No Poke:
You said: "I'm most certainly not saying that ignorant thoughts should be treated equally. But if I do declare my ignorance then an answer "because you say so" or "you just don't understand" is a cop-out particularly where the question is challenging."
Your words are interesting in that you still demand to receive some type of wisdom (or, at least, understanding). You say "IF I do declare my ignorance"... have you? We agree that ignorant thoughts are not of equal standing with those who have studied; therefore, ignorance must be admitted in order to open the ears to new learning. Only by accident will the ignorant speak understanding, but they will not know it. Understand, I am not insulting anyone, but am speaking only what is already agreed.
As to "because I say so" or "you just don't understand" - I never said these things nor implied them as answers to questions. The latter may be true if you do not understand, but the answers I give are easily understood.
The idea that to give no answer is a "cop-out" is incorrect. Where understanding has not occurred, it is best to leave things as they are until that understanding comes to pass. If a question is asked, I will answer, but if the answer is not sufficient, I will wait until that plea is made.
You said: "The awkward questions could be that the bible is an edited document (ie serves its human authors). Or that it is imperfect (an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind!) Or the wriggling and reinterpretation to get past the creation date being younger than the observed age of the planets."
Your language is odd. "The awkward questions COULD BE..." Have they been asked of me or not? I cannot answer questions not asked, nor be accused of something not done.
But as to this idea that the Bible is an edited document, I need say no more than this: you have not done your research, and your accusation is vague. To say "serves its human authors" is not truly an explanation of your quandary as much as your intent, for you have already stated that the human authors of the Bible were self-serving. Do you know this? How? The Bible was not written by one person, but many people at different times. These books are not "edited" in the manner that you say. The mere fact the Gospels are not congruent on certain facts (from which many authors make hay) should be a clue that, if edited, sloppily so. Other clues to the nature of the understanding which may be gleaned is the overt sin of many characters therein - what do you make of that? Why was the sin left in? Or, do you believe that all books which have moral bearing were written by Aesop?
Other things you say are without thought, such as "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," as if the literal nature of the words make such acts common; or, if the verse if metaphoric, that blindness should ensue at all.
And this common concept that a "date of Creation" can be fixed is a mistake on your part. For you have believed a mistake in order to create a superior position, but you have laid your foundation on Jell-o. Those who claim that the Universe is 5000 or so years old are naturally mistaken. But when you say "the observed age of the planets," what do you mean? Which planets? What observations? What is your evidence? I am merely asking you to prove your position here, although I believe it without the proof.
You said: "I gave up on the bible as a text to be taken literally many many years ago. I still read bits of it off and on though."
Again, you make statements which will not cause information to be passed to you. If you "gave up," then you are not seeking. I am not here to twist arms, only to discuss with those who wish to give their, and accept my, learning. And if it was "many many years ago," what new thoughts do you bring to the table? Reading the "bits" which appeal to you is very nice, but you have not shared what they may be or what any mean to you. This idea that one can know this Bible without study or some point of reference is quite maddening.
You said: "By the way do you accept the statement that the Universe does not require a creator? That is the prediction of modern physics. Also don't interpret that statement as the universe did not have a creator, maybe it did as I'm ignorant on the existance of such a creator, just don't forget that the Universe doesn't need a creator, even if some wish it did."
I have already answered this question in detail, but again: First, the statement is ancient, as old as Aristotle or older. Second, modern physics may predict this, but it does not support it, for the Big Bang and other such theories cannot hold to constancy - the Big Bang itself is a change in state. Third, the Universe does require a Creator, for many reasons I've already given in previous posts, but particularly because of the "change of state." As Ryan said, he does not like the argument that science has not proved creation by unintelligent means, but that void which is not filled (and unproved) disintegrates many scientific "predictions" (which are no more than faith). Since creation (even the creation of life) cannot be shown to have "just happened" there is no reason to believe what is improbable over what is probable, except to fulfill a desire that it be so. It is not a "wish" that the universe was created by intelligence, it is the strongest of all probabilities.
