long as more people benefit from the other's misfortune.


Just to name a few. 

 

[13 Spider Bloody Chain]

Question @ JA: Under what authority do you define the term "Christian"? What direct source states that, in order to be a Christian, one must be x, do y, abstain from z, etc. ?

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

Question @ JA: Under what authority do you define the term "Christian"? What direct source states that, in order to be a Christian, one must be x, do y, abstain from z, etc. ?

Well, I use the Bible, of course. 

The term Christian originated at the large Gentile city of Antioch at least a couple decades after Christ died and rose again.  Here's the passage that first uses the word "Christian" in the Bible, which is a term that actually only appears three times.  This is in Acts 11, starting at verse 19 if you want to see the greater pericope,

Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus. The Lord's hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Basically from this verse, the term Christians can be seen to have been proceeded by the term disciples (which means learner and actually is found all over the New Testament as opposed to Christian.  The terms, however, meant the same thing).  The ones in Antioch that were called Christians were the same that above believed in the "good news about the Lord Jesus" and were the "great number of people (who) were brought to the Lord."

Specifically, this sets up the simple definition of a Christian as one who:
1) Believes in the good news (lit. "Gospel") about Jesus (not just any Jesus, but this Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God)
2) Is "brought to the Lord"

That's all it takes to be a Christian.  You need to believe the gospel of Jesus and be brought to the Lord.  Lets break that down.  The "gospel" or "good news" specifically  that Jesus died for the sins of everyone and rose again from the dead.  Specifically defined from the Bible, the gospel is best stated in First Corintians 15.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

That should be fairly clear on number one.  On number two, "being brought to the Lord" you need to understand what that word "Lord" means.  It refers to Jesus, as is clear in that context (Paul says "Ha Kurios Iesous" meaning the Lord Jesus, so Kurios/Lord in the second is a reference to Jesus).  Kurios is also used to refer to God in many instances, and indeed the tetragrammaton (divine name for God as expressed by LORD in some translations in the OT) was translated before this time as "Kurios".  Therefore, to be a Christian, your Lord (master) must be Jesus, the son of God.

So, the Biblical definiton of a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the son of God who died for their sins and rose again.  This person is now under the authority of Jesus and seeks to do what pleases him.  Note this is not reffering to just any Jesus, but the historical Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God.

I hope that helps.  Since disciple and Christian are synonyms, it might help you to do a study on the word "mathetis/disciple" as well.  That, though, is the basic definition of a Christian on the authority of the Bible.

 

[Yoshiboy]

How can anyone criticise utilitarianism in this way? Utilitarianism surely just recognises the goal of any way of thinking: maximising happiness (enjoyment or whatever). The idea is flawless, its implementation might be iffy. But that's true of all ideas of this sort.

The reason why Utilitarianism is flawed is because we are flawed.  Utilitarianism is broken due to:

1) Our inability to compare relative pleasure via quantitative means, thereby rendering the system as very subjective.
2) Our inability to predict all possible outcomes of our actions (you can't predict the consequences for everything so you might be WRONG in what brings the greater good).
3) Utilitarianism is also broken since it rejects rights (which can be interpreted as a moralistic code and thus would be tossed out the window if it didn't promote the greatest good).
4) Utilitarianism dismisses or devalues the importance of intentions (is intending something to harm, but it actually turns out to be for the greater good alright in this system? What happens when we intend good but it turns out bad for everyone?)
5) The sacrifice of individualism.  According to this system, the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (or individuals).  The harm or even killing of a few can be tollerated as long as more people benefit from the other's misfortune.


Just to name a few. 

Although like it has been pointed out Utilitarianism is not perfect and I would like to be a perfect Utilitarianist but I am not. I'd say i probably take more of a mix between a realistic approach, a emotist approach and a Utilitarianistic approach toward morals. It is true that it is beyond the human nature to fully make an accurate judgment on what will be the greater good for everyone. It is simply beyond most people's minds. So this is where emotions can come in sometimes (and i stress) they can act as a good shortcut to finding what will be the most beneficial. At other times emotions can be completely misleading and lead you down the wrong path, this is where logic must overrule and you really must find find the Utilitarianistic approach if you have time or not. No emotional shortcuts can be used. Finally taking a realistic approach is simply to give me some leway because frankly i'm not superman and I don't do all the things I claim, I simply do what I think is best.

But to pick up on some of your points JA:

1) Personally I think relative pleasure is one of the closest measurements we can get from happiness. It will be subjective like everything in the world is subjective. How is it possible to measure it otherwise when all we have is our own interpretation of the world. Without an absolute this can be harder, but at least you have something very close you can take a measurement off. Personally I think the bad points of taking an absolute outweigh the problems of this. Mainly the problem of possibly being wrong, and the counter of that, faith, can be both very powerful and very dangerous as we all know.

2) This is true, like I said above, sometimes an emotist approach can help in places but this can be a problem for all moral systems as far as I can tell.

3) Correct, realism and emotist approach can help sometimes but not always, it is a problem.

4) This can be a problem, and I also think that this ties hand in hand with ignorance, hate, greed and other evils in the world. This battle needs to be fought elsewhere, its not to do with the moral approach.

5) I can't really see much wrong with this, it is the key to the approach.


Anyway, Don't bite my head off all moral approaches have their problems and lets not get started on the problems of an absolute moral approach.

God is absolute and his Truth is well, but words are not.  Their meaning changes over time.  Any person on this forum (well, most) know that.  If I started talking to you via the lingua franca of 2000 years ago (probably Koine would be the best bet) I bet you wouldn't understand a lick.  If I talked to you (I'm not sure where you are from) and I said that I'd like to have a fag, you'd assume I was a homosexual (though if I was from England, I'd want a smoke).  You absolutely must interpret the original words based upon the original, unchanging meaning as seen and known by the original audience.

Genre is important because of the types of Hebrew literature.  Here's an example from now to bring you up to speed.  When you say to your girlfriend "Your lips are like silk and your breath is like honey" you aren't literally saying that her lips feel like thread made from worms and her breath smells like a bee's excrement.  When you see the words "Like" or "As" on this forum or in any book, those are indicators that the following description IS NOT literal but rather a descriptive metaphor.  Someone that has an English background, help me out here if that was convoluted.  Smile

Adapting the meaning to the context?  I'm not saying to MY context but the context of the passage.  Words are meaningless without context.  Here's an example:

Words mean different things to different people, like you pointed out. But, who gives you the authority to say which interpretation is "wrong" and which is "right". If i was to say "I'd like to have a fag" then who is to say that what i meant to say was that i need a cigarette or if i wanted a homosexual. The problem is you just need another absolute to define this. You can get all the evidence, history and information you want about the period of time etc etc...but at the end of the day there is no proof without an absolute, and no absolute without proof.

Also, although i agree that the omnipotent argument is a straw man in this thread I do think it is interesting, being one of the key picked on areas of the bible and still so central to everything else in the bible. As if everything in the bible is tied together with what appears to be a paradox. Problem is, free will opens up so many more areas of debate. I can't help thinking it was a shortcut that managed to get the creators out of alot of trouble while landing them into alot more.

Oh, and out of interest JA. How, when and why did you become a Christian?

 

[Archonsod]

Light doesn't have "rest mass" (normal definition for mass) yet it does have energy. 

In many ways light is energy. The quote is incorrect though, by itself a box of endlessly reflecting light wouldn't act as if there were increased mass, it would have increased energy. More than likely, the box would get hot - you'd need something in the box (or it's construction) to convert this energy in order to get a similar effect as increased mass.

It isn't excluding those who believe differently.  It is excluding those who reject the Biblical Christ.  You can't know the historical Jesus outside of the Bible (and some of you will say you can't know him from the Bible).

Jesus is also mentioned in the books of Judaism and Islam, with key differences from those of the New Testament. Would someone following this version of Christ no longer be Christian?

If one were to reject that Jesus had come as the Messiah of God (some of which include deity) then they by definition couldn't be Christians (followers of the messiah).

Isn't it possible to accept Jesus as the messiah without believing (or at least entirely believing) the NT though? To take an example, if I (for some reason) rejected the testimony of Luke as reliable would I then no longer be Christian, despite the fact that I fully believe the rest of the texts?

Actually, they are very historically accurate, especially considering that ancient histories quite often were not very accurate at all.  Archaeologically speaking, it is easy to show that the Bible has much to offer.

Archaeologically speaking it's possible to prove a modicum of veracity to any such tale though. It doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true though - we have found Troy, we know it was razed several times, but this doesn't necessarily mean the Iliad actually happened. We have evidence of the existence of Rome, but it doesn't therefore follow that the story of Romulus & Remus is true.
Archaeological evidence can only tell us that a place or person existed, however in most cases it won't prove whether certain events happened (although in certain cultures, one would expect to find references to involvement in such events in the orbituary). One could use the same argument to prove Superman or James Bond exists, since they both reference people, places and organisations which are real.

A great loss was felt when the Library of Alexandria was burned...   Looking at the Hygenic practices of the Hebrews, especially considering the neighbors around them, you'd have to either assume that they were especially astute or that God had helped them in that process. 

Like I said, you're retroactively applying a modern reason to an ancient practice. We know today that certain acts improve hygeine because we have the tools and methods to find out. To an ancient Hebrew, the practice in question was probably not associated with hygeine at all.
It's the old "thunder is an angry god" principal - a certain ritual or activity is performed, those around observe that the ritual members suffer less ill health and lacking any other reasoning for it ascribe it to an act of God. Suddenly, everyone is adopting the ritual because they don't want to displease God.
It's one of the main ways both ideas and religion spread in the ancient world. It also explains why you find such things in the bible - since we've already established that certain practices are pleasing  / aggravating to 'God' then it's only natural that they become incorporated into religious doctrine. Since you're already accepting that 'God' is responsible for what happens, when a certain practice is found to work consistently it's only logical to ascribe it to a pleased diety.

As for germ theory, Hippocrates (or at least an author of the body of works which bears his name) ascribed disease to organisms in the 5th century BC. It wasn't exactly microbiology, though they correctly identified the cause of disease as being 'invisible organisms', as well as a variety of treatments (not all of which would be effective) designed to kill these organisms. An ancient Roman agricultural text mentions "invisible organisms" which breed in swamps as transmitters of disease (not 100% sure, but I think the author may have been Varro). We also know the Egyptians correctly identified the link between mosquito's and malaria, although they believed malaria to be a form of venom used by the mosquito rather than being bacteria (which is half correct I suppose).

Aye, but it wasn't accepted because it wasn't understood.  My point exactly.  (You've got to love those Greeks, though they in turn borrowed a lot from earlier cultures).

It wasn't accepted because no two Greeks ever agree on anything The significant part of the theory wasn't the atom (since it was completely wrong) but the idea that there were smaller building blocks behind the universe than that which we could see.

Although like it has been pointed out Utilitarianism is not perfect and I would like to be a perfect Utilitarianist but I am not.

Another problem with Utilitarianism is that it holds no method or guidance for valuing or prioritising happiness. You also have problems with traditional morality - technically, a fundamentalist who believes in a paradise afterlife can justify the slaughter of millions, since they are effectively making them happy. You also have problems if given two people who need very different and conflicting things to be happy - how do you decide which deserves happiness and which doesn't?

all moral approaches have their problems and lets not get started on the problems of an absolute moral approach

Nihilism doesn't

being one of the key picked on areas of the bible and still so central to everything else in the bible

Technically, I don't think God himself ever claims omnipotence in the bible (aside from the whole "I built the bloody thing" approach, but this wouldn't necessarily mean omnipotence). It's not central as such, since one could argue that the omnipotence of God is either a human interpretation, or else only relevant from our own perspective (as beings within his creation).

 

[Yoshiboy]

Another problem with Utilitarianism is that it holds no method or guidance for valuing or prioritising happiness. You also have problems with traditional morality - technically, a fundamentalist who believes in a paradise afterlife can justify the slaughter of millions, since they are effectively making them happy. You also have problems if given two people who need very different and conflicting things to be happy - how do you decide which deserves happiness and which doesn't?

Well you may be right but this example is flawed. Utilitarianism can't really account for things out of this world as morality is essentially human interaction. If it makes people happy to die, so be it. If the slaughter of millions makes people happy, whats wrong with it? I'm pretty sure the bad connotations associated with the slaughter of millions are mainly associated with the pain and suffering of those killed and the loved ones of those killed. If this was removed and slaughter made the most people the most happy it would be hard to explain whats wrong with it.

Again, if you have a conflicting view of happiness between two people. Say the scales are in the balance as to what action would make people most happy you simply do nothing until the scales are unbalanced and then act appropriately.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Johnathan Andrews: It seems to me (maybe I'm missing something) that utilitarianism covers itself for all of the points you mentioned. For example, it doesn't reject rights, it simply doen't give them a specific mention. Utilitarianism doesn't say that if you can't decide each action on a case-by-case basis then you arn't allowed to use shortcuts (ie rights). Isn't it true that, if case-by-case lead to less happiness than rights, the use of rights would be supported by utilitarianism?

My point was that utilitarianism basically just says to maximise happiness. If this isn't the ultimate goal of all such systems (religions too), then something's amiss in my view.

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

who gives you the authority to say which interpretation is "wrong" and which is "right". If i was to say "I'd like to have a fag" then who is to say that what i meant to say was that i need a cigarette or if i wanted a homosexual. The problem is you just need another absolute to define this. You can get all the evidence, history and information you want about the period of time etc etc...but at the end of the day there is no proof without an absolute, and no absolute without proof.

The one who ushered the statement knew full well what it meant, and has say over what was meant from that precise statment.

Written literature, especially in cases where the original writer is either dead or no longer accessable  can be interpreted correctly via the above hermeneutic with reliability.  You might miss a few small points here and there, but the grand overarching theme of what the person is writing and talking about can be understood, as well as many of the points in minutia.  If this were not the case, we'd just have to hold a bonfire for all books that were penned from dead authors, since they would be of less value than toilet paper if they could not be understood at all.

The older a book is, the more you have to be careful when interpreting it.  When you have a book penned by someone of a different culture, in a different time period, or in a different language, you need to be exceptionally careful, which is why you'll want to stay in the above literary interpretation parameters.

Oh, and out of interest JA. How, when and why did you become a Christian?

I'll see if I can dig that up.  I think I answered in breif 6 months ago.  If you have a specific question about the overview, I'll be glad to answer in private (just hoping that I can find that earlier post and save me some work.  I have about 800 pages to read, 3 reports to write, and two interviews to conduct as well as two tests to study for by next Tuesday).

Edit: Search failed me.  I may have been thinking of a PM, or may have forgotten the key words. 

The quick and dirty version is what I'll give you.  I was raised as an Atheist, and actually liked to make fun of Christians.  I thought they were either sadly misled and had a loose grasp of reality or were deceived (or deceivers in some cases).  I'd love to attack them on moral issues if I had the chance in High School (yea, I was a pretty nasty guy back then) or even personally sometimes.  I was firmly convinced via experience and via science that there was no possibility at all that God could have ever existed and believed there was no need for him (specifically to explain where everything came from)..  However, when I got into higher sciences, I found that there was the possibility that God existed.  Via AP classes at my high school (Chemistry was basic, but Geology, Quantum Mechanics, Physics, Anatomy and Physiology) I began to think more about whether or not there was at least a possibility that God exists/existed.  These classes didn't prove that there was a God, but just showed me some of the loopholes of my logic up to that present time.  I actually had a brief flirtation with Buddhism (Therivada I believe, and I hope I spelled it right) before rejecting it as nonsensical.

I got busy for the next 1.5 years and occasionally would think on the subject or ask questions of others or read something along the lines of the possible existance of God.  However, it wasn't until College that I really began exploring.  In College, I reasoned that if there was a possibility of God's existance, I'd better figure out what (s)he was like and what (s)he wanted, or eliminate that possibility.  If I could eliminate the possibility of God or at least the possibility of knowing God and what he/she wanted, I'd settle for that and let the matter rest for the duration of my life.

If God exists, then there were two possible types of God.  The first would be the Deist philosophy that God doesn't interact with history, but is an outside observer.  The second is that God interacts with history at certain points, and guides its outcome and shapes its path.  The first would be difficult to prove (you'd basically have to do it via elimination of the pro-interaction candidates), so I started with #2. 

Reasoning that God may have interacted with history at some point and sought to reveal himself, I figured I'd look at one of the main religions today that has also been around for quite a while.  If God was powerful enough to intervene in history, he probably would have caused quite an impact that would've started one of these movements.  These movements include Hinduism (Buddhism being an offshoot of Hinduism), Islam, and Christianity.  One of these three would be the best candidates for possible evidence for the interaction of God within history.  I rejected Hinduism, the oldest, after a little research due to the fact that the holy books have degraded to such a point over time that at least 70% of the original material has either been lost or replaced/changed from the original.  It is pretty hard to  look for God (in this case plural) interaction with history when the holy documents themselves have been so degraded.  I next looked at Islam and Christianity, which are linked.

Islam was later than Christianity by several centuries, and made the assumption that the OT and NT of the Bible were corrupted.  So I put Islam on the shelf and looked at Christianity for evidence of this corruption.  Of course, I needed to start with the TaNaK (the Old Testament) and study it in order to see if it had been corrupted, and if Jesus really fulfilled the requirements of being the Messiah in the New Testament, or if the NT was just all one big lie but the OT had the real truth.  To make a long story short, after two more years of study, I came to the conclusion that the OT and NT weren't corrupted from the originals and were reliable.  The impact that this person Jesus made on the world was huge.  The prophecies which predated Jesus were fulfilled.  The archaeology and history in the Bible was accurate.  The miscelaneous prophecies in the Old Testament were (mostly, except for the future ones) fulfilled, not with ambiguity, but with great precision.  The fact that the Bible had been so well preserved and was so accurate floored me, but it was the prophecies which convinced me the book was not just a simple good book.  As much as I tried to get around what happened 2000 years ago at the site of the ressurection, there just weren't any good theories to refute the more likely account of the ressurection of Jesus.

At that point, I was left with four options to explore over a summer (a busy summer filled with research), based on the expanded trichotomy of CS Lewis (another Athiest that "saw the light") -- namely, was Jesus a Liar, a Lunatic, or the Lord (with a 4th criterion- was he Legend?)?  The liar and lunatic were easy to discard, so the last month or two centered around exploring whether he was a legend (either not real or his historicity has been stripped from him) or was really the Lord.  Based on the evidence, Jesus wasn't a legend, so I was left with only one choice at that point-- would I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and savior, or reject him and continue to live life the way I thought was best?  I chose the former.

That's the quick and dirty.  If you have specific questions, you can PM them to me.  Comments on any part are welcomed, though I might not get back in detail with you until next Wednesday (the last finals I have are Tuesday).

Jesus is also mentioned in the books of Judaism and Islam, with key differences from those of the New Testament. Would someone following this version of Christ no longer be Christian?

Jesus is only mentioned once in brief among contemporary Jewish literature (if you exclude the countless prophecies of him in the TaNaK, that is ).  He is also mentioned in breif in several other pieces of contemporary literature outside of Judaism.  Josephus's reference, however, is most likely apocryphal (as much as I'd like it to be genuine, I doubt it).  Islam came 400 years after the events, and therefore shouldn't be considered a reliable witness unless you can prove that the OT and NT had been deliberately and greatly altered by that time and that the Quran had access to either historically reliable information on Jesus that the writers of the Gospels lacked, or was indeed inspired by Allah.

Both reject the divinity and messiahship (if that is a word) of Jesus, and therefore following either would mean you weren't a Christian.

Isn't it possible to accept Jesus as the messiah without believing (or at least entirely believing) the NT though? To take an example, if I (for some reason) rejected the testimony of Luke as reliable would I then no longer be Christian, despite the fact that I fully believe the rest of the texts?

It is impossible to reject the deity of Christ and be a Christian.  However, under certain circumstances, you could indeed reject a portion of the scripture and still be a Christian.  For instance, a group of early Christians (I don't remember which ones) rejected Revalations as authentic.  They accepted all other books and were followers of Christ, but just rejected that book.  Martin Luther himself called the book of James a "strawey" book since portions conflicted with his ideas on election (how you become saved).  Unless you have a good reason to reject a portion, you shouldn't do it though.  A passage that should be considered for rejection is the last section in Mark (I think after 16:9, but I'd have to check) since that wasn't in the oldest manuscripts.  You can't just pick and choose what to believe out of preference or because you don't like something (M.L. didn't like James, but regarded it as scripture, though he never liked the book and rarely used it).

Archaeologically speaking it's possible to prove a modicum of veracity to any such tale though. It doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true though - we have found Troy, we know it was razed several times, but this doesn't necessarily mean the Iliad actually happened. We have evidence of the existence of Rome, but it doesn't therefore follow that the story of Romulus & Remus is true.
Archaeological evidence can only tell us that a place or person existed, however in most cases it won't prove whether certain events happened (although in certain cultures, one would expect to find references to involvement in such events in the orbituary). One could use the same argument to prove Superman or James Bond exists, since they both reference people, places and organisations which are real.

You're right.  Archaeology, as I mentioned, is an evidence for the infalability of the Bible, not the proof.  If, as earlier archaologists supposed, the Hittites didn't exist and Ninevah never existed, it would lead to great doubt on the veracity of the Bible.  However, as archaology has shown, both these people and this place have now been found and are as the Bible describes (though references to Hittites are very limited).

As for germ theory, Hippocrates (or at least an author of the body of works which bears his name) ascribed disease to organisms in the 5th century BC. It wasn't exactly microbiology, though they correctly identified the cause of disease as being 'invisible organisms', as well as a variety of treatments (not all of which would be effective) designed to kill these organisms. An ancient Roman agricultural text mentions "invisible organisms" which breed in swamps as transmitters of disease (not 100% sure, but I think the author may have been Varro). We also know the Egyptians correctly identified the link between mosquito's and malaria, although they believed malaria to be a form of venom used by the mosquito rather than being bacteria (which is half correct I suppose).

Thanks.  I'll do a little research over the Christmas Break when I have more time.  I'm not familiar with Varro, but Hippocrates obviously rings a bell.

Technically, I don't think God himself ever claims omnipotence in the bible (aside from the whole "I built the bloody thing" approach, but this wouldn't necessarily mean omnipotence). It's not central as such, since one could argue that the omnipotence of God is either a human interpretation, or else only relevant from our own perspective (as beings within his creation).

There are references to his Omnipotence in the Bible, but I don't believe God ever comes out directly and says "I am all-powerful".  If you, as a parent to kids, need to keep telling your kids that you are the one in control and have power, it means (most likely) that you aren't in power and the kids are out from your control.    There are direct Biblical passages which are very clear that God is all-powerful. 

As to Utilitarianism, we may need to start a new topic.  I will however futher reiterate that it is a flawed system.  Under Utilitarianism, who is to decide what the greatest good for the many is?  Does it really come down to simple public opinion on some issues?

My point was that utilitarianism basically just says to maximise happiness. If this isn't the ultimate goal of all such systems (religions too), then something's amiss in my view.

Epicureanism is similar to utilitarianism in some regards, but true epicurianism has more value than this system, in my opinion.  Is maximum happiness the ultimate goal of all religions?  I think that is a stretch.  I would say a fringe benefit of many religions is happiness or joy, but that isn't the point.  Clearly, some religions are completely happiness-driven.  Most others involve rituals, practices, or deeds that are moderately unpleasant at the very least.  For the Christian, we are called to "deny ourselves".  That isn't pleasurable at all.  For the Muslim, you are called to pray at certain times, go on certain pilgramiges, abstain from certain food, fast, and give to charity.  Some of those may be ok, but most are really not pleasurable.  Most major religions involve some element of self-sacrifice as either a requirement or a strong suggestion.

 

[Yoshiboy]

The one who ushered the statement knew full well what it meant, and has say over what was meant from that precise statment.

Written literature, especially in cases where the original writer is either dead or no longer accessable  can be interpreted correctly via the above hermeneutic with reliability.  You might miss a few small points here and there, but the grand overarching theme of what the person is writing and talking about can be understood, as well as many of the points in minutia.  If this were not the case, we'd just have to hold a bonfire for all books that were penned from dead authors, since they would be of less value than toilet paper if they could not be understood at all.

The older a book is, the more you have to be careful when interpreting it.  When you have a book penned by someone of a different culture, in a different time period, or in a different language, you need to be exceptionally careful, which is why you'll want to stay in the above literary interpretation parameters.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but what I think you are saying is that the author or creator of the statement knew what they meant and therefore that is the absolute in interpretation....but then how do you know what God actually meant? God doesn't do talks on how to interpret his most recent piece of literature or what he intended by each statement. Although if he did it would solve alot of problems The problem I'm pointing out are those "few small points" and getting the "general theme". Is that really enough to base your judgment on? Books like all literature will be debated over there meaning forever, you can never find an absolute meaning to a book without a literal interpretation of the words. Laws are written to be incredibly specific to solve this problem, in fact, as specific as possible. That is the point of writing a law. Yet still laws are interpreted in different ways because of the context of the case of the judge's personal opinion. The bible is far from being a law, it is full of vague statements, metaphors and similes. Its nearer to poetry; something that was meant to be interpreted and subjective.

You are talking on a relative point of view again, you can't say there are bits missing, or some of it is subjective and there is some le-way for interpretation in parts. If God is absolute then the bible is absolute and that means all or nothing.

Again, you are simply telling me how to interpret the bible, not why your way of interpreting is "right". You need an absolute for that or to be able to read God's mind.

I'll see if I can dig that up.  I think I answered in breif 6 months ago.  If you have a specific question about the overview, I'll be glad to answer in private (just hoping that I can find that earlier post and save me some work.  I have about 800 pages to read, 3 reports to write, and two interviews to conduct as well as two tests to study for by next Tuesday).

Cool, thanks.

As to Utilitarianism, we may need to start a new topic.  I will however futher reiterate that it is a flawed system.  Under Utilitarianism, who is to decide what the greatest good for the many is?  Does it really come down to simple public opinion on some issues?

The whole point of Utilitarianism is that it is not down to some simple public opinion. You forget that happiness can be measured in a very un-relative respect and so is possibly the best measure for what is good and bad. Public opinion has nothing to do with it. Nor does anyone's opinion in the whole world, it is simply a measure of happiness and nothing more. Its subjectiveness is the same as that of Gods idea of what is good and bad if not less so.

 

[Johnathan Andrews]

Yoshi, I added in the change above.  I don't know if I mentioned or not, but I was 20 at the time.

The bible is far from being a law, it is full of vague statements, metaphors and similes. Its nearer to poetry; something that was meant to be interpreted and subjective.

Actually, the Bible is law, historical narrative, apocalyptic, and poetry.  Each have distinctive literary devices depending on the style of literature, which is why you need to interpret passages with regards to what type of literature you're in.  English critics don't look at a poem and a biography the same way, nor do us "laymen".

You'll find most of your poetry in the Old Testament.  That was comrpised of three broad groups, divided by the Jews via TaNaK (Torah, Nevaim, and writings, but I forget the Hebrew word for it at the moment-- maybe Ketuvim), Law, Prophets, Writings.  In the New Testament, you have three broad categories as well.  Gospels (a specific literary type which aren't exactly described completely as biographies), epistles (letters-- fairly straightforward to understand as well) and apocalyptic (there is some in several of the later OT books as well.  This is the hardest type of literature in the Bible to accurately interpret).

If God is absolute then the bible is absolute and that means all or nothing.

God wrote the Bible through men, using their language and their styles.  You can see the styalistic differences throughout the Bible.  He didn't just dictate a letter and the prophet/apostle transcribed, otherwise the above might be true.