Biblical Genesis

[scrogdog]

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?

[cobaltfjord]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?

It is more like man created God in his image.
Religion is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Prayers are wishes. Humans are by-in-large
a selfish, cruel, self-centered lot. Even
Hitler thought he was kind, self-sacrificing
and altruistic. Humans have infinite capacity
to delude themselves. Every person claims to
be kind and good-natured, even the most ruthless
like Al Capone.

A highly-educated, intelligent dissident in China
was locked in a coffin-sized cell for twenty
years. He emerged unable to communicate or
care for himself in the most basic way. His
mind was rent asunder. There is nothing left
of the person that was originally incarcerated.
All that is left is a shell. His soul was
slowly destroyed as he slowly went mad. If
anyone can imagine the torture this man
went through, that person can know there is
no loving, compassionate, merciful, understanding
all-powerful being that would allow such a thing
to take place. I don't think most humans can
imagine what it is like to experience mind-wrenching
torment. You just have to multiply your worst
pain and fear a trillion, trillion times.

Some people don't believe in objective morality.
They think if there was no God it would be okay
to torture babies. They think God is not bound
by any moral rules. Whatever God does is right.
They believe ultimate might and power make right.

If there a super powerful, all knowing creator
that made the universe, He certainly is one
sick puppy devoid of morality, and the world's
biggest hypocrite to boot.

There is nothing that exists in the universe
that doesn't have a perfectly good natural
explanation. There is nothing in the universe
that is reconcilable with a kind, loving,
compassionate creator.

Everything that happens in the universe has a
natural cause. First, man didn't understand
the univerese and attributed all the workings
of the universe to God. Now that man understands
98% of the universe, God is relegated to
explaining the other 2%. The more man
learns about the universe, the smaller God's
role becomes.

If someone asks me what happened before the
big bang, I can tell them. But they won't
understand unless they first study topology.
Laymen are quick to dispute the theory of
relativity without understanding it, and
without understanding why it was accepted
in the first place.

Cheers,
michael

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?
Without an extreme fundamentalist viewpoint that requires adding information that is not there, Genesis does not conflict with science or evolution.

Genesis is a very basic "this is what happened" that was geared toward a time period practically void of scientific knowledge. Genesis does not try to detail how things occured or even truly pin down time spans for the occurences. It was very common for persons of Biblical times to use "time span" terminology that had very little corralation with real time. Some Asian cultures are still this way. If you ask when your laundry will be ready in some areas of China and are told "tomorrow", don't be surprised if your laundry is not ready for a few days. "Tomorrow" in some cultures simply refers to "sometime in the near future".

[chillbilly]

The validity of ANY belief must be determined on the basis of the foundation upon which it rests.
My belief is based upon religious theology handed down through the centuries.
As I see it, the atheist’s arguments against God will appear equally baseless, absurd, and flawed in that they are based upon the assumptive premise that the universe is, and therefore it has always been.
The Big Bang theory? That assertion stems from a belief system equally as unverifiable as the theologian's insistence on Creation which caused the effect of the universe.
Therefore, the atheist is blind to his own prejudice in this matter.

Consciousness is the means by which we become aware of our own existence, and subsequently, all things external to ourselves.
We absorb evidence through practical experience through the workings of our consciousness. That gives validity to such demonstrable facts as our own existence.
“I breathe, therefore I am”. If we accept the testimony of our consciousness with regard to our own presence in this world, then why should we doubt the testimony of our consciousness when it witnesses causation for all things? If the evidence that intelligence must be a prerequisite for the elaborate interrelations of all things is clear, why accept the one as reality, while rejecting the other as a figment of one’s imagination since both stem from the same revelation of consciousness?
It’s just like a conservative trying to argue a point with a liberal - it just doesn’t get past the filter of irrationality and reproach of mind which impairs the liberal’s judgments.

You just can’t seem to get past the hurdle of thinking that because God has knowledge of all things, that he must direct all things according to that knowledge, if he is at all all-powerful and able to do the same. Omniscience does not necessitate predetermination to make possible what one knows will happen.

[scrogdog]

Though I am not a believer, I do not consider my self "anti-god". It is more like I am "pro-science".

I am actually trying to gain a better understanding of the mindset that can see fit to ignore the science that makes them uncomfortable and yet bask in the many benefits that science brings to your life every day. That science is ok, but other science is not?

There is bad science out there, no question. That does not mean that we should retreat from science and point to it as a bad thing. Quite the contrary, only a solid science education can help one to figure out who the charlatans are. But you must have a knowledge of how proper science works to make that determination. This is why I rail so hard against Intelligent Design being taught in science class. It is not that I care whether or not you personally consider ID as science, it is that I DO care that today’s kids know what science is and how it works. ID may be fine philosophy, but it is not science.

So, I am trying to figure out why it is so damn important that Genesis be interpreted literally. As you may guess, I argue evolution in other forums as well. I said on another forum that it was difficult to understand why creationists went after evolution so hard when almost ALL science points to an old Earth in one way or another… evolution is not special in that regard. So I said something like “you do not need evolution to show an old Earth”.

To that, a Christian poster replied “you also do not need a young Earth to be a good Christian. I have studied the bible and its history extensively, and I am convinced that being a Christian has nothing to do with whether or not the Earth was created 5000 years ago. In fact, the whole argument is quite irrelevant to understanding what being a good Christian is all about. So… yes. I accept both Genesis and evolution and do not consider either to be in conflict with the other.”

He sounds a lot like Robo. :)

Also, in past history, the Roman Catholic Church had to alter its position to align itself with known science. Yet, this did not cause the collapse of the church or Christianity. It did not turn believers in to unbelievers.

I fail to see how accepting evolution challenges your beliefs. This is what I am trying to understand by creating this topic.

[tonys]

"My belief is based upon religious theology handed down through the centuries."


...plitical propaganda dressed-up like religion.
that's nice, that's very nice.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
As I see it, the atheist’s arguments against God will appear equally baseless, absurd, and flawed in that they are based upon the assumptive premise that the universe is, and therefore it has always been. I can't speak for all Atheists but the basis of my Atheism is simply that there is no compelling evidence for your god or any other god.



The Big Bang theory? That assertion stems from a belief system equally as unverifiable as the theologian's insistence on Creation which caused the effect of the universe. The Big Bang theory stems from scientific evidence and is anything but a belief system.


Therefore, the atheist is blind to his own prejudice in this matter.I think not. As opposed to a belief system, we follow the evidence. Show me a theory that better explains the observed evidence and I will drop the Big Bang like a rock. This is the difference between a belief system and the scientific method. You hold your beliefs to be unassailable and immune to contradictory evidence. Scientific theories are susceptible to new or contradictory evidence which could either modify or even invalidate them.








If we accept the testimony of our consciousness with regard to our own presence in this world, then why should we doubt the testimony of our consciousness when it witnesses causation for all things?Because that perception of causation may be based on emotion and desire rather than reality or credible evidence


If the evidence that intelligence must be a prerequisite for the elaborate interrelations of all things is clearIt is not clear.



why accept the one as reality, while rejecting the other as a figment of one’s imagination since both stem from the same revelation of consciousness?Because one is evidenced and the other is wishful thinking.



It’s just like a conservative trying to argue a point with a liberal - it just doesn’t get past the filter of irrationality and reproach of mind which impairs the liberal’s judgments.This from someone who promotes ghosts and goblins.

[chillbilly]

Again, scientific methods are fallible and speculative.
The scientific methodology you endorse is the basis of your beliefs in Big Bang, is it not?
In my view that would suggest that it is your BELIEF, but there is not scientific evidence that proves Big Bang is correct. If there is, please by all means, do show it.


Causation based on one's conscious processing of information taken from a time in which there are no credible witnesses or methods, is nothing more than speculation and cannot be proven or disproven. That alone makes proving Big Bang, God or any other entity or chain of events from an era unknown, entirely impossible to prove.

Science is a good thing as long as it's merit is not overexaggerated.

[scrogdog]

Well, science isn't about proving things, it is about explaining things.

Scientific theory should never be considered a fact. It should be considered our best explanation.

But this goes back to the seperation of fact and theory. Think of it this way... does the theory of gravitation attempt to prove to you that gravity exists? Do any of the widely varied theories regarding global warming attempt to show that global warming exists? No, the theory of gravitation attempts to explain the hows and whys of gravity. The theories of global warming attempt to explain the mechanisms and workings of global warming. And finally, the theory of evolution attempts to explain how evolution works.

Now... let's say that you disbelieved in gravity. :) Just for the sake of argument. To the rest of us, it would look rather silly to see you poke holes in the Theory of Gravitation in an attempt to show that gravity doesn't exist in the first place! For one thing, the theory is not try to demonstrate that gravity exists, it is trying to explain to you how it works. If the theory is wrong, does that mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not.

It is no different with evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, which is defined by noted Evolutionary theorist Steve Gould as something that has been ""confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

Let me try to put this another way. Let's say that Darwin was found to be comepletely wrong. To most people like you, that would seem to be a death knell for evolution. But it isn't. Man descended from ape-like creatures whether we did so by Darwin's proposed theory or some other yet to be discovered.

The point? Poking holes in a theory that explains how something works does not make that something go away. Evolution is a fact. The confusion on your end, I believe, is a failure to understand the difference between fact and theory. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts remain while theories are modified.

So, I think you are going off in the wrong direction here. Yes, science is speculative when formulating theories, but not when it is observing facts.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-21-2006 at 04:55 PM]

[bootlen]

The Bible is very consistant in how it is written. I bring this up because Genesis says creation was completed, step by step, in 6 days. In every instance where the word "yom" (Hebrew for day) is modified by a number in any form (one, two, first, second, etc.), it is speaking of a 24 hour period. When it is modified by something other than a number ("in my day"; "in the last days"; "in the days of Noah", etc.) they are indefinite periods of time. That should answer your OP.

Okay. Go ahead. I'm expecting all kinds'a guff. Dish it out. I can take it. My reward awaits and builds. ;)

[scrogdog]

Boot, you're the man I really want to talk to. My original question is still valid; still trying to understand the mindset.

Shouldn't your faith be unshakable? Let's suppose that tomorrow, science demonstrates the reality of evolution in such a grand way that even beleivers could no longer deny the facts.

Truthfully... I do not beleive that event would herald the end of Christianity. Do you? What would happen to your faith in such an event?

[chillbilly]

Theories explain possibilities.
Scientific principles explain physical truths using irrefutable proof.
What scientific laws reveal Big Bang as irrefutable evidence of how the universe came into being?

On a side note, I don't believe anyone visits these threads to prove anything so that others may "drop their beliefs like a rock". You may hold steadfast to your beliefs in theory for as long as you wish. Who cares?
Just remember, your theories are just that. Theories.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[B]Again, scientific methods are fallible and speculative.

No a scientific theory is a conclusion based on a set of observed facts. Yes error is possible. But the scientific system has a self correcting mechanism. Peer review. Peer review involves being skeptical and asking probing questions. This is exactly the opposite of religion.

Science is questions that may not have an answer. Religion is answers that may not be questioned.

[chillbilly]

LOL! braces belongs to an elite group that are convinced that religious concepts haven't been questioned.
Oh brother. If we all could only be as inquisitive as braces, everything could be figured out............................................... .................................................. .NOT

[cobaltfjord]

> The validity of ANY belief must be determined on
> the basis of the foundation upon which it rests.

Science is not a belief system. It rests on no
foundation. Every theory rests on the evidence
that supports it and nothing else.

> My belief is based upon religious theology
> handed down through the centuries.

Muslims, Jews, Indians and countless people
make the same claim about each of their belief
systems. And they are all mutually exclusive.
This is proof positive that a belief handed
down from generation to generation is no
evidence for the truth of any belief system.
that a belief system handed down through

> As I see it, the atheist’s arguments against
> God will appear equally baseless, absurd, and
> flawed in that they are based upon the assumptive
> premise that the universe is, and therefore it
> has always been.

This is so pathetic. Science does not assume
the universe has always been. It appears you
do not know what science says. You invent
total fabrications. You have a very imaginative
mind. But your beliefs about science have
no factual basis.

> The Big Bang theory? That assertion

What assertion. You don't seem to know what you
are talking about.

> stems from a belief system

No, the BB does not stem from any belief system.

> equally as unverifiable as the theologian's

This is hopeless.

> Consciousness is the means by which we become
> aware of our own existence, and subsequently,
> all things external to ourselves. We absorb
> evidence through practical experience through
> the workings of our consciousness. That gives
> validity to such demonstrable facts as our
> own existence. “I breathe, therefore I am”.

I knew Descartes, and Chillbilly, you are no
Descartes.

> If we accept the testimony of our consciousness
> with regard to our own presence in this world,
> then why should we doubt the testimony of our
> consciousness when it witnesses causation for
> all things?

You will find the answer to this question in
every insane asylum. Do you really believe
people whose consciousness is witness to
alien UFO abductions?

> If the evidence that intelligence must be a
> prerequisite for the elaborate interrelations
> of all things is clear, why accept the one as
> reality, while rejecting the other as a figment
> of one’s imagination since both stem from the
> same revelation of consciousness?

All humans perceive a world. Only believers
see supernatural stuff.

> It’s just like a conservative trying to argue
> a point with a liberal - it just doesn’t get
> past the filter of irrationality and reproach
> of mind which impairs the liberal’s judgments.

I think you have things reversed.

> You just can’t seem to get past the hurdle of
> thinking that because God has knowledge of all
> things, that he must direct all things according
> to that knowledge,

I never thought this. I wish you would stop
attributing to others silly beliefs they don't
hold.

> Omniscience does not necessitate predetermination
> to make possible what one knows will happen.

No one claimed otherwise. You seem off in your
own little world, dsiputing beliefs that you
yourself have concocted.

Cheers,
michael

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cobaltfjord
Every theory rests on the evidence
that supports it and nothing else.
__________________________________________________ _______
So, it's your admission that BB is a theory...correct?
Please do tell why your theory is more credible than other theories.


Muslims, Jews, Indians and countless people
make the same claim about each of their belief
systems. And they are all mutually exclusive.
This is proof positive that a belief handed
down from generation to generation is no
evidence for the truth of any belief system.
that a belief system handed down through.
__________________________________________________ ___
Funny, I don't remember asserting that religion was evident and based on anything more than faith and biblical verse, also handed down through witness. I'm afraid you don't understand the term "faith". Not surprising though.



This is so pathetic. Science does not assume
the universe has always been. It appears you
do not know what science says. You invent
total fabrications. You have a very imaginative
mind. But your beliefs about science have
no factual basis.
__________________________________________________ _______
Well then, please do enlighten me on what science "says".
Scientific theories say an awful lot....but that doesn't infer that what science says is necessarily fact, now does it?



No, the BB does not stem from any belief system.
__________________________________________________ ______
If science presents information that you feel is truth and you accept it as so, is it not your belief that it is truth?? I mean duh. You cannot take 3 words from a complete sentence or paragraph and change context.
BB certainly does become a part of a system of belief if you choose to subscribe to the THEORY itself and hold it up as "truth".



This is hopeless.
__________________________________________________ ______
You're damned right it is. If you had any thoughts about convincing me to believe in your half baked theories, you'd better think again. I've known many a man better than you that continually upchucked science and self absorbed theories my way and I respectfully defer to creation.

I knew Descartes, and Chillbilly, you are no
Descartes.
__________________________________________________ _____
You knew him personally, did ya'?
About as well as you know religious concepts, no doubt.



You will find the answer to this question in
every insane asylum. Do you really believe
people whose consciousness is witness to
alien UFO abductions?
__________________________________________________ ______
I guess you'll be telling me that your version of "reality" is the only one that is correct now. Go ahead, I've heard all that babble before as well.


All humans perceive a world. Only believers
see supernatural stuff.
__________________________________________________ ______
So you profess to know the complete consciousness of the world. Perception is subjective and not absolute. LOL! My, my. You're a worldly man, aren't you.

Next!

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by chillbilly
LOL! braces belongs to an elite group that are convinced that religious concepts haven't been questioned.
Oh brother. If we all could only be as inquisitive as braces, everything could be figured out............................................... .................................................. .NOT


I didn't say that have not been questioned. I said they may not be questioned.

You really should go take a reading comprehension class.

[braces4impact]

So, it's your admission that BB is a theory...correct?
Please do tell why your theory is more credible than other theories.

Because all the galaxies in the universe are moving apart from each other at a greater amount of speed every second which suggest that at one time all matter was in a tighter group.

[braces4impact]

Funny, I don't remember asserting that religion was evident and based on anything more than faith and biblical verse, also handed down through witness. I'm afraid you don't understand the term "faith". Not surprising though.

yes faith is saying I want proposition "x" to be true therefore it is.

It is nothing but your wants and wishes. Wishing doesn't make it so in the real world sonny.

[RoBoTeq]

I believe that a Supreme Creator we refer to as God created all that is called the physical world. I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and was prophesied by the Hebrew Bible. I also believe that dinosaurs existed in God's created physical world millions of years ago.

That about sums it up for me :D

[rob10]

I guess you still don't believe in SANTA!! :D :D

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

Because all the galaxies in the universe are moving apart from each other at a greater amount of speed every second which suggest that at one time all matter was in a tighter group.


Speculation and suggestive reasoning are not proof.
Next.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

yes faith is saying I want proposition "x" to be true therefore it is.
__________________________________________________ _____
The definition of faith is as follows....
Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof. You mentioned something about comprehension? Take your own advice.


It is nothing but your wants and wishes. Wishing doesn't make it so in the real world sonny.
__________________________________________________ _____
The "real world" as perceived by humans is subjective and not absolute. LOL!
Next.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact


I didn't say that have not been questioned. I said they may not be questioned.




Well then, since you assert that religion MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED, I'd like for you to post something that would indicate where religious scripture mandates that it may not be questioned.
Questioning everything is an essential element of the human condition and experience.
Are you asserting that an all knowing God would condemn a man for questioning God's existence?
You really don't have a clue, do you?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Boot, you're the man I really want to talk to.

About what?

My original question is still valid; still trying to understand the mindset.

All asked questions are valid. It's the unasked ones that are invalid.

Shouldn't your faith be unshakable

I'd like to think it is. I tested pretty high in the gift of faith in a Spiritual gifts class.

Let's suppose that tomorrow, science demonstrates the reality of evolution in such a grand way that even beleivers could no longer deny the facts.

I have conceded that your explanation of "evolution" is acceptable. Maybe you missed that. But I will never believe that man evolved form another animal unless God Himself recants Genesis. I really don't think that will happen.

Truthfully... I do not beleive that event would herald the end of Christianity. Do you?

Certainly not. Christianity is here to stay...for eternity. "...the church, over whichthe gates of hell will not prevail."

What would happen to your faith in such an event?

It would not change. God has the final word...not science as we know it, and certainly not man. God created both and easily defies both.

[chillbilly]

It seems like these atheist guys are more obsessed with perpetuating the "fire and brimstone" myth than any Christians I know.

[Edited by chillbilly on 04-21-2006 at 10:49 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

If you are referring to scrog, he is more of an agnostic then an atheist. If my faith were not so strong due to personal experiences I would still be having trouble relating to God due to all of the contradicting, hateful and sometimes just downright goofy things that organized religions come up with.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
If you are referring to scrog, he is more of an agnostic then an atheist. If my faith were not so strong due to personal experiences I would still be having trouble relating to God due to all of the contradicting, hateful and sometimes just downright goofy things that organized religions come up with.

Most people are the same way. But that's because they put their faith in man and not God. It's an easy thing to do.

[bootlen]

Yeah, chilly. Scrog's pretty open-minded. He doesn't deny God's existance so much as he has called Him a liar. Either way...

[chillbilly]

Nah, I wasn't referring to scrog, although he has attacked my beliefs too. I respect the way he brought the thread forward. It shows a modicum of objectivity on his part.

I was referring to some others who continually ridicule religious principles without showing any aptitude about their meaning and teachings.

[NormChris]

I have yet to see anyone quote scripture (Genesis 1 & 2) relate it to science.

Norm

[bootlen]

Originally posted by NormChris


I have yet to see anyone quote scripture (Genesis 1 & 2) relate it to science.

Norm

Not intelligently, at any rate.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Again, scientific methods are fallible and speculative.Fallible? I would say they are subject to fallibility not inherently fallible.

Speculative? Possibly at the hypotheis level. At the level of theory, no. To rise to the level of theory there must be supporting evidence and the theory must be the best explanation of that evidence. Of course theories are always subject to falsification.


The scientific methodology you endorse is the basis of your beliefs in Big Bang, is it not?No. The source of my acceptance of the BB is the evidence supporting it.



In my view that would suggest that it is your BELIEFUntil you learn more about science and it's components your view is uninformed and as such has no validity in this type of discussion.



but there is not scientific evidence that proves Big Bang is correct. If there is, please by all means, do show it.You are not going to get proven correct in science. The best you can do is a scientific certainty. The BB has lines of evidence supporting it and is considered at this time just short of a scientific certainty.




Causation based on one's conscious processing of information taken from a time in which there are no credible witnesses or methods, is nothing more than speculationAbsolutely incorrect. For the BB, physics, both standard and quantum are the witnesses.





[/quote]and cannot be proven or disproven.[/quote]You need to drop the proven/disproven thing. It makes you look scientifically illiterate.


That alone makes proving Big Bang, God or any other entity or chain of events from an era unknown, entirely impossible to prove.The prove thing again.

Science doesn't dabble in the supernatural so we will put god to the side.

The BB will be considered a scientific certainty in the next few years. Just recently it was announced that WMAP researchers have produced evidence showing that the BB did in fact expand from an infinitesimal point into our present Universe. This evidence adds to an already sizeable body of evidence supporting the BB.




Science is a good thing as long as it's merit is not overexaggerated.You mean as long as it doesn't push your god out of the picture.

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Theories explain possibilities.
Scientific principles explain physical truths using irrefutable proof.The kindest thing I can say here is get yourself a basic science textbook and learn the science you missed the first time around. Your understanding of science is dismal.



What scientific laws reveal Big Bang as irrefutable evidence of how the universe came into being?Shakes head and sighs.




On a side note, I don't believe anyone visits these threads to prove anything so that others may "drop their beliefs like a rock." Who said we did? I was commenting on my personal view. If anybody can present a theory that better explains the evidence then I will drop the BB like a rock. I don't care if it is here or in the streets.




You may hold steadfast to your beliefs in theory for as long as you wish.Thank you, I will.


Just remember, your theories are just that. Theories.Since that is the highest standard in science, I certainly will remember.

[Edited by geerair on 04-22-2006 at 03:26 AM]

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?

Actually, that concept is exactly what is written in occult books, but I guess you meant what's written in the Bible huh?

It suggests a God who is not personally involved, and invested in His creation. The Genesis account reveals a care in His creation, and especially in His creating of 'man', that man is set apart from the rest of creation because God took more care in crafting him than the other animals.

Evolution equates all life- as chance, and that mans existence is nothing special.

The order of creation presents a problem too--more for the 'long time period' crowd, than the straight evolutionist, that claims the 'day' of creation is actually years, or millenia. The plants, created on day 3, couldn't have existed very long without the sun, moon, and stars created on day 4.

Evolution cannot occur without reproduction resulting in different 'kinds' of offspring than what the parents were.

Genesis says God blessed the plants and animals to reproduce each after its own kind. Though Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in breeding dogs to get offspring with different appearences and traits than either parent exibits, the pups are still dogs, not alligators or anything else that would demonstrate Macro-evolution.

Evolution, it is claimed, occurrs through a process of natural selection...a process which requires death to work.

The Bible says death did not enter creation untill the first man and woman sinned. Death is the result of our lost relationship with the Creator.

If your model of theistic evolution is true, then God created death and misery. If Genesis is true, then we did, and God originally intended to be an intimate part of our immortal existence, with no knowlege of sin, sorrow, or seperation.

If theistic evolution is true, then God is a liar, he is not a personal God, there is no need for a Savior since death is not the result of sin, God is unjust in holding us accountable for our behavior, since accidents are not expected to comply with moral laws, the only real moral law can only be 'survival of the fittest'

[braces4impact]

The Bible says death did not enter creation untill the first man and woman sinned. Death is the result of our lost relationship with the Creator.

And clearly things died before humans came around so this is another thing in the bible that is wrong.

The apologist either has to deny basic science or say that the verse has to be taken metaphorically.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

Because all the galaxies in the universe are moving apart from each other at a greater amount of speed every second which suggest that at one time all matter was in a tighter group.


Speculation and suggestive reasoning are not proof.
Next.

No it's not proof int he strictest sense in but it is evidence that it is true. Juxtapose that to there being no evidence of talking snakes and a magic man that wills matter by wishing, which one do you think has the MOST evidence?

Just as the DNA abd blood all over OJ's Brionco is not
"proof" it does suggest what happened. But I'm sure you say he still did it right?

[Edited by braces4impact on 04-22-2006 at 09:48 AM]

[braces4impact]

Well then, since you assert that religion MAY NOT BE QUESTIONED, I'd like for you to post something that would indicate where religious scripture mandates that it may not be questioned.
Questioning everything is an essential element of the human condition and experience.
Are you asserting that an all knowing God would condemn a man for questioning God's existence?
You really don't have a clue, do you?

By the fact that most religions (especially most denominations of Christianity) explicitly say that unless you believe in the physical resurrection (and this is just one example) you are not , as they say, "saved". You are , "lost". They condemn you to one degree or another for coming to a conclusion they they say is the absolute truth even though there is not one iota of evidence to even suggest such a thing happened.

Couple that with the fact that the very foundation of most religions , dogma , MANDATES that you WILL accept certain propositions as true NO MATTER how absurd or no matter if there is no evidence or even contributory evidence. You will hold proposition x, y, and z as true and you will hold the bible as the infallible word of god or else you are evil, misled by satan or whatever. They will say that you are flawed in one way or another for using your mind.

Juxtapose this to the scientific method where questioning and being skeptical of others claims is not looked down upon , but venerated.

Richard Dawkins recounted a story once of a British scientist who worked for fifteen years in his research assuming that a certain principle was true . An American scientist then showed him one day at a conference that his premise was contradictory to some other pieces of evidence that they all accepted as true and the man admitted that he had been wrong and that all of his work the previous fifteen years was necessarily wrong. He shook the American scientist hand and thanked him as everyone in the audience stood up and clapped.

That is the OPPOSITE of dogma. Since that is the opposite of dogma it is necessarily the OPPOSITE of your archaic B/S religion.

(eg) Look at TB up there. He necessarily has to hold to the proposition that evolution is not true. He must hold as true the absurd premise that things did not die until a talking snake tricked people into eating an apple. He necessarily has to deny whatever evidence exist and hold to that conclusion dogmatically. This is the epitome of dishonesty. It's an attack on the validity of the senses, on reason, and on the mind.


And to make matters even worse. Not only do people like him accept dishonest principles such as these dogmatic conclusions that attack rationality and the mind. (Assuming he can troubleshoot his way out of a paper bag) he uses reason and rationality to put food on his table. So he holds the validity of the senses , logic and reason as true in one instance and then throws it out the window when it comes to religion. That's called hypocrisy.

So not only is the fundamentalist mindset dishonest at it's core, it is hypocritical.

Apologist keep using the " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist " line. My response to them is that I am to honest to be a Christian. case and point ^^^

[Edited by braces4impact on 04-22-2006 at 10:21 AM]

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by geerair
Fallible? I would say they are subject to fallibility not inherently fallible.
__________________________________________________ ____
So, because geer "says" so, it is "truth"??
Come now, that's the same drivel you are consistently handing people who endorse religious theology.


Speculative? Possibly at the hypotheis level. At the level of theory, no. To rise to the level of theory there must be supporting evidence and the theory must be the best explanation of that evidence. Of course theories are always subject to falsification.
__________________________________________________ _____
Well hooray. So how do we distinguish which evidence and supporting evidence is falsified and which isn't as it pertains to theory. THEORY MUST NOT HAVE ANY HOLES TO BECOME CERTAIN.
Really, please do indulge me on this one.



No. The source of my acceptance of the BB is the evidence supporting it.
__________________________________________________ _______
Same as above....go for it Oppenheimer.




Until you learn more about science and it's components your view is uninformed and as such has no validity in this type of discussion.
__________________________________________________ ________
This is funny and yet, pitiful as well.
You acknowledge that BB Theory has not been PROVEN a certainty, yet my view is uninformed. How then, does science bring forth treatments and cures? Du you think they just hand company scientists information and receive funding?? NO, THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE PROVEN. How then, can your BB theory be considered anything more than speculation without your atheist emotion dictating what credible scientific proof is??



You are not going to get proven correct in science.The best you can do is a scientific certainty.
BINGO!
I certainly can distinguish between what is scientific certainty and what is not and BB is NOT.


The BB has lines of evidence supporting it and is considered at this time just short of a scientific certainty.
__________________________________________________ _________
Any consideration that BB is "just short of scientific certainty" would have to be put forth as evidence to support such a claim.



Absolutely incorrect. For the BB, physics, both standard and quantum are the witnesses.
__________________________________________________ _______
Again, "witness" is not definable as scientific PROOF any more than biblical witness can be proven.



You need to drop the proven/disproven thing. It makes you look scientifically illiterate.
__________________________________________________ ________
About as illiterate as you are concerning religious principles and doctrine.



Science doesn't dabble in the supernatural so we will put god to the side.
__________________________________________________ _______
Any fair and impartial reasoning process puts nothing "to the side".


The BB will be considered a scientific certainty in the next few years. Just recently it was announced that WMAP researchers have produced evidence showing that the BB did in fact expand from an infinitesimal point into our present Universe. This evidence adds to an already sizeable body of evidence supporting the BB.
__________________________________________________ _______
An interesting choice of words, eh geer?
For someone who just advised me to drop the "proof thing", I'd say "considered a scientific certainty" would be proof, wouldn't you? Theories are not proof,..ie. The Laws of Thermodynamics are irreftutable. Theories of how the world came into existence are not.




You mean as long as it doesn't push your god out of the picture.
__________________________________________________ __________
I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NormChris

I have yet to see anyone quote scripture (Genesis 1 & 2) relate it to science.





I know Norm. The only means of argument they will consider has to be on their turf.

I'm all ears though. What's a matter with YOU presenting some?

[chillbilly]

What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!

[NormChris]

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Nah, I wasn't referring to scrog, although he has attacked my beliefs too. I respect the way he brought the thread forward. It shows a modicum of objectivity on his part.

I was referring to some others who continually ridicule religious principles without showing any aptitude about their meaning and teachings.

Always keep in mind that no one can harm your faith but you. Those who attack our individual faith are the ones who have a problem, not us. As long as what others state negatively about our faith is not allowed to bother us, the problem remains that of the offender. When it comes to our faith, we must accept an attack for it to be valid. Simply refuse to accept an attack on your faith, and there is no longer an attack, just an attempt to shake your faith.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NormChris

It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."


Exactly. God makes all things possible. It's hard for people to accept anything outside of the boundaries of the "reality" they create.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Always keep in mind that no one can harm your faith but you. Those who attack our individual faith are the ones who have a problem, not us. As long as what others state negatively about our faith is not allowed to bother us, the problem remains that of the offender. When it comes to our faith, we must accept an attack for it to be valid. Simply refuse to accept an attack on your faith, and there is no longer an attack, just an attempt to shake your faith.



Agreed and duly noted. I guess the best approach is just to state an opinion and move on. They could never shake my faith.

I have a big oak tree behind my home that I can reason with and the creatures that dwell there seem to be listening. LOL

[RoBoTeq]

Genesis 1: (NIV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Science cannot disprove this any more then theologens can prove it. It is a statement of belief. If the scientist replaces "God" with "natural events", the statement works just as well for the unbelievers. The fact is that there must have been a beginning, and in that beginning was creation. This statemant simply can not be "proven" wrong.

Genesis 2: (NIV) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Again; scientifically, this cannot be proven wrong. With very little effort the scientist and the theologen alike can agree that this statement, while being extremely vague, is basically true.

What the believers understand to be true is that God created not only the earth, but all of physical existance. The earth is simply a small speck of the creation of physical existance, but the only speck that mattered to the audience of the Bible passages. While there is obviously a lot of information omited from this passage, the passage itself does not contradict science.

[Shophound]

Originally posted by braces4impact

So not only is the fundamentalist mindset dishonest at it's core, it is hypocritical.



The fundamentalist mindset suffers from what afflicts any dogma; unyielding obstinance in the face of variability. When this happens the focus becomes to defend and propogate the dogma at most any expense. The first casualty to me is to the human mind and soul, particularly to one immersed in dogma.


He must hold as true the absurd premise that things did not die until a talking snake tricked people into eating an apple. He necessarily has to deny whatever evidence exist and hold to that conclusion dogmatically. This is the epitome of dishonesty. It's an attack on the validity of the senses, on reason, and on the mind.


At one time I interpreted the Genesis account as literal. I now see it more allegorically. The idea that we bring pain and hell upon ourselves -it is our choice to not learn and thus continue perpetuating a hell- or to learn and cease ways of destruction. This is true in life whether Genesis be literally true or allegorical.

To me, the "trueness" of Genesis pertaining to origins has little relevance, whereas at one time I held it to that regard far more highly than now.

Which makes me wonder...what relevance does knowing of our origins, be it via evolution or creation, have if we continue perpetuating the self-induced hell or hells, which could lead to our demise?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by shophound


At one time I interpreted the Genesis account as literal. I now see it more allegorically. This is true in life whether Genesis be literally true or allegorical.





I do agree with your point here, hound. Whether God created all things in 6 days or over millions of years is not germain to salvation.

What should be considered, however, is the consistancy of Scripture. The creation account is not written like an allegory as other allegorical Scriptures are. There is a very definite difference in the writing that is painfully obvious. That is why I believe it to be literal.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."




Matthew 5 :22


...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

[NormChris]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."




Matthew 5 :22


...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.




Several observations.

1) I did not make the statement, the Bible did.

2) If you read the context of that section of Matthew you would see that it is future. It applies to the coming Kingdom known as the Millennium. It does not apply to the present dispensation.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

Matthew 5 :22

[quote]...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.





Matthew is not a part of Genesis and has no relevance to the topic other than to show your ignorance on anything and everything biblical.
I can see how that passage would stick in your mind though.

[sline-dawg]

Go to hell.


I thought all the trees and grasses where for Adam and Eve..... Yeah I know about the tree of Knowledge fable, the talking Serpent...Why the apple tree???? Might have been different if it was a lemon tree..


And then Cain killed Able....


Now we have one pissed Savior.....


What a good , kind Father we have......or did I miss something there ?

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

So, because geer "says" so, it is "truth"??
Come now, that's the same drivel you are consistently handing people who endorse religious theology.Truth? That is the province of philosophy and religion.


Well hooray. So how do we distinguish which evidence and supporting evidence is falsified as it pertains to theory?Evidence can either confirm or falsify theories. You do not falsify evidence, you falsify theories.


THEORY MUST NOT HAVE ANY HOLES TO BECOME CERTAIN.Who told you that?

Again get a science textbook and study it.






Same as above....go for it Oppenheimer.Same as above response.





This is funny and yet, pitiful as well.
You acknowledge that BB Theory has not been PROVEN a certainty, yet my view is uninformed.Yes.



How then, does science bring forth treatments and cures? Du you think they just hand company scientists information and receive funding?? NO, THE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE PROVEN.Testing is done, however no medicine is 100% effective in all cases.



How then, can your BB theory be considered anything more than speculation without your atheist emotion dictating what credible scientific proof is??Might interest you to know that are numerous cosmologists and physicists who do believe in god and the BB. See, chilly it is not a matter of dogma but one of observed evidence supporting the BB theory.




Any consideration that BB is "just short of scientific certainty" would have to be put forth as evidence to support such a claim.Clarify this please.





Again, "witness" is not definable as scientific PROOF any more than biblical witness can be proven.I agree. It is however definable as scientific evidence.




About as illiterate as you are concerning religious principles and doctrine.Nah, I know them well.....they are what convinced me to become an atheist.




Any fair and impartial reasoning process puts nothing "to the side".Science is not a democracy. The evidence is what counts. Also science by definition and practice excludes the supernatural.




An interesting choice of words, eh geer?
For someone who just advised me to drop the "proof thing", I'd say "considered a scientific certainty" would be proof, wouldn't you?Nope. A scientific certainty can always be overturned.



Theories are not proof,..[quote] I would agree. Of course nobody who has even a smattering of scientific literacy would say theories are proof.




[QUOTE]The Laws of Thermodynamics are irreftutable.Who told you that? Ever hear of quantum mechanics?



Theories of how the world came into existence are not.I agree.




I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.No need......it has already happened.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sline-dawg


What a good , kind Father we have......or did I miss something there ?



You missed more than something. It appears you missed just about everything, including the brain boat.

[sline-dawg]

Condemnation is ok with you and your God ???



That's the Christian spirit I know...

[chillbilly]

You should stick to trying to interpret Dr. Seuss.
You have no chance of interpreting God's message without some major rehab.
Oh, and BTW God does and has condemned according to scripture.

[Edited by chillbilly on 04-22-2006 at 07:18 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
......or did I miss something there ?

Yea; I'd say you missed just about all of it. Keep an open mind though; maybe something will squeek through your prejudgements.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
Condemnation is ok with you and your God ???



That's the Christian spirit I know...

Then you do not know the Spirit of Christ. You are dwelling on those who call themselves Christian but who actually follow other leaders. Jesus Christ is not a leader, but a Saviour. Accept Jesus Christ and forget about those who blasphem Him by behaving contrary to His teachings.

[sline-dawg]

I did that long ago...... this is just fun and games for me......

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."




Matthew 5 :22


...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.



So, what're ya sayin', braces? That God is in danger of hellfire? He's the One who said it. Norm just quoted Him.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
I did that long ago...... this is just fun and games for me......

OK, hope its enjoyable for ya :D

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by geerair

See, chilly it is not a matter of dogma but one of observed evidence supporting the BB theory.

__________________________________________________ ________
Het geer, would you consider yourself financially wealthy?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
Go to hell.


I thought all the trees and grasses where for Adam and Eve..... Yeah I know about the tree of Knowledge fable, the talking Serpent...Why the apple tree???? Might have been different if it was a lemon tree..

My Bible doesn't mention apples. Does yours?


And then Cain killed Able....


Now we have one pissed Savior.....


What a good , kind Father we have......or did I miss something there ?

Nah, ya didn't miss something there. Yer makin' stuff up, though.

[sline-dawg]

Robin, I doubt these silly conversation mean anything. Seems most poster here think they are the chosen ones..... I truely hope they are, but by their demeanor..... I doubt it.






I surely am not the judge.....I have been shown the path and have taken a few diffent turns.... THAT is up to another authority to decide....not chilly nor len, nor me.

[RoBoTeq]

I agree that some of the "over enthusiaism" of some of our believing members is a bit judgemental for those of us who are not supposed to judge others.

I just hope that most people can see past the human thinking intervention of the overly pious and enjoy a relationship with God personally.

I don't believe in God because of the bible, I believe in the Bible because of my personal relationship with God. I just wish we better understood what God has desperately tried to teach us over the millenia.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

Matthew 5 :22

[quote]...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.





Matthew is not a part of Genesis and has no relevance to the topic other than to show your ignorance on anything and everything biblical.
I can see how that passage would stick in your mind though.

Wait a second which covenant are you going to go by? The old one or the new one (allegedly) taught by Jesus? These are two contradictory points of view.

Are you saying what Jesus ( allegedly ) said is bunk?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."




Matthew 5 :22


...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.




Several observations.

1) I did not make the statement, the Bible did.

2) If you read the context of that section of Matthew you would see that it is future. It applies to the coming Kingdom known as the Millennium. It does not apply to the present dispensation.


Really could you site me the verse that says it's the future he's speaking about here?

Even if i concede your point , in the future according to jesus the author of that part of the OT is a fool. Nice. I'd have to say I agree!

[Edited by braces4impact on 04-22-2006 at 09:55 PM]

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

Matthew 5 :22
[quote]...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


Wait a second which covenant are you going to go by? The old one or the new one taught by Jesus?
__________________________________________________ ______
Jesus is not the only figure contained in New Testament which happens to be where Matthew is located.
The Old and New Testaments are what I go by. They are both biblical scripture, revelation, prophesy and gospel.
Matthew is found in one and Genesis is found in the other.
What's your point?



These are two contradictory points of view.
__________________________________________________ _______
Oh really? Please show the alleged contradictions.


Are you saying what Jesus ( allegedly ) said is bunk?
__________________________________________________ ________
Huh? You obviously are out of your element here braces.
You should head back to the hills of scientific psycho-babble.

[sline-dawg]

Just down the street from you Billy?,,, minus the scientific part.....

[NormChris]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by NormChris

Originally posted by chillbilly
What part would you present? The part of Genesis 9 that indicates that Noah lived to be 950 years old?
Or the part of Genesis 15 where God establishes a covenant with Abraham?
Or Genesis 19 where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to keep the men hidden inside his home safe?

Somehow I don't think they'll be buying Genesis.
LOL!



It would not matter what they were presented with for as the scripture aptly states, "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."




Matthew 5 :22


...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.




Several observations.

1) I did not make the statement, the Bible did.

2) If you read the context of that section of Matthew you would see that it is future. It applies to the coming Kingdom known as the Millennium. It does not apply to the present dispensation.


Really could you site me the verse that says it's the future he's speaking about here?

Even if i concede your point , in the future according to jesus the author of that part of the OT is a fool. Nice. I'd have to say I agree!

[Edited by braces4impact on 04-22-2006 at 09:55 PM]


You obviously have no understanding of the principles of hermeneutics or the related concepts of dispensational theology and progressive revelation.

Your attitude also suggests that you are not interested in anything other than a "good scrap."

[braces4impact]

You obviously have no understanding of the principles of hermeneutics or the related concepts of dispensational theology and progressive revelation.

Your attitude also suggests that you are not interested in anything other than a "good scrap."





Red herring. You have failed to support your "out of context" claim. Either support your assertions or admit that you were making an unsupported claim hoping I would buy it without question.

[braces4impact]

Jesus is not the only figure contained in New Testament which happens to be where Matthew is located.
The Old and New Testaments are what I go by. They are both biblical scripture, revelation, prophesy and gospel.
Matthew is found in one and Genesis is found in the other.
What's your point?

The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?





Oh really? Please show the alleged contradictions.

Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?




Huh? You obviously are out of your element here braces.
You should head back to the hills of scientific psycho-babble.

This is the common tactic by the irrational to make a personal attack and not address the issue.

[kim]

Science is a fickle thing. It has to make assumptions that can't be proven in order to explain observations. It is all based on conjecture. When theories are discarded, it is ussually because the assumption were proven wrong.
The BB theory started when scientist studied the sun. They found it was conposed of mostly hydrogen and helium. They knew this because of spectroscopy. Hydrogen atoms heated up on earth gave off a unique spectrum. All hydrogen atoms had the same spectrum. They saw the same spectrum in solar radiation. They will never get a peice of the sun to prove it is hydrogen. They just have to assume the atomic structure of hydron is the same in the sun as it is in every lab on the earth. ( I beleive that assumption).

If this assumption is true for our sun it would be true for every sun. Guess what, the spectrum of other suns is different than ours. The spectrum lines have the same spacing but they are in different places. They have been shifted in the red direction. In some suns the lines have been shifted further than in others. Was quantum mechanics wrong? Is the universe different over there?

In 1927, Georges Lemaître proposed the shift was because all those suns are moving away from us. The waves of light shifted like every other wave from a moving source studied on the earth. (Example sound changes as a train passes you) Conclusion: the universe is moving away from us.

In 1934 Edwin Hubble measured the distance to some of these stars. (Waves spread out in a sphere and the intensity decreases by distance^3. Again proven in all lab studies on earth.) Hubble found out that further away a star is the more the lines shifted to the red. Conclusion: the further stars are moving faster.

Now Hubble's distance measurements could be wrong. They require a knowledge of the brightness of stars. Earth based expirements have proven Planks Black Body theory where energy emitted depends on the temperature of the star. This was confirmed by studies with the sun. This was confirmed with studies of stars in our galaxy. The glitch starts when we study stars in other galaxies. Only stars in other galaxies show this red-shift.

Next Hubble and others mapped the skies with their new velocity and distance data and found The un iverse is shaped like an expanding sphere. Conclusion: that sphere has a center where the expansion started from.

There is an alternative though:
The charge of the electron and proton are different everywhere and that difference changes based on how far it is away from us. That would cause the way one electron and one proton interact with each other in a hydrogen atom to be different in other galaxies. But this theory has not received much approval in the scientific community. It would be a good place for creationist scientist to look to debunk the big bang theory

There is more science based on radiation emited and it's more subtle changes, but it get complicated in a hurry.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact

The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?




If you will give your example showing the exact text, instead of trying to use a 'scientific spin' example, I will be glad to give you MY INTERPRETATION of what God and Christ are trying to convey. Whole sentences only with exact wording. No "example A", "example B" crap.

You are arguing semantics here because you are guilty of exactly what Norm posted. You're looking for a scrap and your intent is to scrap only, and not make sense of biblical text whose meaning is easily understood....at least by those whose intent is to understand it instead of contorting it's meaning.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact


The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?

Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


The Author of the OT is the same as the Author of the NT.

No contradiction.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acefurnacefixer

Originally posted by scrogdog
Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?

Awefully large task for 1 man to undertake....


Evoloution seems to make alot more sence.

For WHO to undertake?

[chillbilly]

Really! What is the point? You guys have at it.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact


Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


Ya see, braces. This is just another take on the old question, "If God can do anything, can He make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?"

The probem is that "silliness, even when we speak it of God, is still silliness". (C.S. Lewis will forgive me.)

You have any more 12-year-old girly-man silly questions?

[sline-dawg]

Just about wraps this thread up.....




Unless, of course, Chilly and Boot have anything else profound........ Doubt settles in....

[sline-dawg]

God was very hands on in the early years of the Earth's formation.....Why has He taken a 2000 year vacation..... or is it just a long weekend for Him???? No sightings, no prophecies, no miracles...



I guess He has been busy with World Wars and trying to answer all those request for help and guidance...

[bootlen]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
God was very hands on in the early years of the Earth's formation.....Why has He taken a 2000 year vacation..... or is it just a long weekend for Him???? No sightings, no prophecies, no miracles...



I guess He has been busy with World Wars and trying to answer all those request for help and guidance...

Don't know the answer to that, sline. But I'll be sure to ask when I see Him.

Anything else ya want me to ask?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact


Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


Ya see, braces. This is just another take on the old question, "If God can do anything, can He make a rock so heavy that He can't pick it up?"

The probem is that "silliness, even when we speak it of God, is still silliness". (C.S. Lewis will forgive me.)

You have any more 12-year-old girly-man silly questions?

No this is not the same as the god rock question. It's quite cut an dry. One situation says "A" and the other says "~A".

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact


The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?

Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


The Author of the OT is the same as the Author of the NT.

No contradiction.

So an author who authors two books cannot possibly contradict himself in the other book? Simply amazing the knee slappers you bring on here booty!

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact


The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?

Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


The Author of the OT is the same as the Author of the NT.

No contradiction.

So an author who authors two books cannot possibly contradict himself in the other book? Simply amazing the knee slappers you bring on here booty!

I think you are confused. Whta specifically is the address of the Scriptures in question?

[sline-dawg]

Originally posted by bootlen


Anything else ya want me to ask? [/B]

Yeah bud, IF you see Him, ask him why He made flies...... worse than----------.....

[bootlen]

Originally posted by sline-dawg

Originally posted by bootlen


Anything else ya want me to ask?

Yeah bud, IF you see Him, ask him why He made flies...... worse than----------..... [/B]

:D I already thought of that. I'll let ya know what I find out if the opportunity presents itself.

[sline-dawg]

I can live with that....;)

[TB]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
God was very hands on in the early years of the Earth's formation.....Why has He taken a 2000 year vacation..... or is it just a long weekend for Him???? No sightings, no prophecies, no miracles...



I guess He has been busy with World Wars and trying to answer all those request for help and guidance...

Who says He isn't just as active now? In the lives of those who choose to follow Him, He leads just as He did the children of Israel in exodus, only instead of leading them through a desert, He guides them through life. Sometimes He even leads us to road blocks, like the red sea, with the armies of the enemy closeing the rear, only to create a way out just as dramatic as the parting of the red sea. It's allways awesom to watch His hand move.

The entire OT was pointing toward the comeing of Jesus, and the plan of our salvation. He came, the plan was executed, and there is no longer any need for further prophesy or revelation. Everything we need to know for our salvation is allready written down for our examination, and we can accept it or reject it.


IMO

[tonys]

a product of 10,000 hours of bible-study class.

a classic.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tonys
[B]a product of 10,000 hours of bible-study class.

a classic.






Patented tony one liner. Your 10,000 hours of study are obviously in idiotic responses.

[tonys]

you have something to debate, step-up - simple billy.

continual name calling will KEEP you relegated to village idiot.

your choice.

[tonys]

you have something to debate, step-up - simple billy.

continual name calling will KEEP you relegated to village idiot.

your choice.

[chillbilly]

LOL! You never debate tony. You're an antagonist at best and not a very good one either.

15 responses from you = one complete irrational sentence

[scrogdog]

Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

But the intent of the topic was not really so that we could all come in and defend our positions. I am more interested in this debate; why is it necessary for beleivers to take portions of the bible literally?

I am not a bible scholar... so I am going to make a statement here and feel free to tell me that I am wrong.

The bible is not the word of God in this sense; he did not write it. He did not speak directly to the writers. Instead, the bible is supposed to be the words of men who have *experienced* God.

The only "real" word of God that exists would be the 10 commandments.

True or false?

Once we talk about that a little, I'll have more to say. :)

[tonys]

speaking of irrational - who's your sky-daddy?

...

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrogdog

The bible is not the word of God in this sense; he did not write it. He did not speak directly to the writers. Instead, the bible is supposed to be the words of men who have *experienced* God.
__________________________________________________ _________
The assumption made here is that God does not "speak" directly to people. If a person feels the force of God working inside him, instructing him, directing him, and inspiring him, is this not God speaking to a person?? Or does it have to be a Hollywood produced, booming voice?
When you say "experience God", what do you mean by that? Let's not argue semantics here.




The only "real" word of God that exists would be the 10 commandments.
__________________________________________________ ________
The assumption here is that the word of God was not spoken directly from the mouth of Christ who proclaimed to be God incarnate.
Another assumption would be that the Gospel according to Christ's disciples was not interpreted directly from the word of God.
Another assumption would be that Noah and Moses did not hear "The word of God".



The Bible was produced with the CONVICTION that the words of the Scripture, originally penned in Hebrew and Greek, were inspired by God.
If you want the opinion of a Christian and your objective is fairness and understanding without a defense and an attack, the question presented must be objective.

[Edited by chillbilly on 04-24-2006 at 10:27 AM]

[scrogdog]

I am sorry if my question does not sound objective. It is not my intent to offend in any way, I am genuinely curious.

If god is speaking to beleivers, why is there so much argument among beleivers as to exactly what the bible says? And how would you know who HAS recieved his words and who only *believes* that he or she has? And what is the chance the a given reciever of his words did not understand them properly or made a bad interpretation of them? Even if God is perfect, man is not. And man seems to have been heavily involved in the process.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrogdog
I am sorry if my question does not sound objective. It is not my intent to offend in any way, I am genuinely curious.
__________________________________________________ _______
I'm not offended and I appreciate being asked as opposed to told.



If god is speaking to beleivers, why is there so much argument among beleivers as to exactly what the bible says?
__________________________________________________ _______
Because it is being interpreted in a number of different ways.
Most of the argument really does not come from believers.
It comes from non-believers, IMO.




And how would you know who HAS recieved his words and who only *believes* that he or she has?
__________________________________________________ _______
Absolute knowledge is impossible. Again, faith and conviction that God is real and that there is a higher power moving in a person is the only answer I have to that question.





And what is the chance the a given reciever of his words did not understand them properly or made a bad interpretation of them? Even if God is perfect, man is not. And man seems to have been heavily involved in the process.
__________________________________________________ ________
Well, man's interpretation of God is all we've got, isn't it?
Faith is impossible for many and a must for others.
Regardless of where my intellect takes me, it's more of a matter of faith that the interpretations of God's message conveyed by man, are real.

[big-o]

Faith is not something you can prove or dis-prove. Prove your mother loves you. Prove you love a certain food. All you can do is point to activities that people generally accept as evidence of loving or being loved.

[scrogdog]

Well, man's interpretation of God is all we've got, isn't it?

Best line you ever wrote. :)

Yes, I agree. And that is precisely my point.

I disagree that only unbeleivers duel beleivers though. I would classify both Roboteq and Bootlen as believers, yet they do seem to disagree on some pretty fundamental things.

I guess the overall point is that once man is in the mix, you add fallibility in to the process. Recognizing that that is the case, doesn't it seem a little strange to debate the literal meaning of each word in the bible? Perhaps Robo is on the right track when he says that the bible's language was meant for an earlier and less scientifically advanced mindset.

Does it matter when God created the Earth? Does it matter how? Does it matter how long it took? Why do these things matter? Why can't we just say that the bible is a guide on how to live your life, and the stories therein set the example? Isn't the intent the most important thing?

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-24-2006 at 11:26 AM]

[scrogdog]

Faith is not something you can prove or dis-prove.

Precisely. And if you have it, nothing should be able to shake it... including the fact of evolution. :)

[big-o]

Here is a couple questions I have for the group:

1. If God is never changing, and Jesus only did what his Father (God) taugh him, then what is NEW in the new testiment?

2. If God said to keep the feast days (unleavened bread for example) for ever unto all your generations, why doesn't the church keep them today?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by sline-dawg
God was very hands on in the early years of the Earth's formation.....Why has He taken a 2000 year vacation..... or is it just a long weekend for Him???? No sightings, no prophecies, no miracles...



I guess He has been busy with World Wars and trying to answer all those request for help and guidance...

Who says He isn't just as active now? In the lives of those who choose to follow Him, He leads just as He did the children of Israel in exodus, only instead of leading them through a desert, He guides them through life. Sometimes He even leads us to road blocks, like the red sea, with the armies of the enemy closeing the rear, only to create a way out just as dramatic as the parting of the red sea. It's allways awesom to watch His hand move.

The entire OT was pointing toward the comeing of Jesus, and the plan of our salvation. He came, the plan was executed, and there is no longer any need for further prophesy or revelation. Everything we need to know for our salvation is allready written down for our examination, and we can accept it or reject it.


IMO

Agreed, TB. But I'm under the distinct impression that the only lives God is directly active in is believers. The rest don't seem to want Him around and, being the perfect Gentleman, butts out of their lives.

[RoBoTeq]

Scrogdog; whether or not God communicated with a vocal voice directly to the originators of the biblical passages is an unknown. It appears that God has a similar difficulty with directly interacting with His Creation as we would have trying to immerse ourselves into a scale model creation of city, such as in toy train layouts.

God communicates in many ways. The verbal communication of the Ten Commandments seems like almost acomplex task for God to achieve. God does however, communicate in many non verbal means. I believe that what we refer to as "The Holy Spirit" is the most prevelant means of communication from God.

What is really misinterpreted, I believe, is God's direct physical interventions with His Creation of physical existance. It seems more that God created the physical "nature" of physical things to act and react as events occur.

In this respect, God's teachings to the Hebrews of the Hebrew Bible are for the benefit of those who would listen, but not fully comprehend. I don't believe it was a matter of God stating; "If you do this, "I" will smite you" as much as a matter of God warning the Hebrews; "If you do this, this is what is going to happen to you."

In other words; the Bible is an instructional manual that has been related to as commands. More then likely, this misinterpretation of intent would be the doings of God's antagonist, which we refer to as Satan. After all, Satan is given the responsibility of allowing us to "think" we know as God knows. The lesson, I assume, is that we need to seek out God's approval of things we "think" of, before we put them into action. Most of everything we can "think" of is related to in the Biblical teachings. Again, the Bible is an instructional manual.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by big-o
Here is a couple questions I have for the group:

1. If God is never changing, and Jesus only did what his Father (God) taugh him, then what is NEW in the new testiment?
__________________________________________________ ______

The book of the geneaology of Jesus Christ was brought forth as witness that God exists and that men can find peace, love, forgiveness and everlasting life through Christ.



2. If God said to keep the feast days (unleavened bread for example) for ever unto all your generations, why doesn't the church keep them today?
__________________________________________________ ______
God also said, "Do not answer a fool according to his own folly, Lest you be also like him".

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrogdog



Yes, I agree. And that is precisely my point.
__________________________________________________ ______
Oh, I thought you were gathering opinions, being objective and not making points. My bad.

I disagree that only unbeleivers duel beleivers though.
__________________________________________________ ________
Not what I said. I said mostly, IMO. Not only.

[big-o]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by big-o
Here is a couple questions I have for the group:

1. If God is never changing, and Jesus only did what his Father (God) taugh him, then what is NEW in the new testiment?
__________________________________________________ ______

The book of the geneaology of Jesus Christ was brought forth as witness that God exists and that men can find peace, love, forgiveness and everlasting life through Christ.



2. If God said to keep the feast days (unleavened bread for example) for ever unto all your generations, why doesn't the church keep them today?
__________________________________________________ ______
God also said, "Do not answer a fool according to his own folly, Lest you be also like him".






Huh??

[chillbilly]

Sorry for not being clear.
The New Testament is God's proof of existence and a source of redemption through Jesus Christ for those who trust in it's truth, according to the Bible.

As for feast, I can tell you that your reference is unclear.
What passage are you specifically referring to?

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by RoBoTeq

In other words; the Bible is an instructional manual that has been related to as commands. More then likely, this misinterpretation of intent would be the doings of God's antagonist, which we refer to as Satan. After all, Satan is given the responsibility of allowing us to "think" we know as God knows. The lesson, I assume, is that we need to seek out God's approval of things we "think" of, before we put them into action. Most of everything we can "think" of is related to in the Biblical teachings. Again, the Bible is an instructional manual.







While the Bible may be instructive, it's a heck of alot more than that to me personally.
It inspires me and gives me courage and compassion, at times forgiveness.
The Scriptures speak to me with fresh power and give me wisdom that leads to salvation.
I am a Bible reader, but all who choose to ridicule can call me a Bible thumper. I don't take offense :)

[big-o]

Originally posted by chillbilly
As for feast, I can tell you that your reference is unclear.
What passage are you specifically referring to? [/B]

In reference feasts consider the christian's celebration of Easter instead of Passover.

Exodus 12:14
And this day (Passover) shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Leviticus 23:21 (referring to tabernacles)
And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

Zechariah 14 give a pretty clear picture of what will happen to those the do not keep the feast of tabernacles.

And if you are going to go to Colossians, start on verse 8 of chapter 2, not verse 14.

[Edited by big-o on 04-24-2006 at 02:27 PM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by big-o
Here is a couple questions I have for the group:

1. If God is never changing, and Jesus only did what his Father (God) taugh him, then what is NEW in the new testiment?

The Old Testament (Covenant) was a covenant with the jews and those who lived according to their laws as passed down by God. They were set apsrt from other nations because it was through the Jews that He would bring the Savior. But teh Old Testament was also a history of a nation that reflects closely our relationship with God and we can hold up theri history as a mirror of our own personal lives. The Old Testament also contains the Ten Commandments...the laws required to be followed in order to be blameless before a Holy God, therefore allowing a personal relationship with Him. God knew that no man could keep them and had a redemptive plan through Christ. There are over 300 Old Testament prophecies foretelling the forst coming of the Savior.

The New Testament is God's Covenant with ALL nations for all times that offer salvation through grace provided by the completed work of Jesus at His death and as evidence of His worthiness by His victory over death, hell, and the grave, as manifested by His ressurection.

2. If God said to keep the feast days (unleavened bread for example) for ever unto all your generations, why doesn't the church keep them today?


He was talking to the Old Testament Jews, not the New Testament church. We are not required to keep those observances any more. They were required to keep them so they would not forget what God had done for them.

We may still observe them if we choose and it would not be a bad idea to do so in order to help remember our spiritual heritage. The only ordinance we are required to keep is Communion, or the Last Supper. It is a "breaking of bread" (a remembrance of the suffering of Jesus on our behalf) and "partaking of the cup" (a remembrance of God's wrath poured out on Him, also on our behalf).

[big-o]

The Old Testament (Covenant) was a covenant with the jews and those who lived according to their laws as passed down by God.

So anyone could have accepted the Lord as their savior even in the old covenant?



They were set apsrt from other nations because it was through the Jews that He would bring the Savior. But teh Old Testament was also a history of a nation that reflects closely our relationship with God and we can hold up theri history as a mirror of our own personal lives. The Old Testament also contains the Ten Commandments...the laws required to be followed in order to be blameless before a Holy God, therefore allowing a personal relationship with Him. God knew that no man could keep them and had a redemptive plan through Christ. There are over 300 Old Testament prophecies foretelling the forst coming of the Savior.

The New Testament is God's Covenant with ALL nations for all times that offer salvation through grace provided by the completed work of Jesus at His death and as evidence of His worthiness by His victory over death, hell, and the grave, as manifested by His ressurection.

Granted, however God specifically used the words for ever AND your generations so how can those commands be discounted now?

2. If God said to keep the feast days (unleavened bread for example) for ever unto all your generations, why doesn't the church keep them today?



He was talking to the Old Testament Jews, not the New Testament church. We are not required to keep those observances any more.
Where in the new testiment does it take us off the hook?

[chillbilly]

Jesus Christ celebrates the Holy Eucharist with his disciples and tells them of his pending sacrifice and to continue to celebrate his sacrifice by saying "Do this in remembrance of me".
What this or that church decides to do to honor Christ and God should in no way repudiate what Christ asked his disciples to do.

[big-o]

Originally posted by chillbilly
Jesus Christ celebrates the Holy Eucharist with his disciples and tells them of his pending sacrifice and to continue to celebrate his sacrifice by saying "Do this in remembrance of me".
What this or that church decides to do to honor Christ and God should in no way repudiate what Christ asked his disciples to do.

The one difference I see is in the OT God said "for ever" and Jesus could have been speaking to those at the table when he said, "Do this in rememberance of me".

By the way, I am not trying to be difficult, just interested in how all this works.

[chillbilly]

Jesus wanted God's message to be put forth by his "messengers" so there is little doubt about what he wanted from them. He wanted them to be "fishers of men" and to spread the Gospel. They were very good at it too. :)

[bootlen]

Originally posted by big-o



So anyone could have accepted the Lord as their savior even in the old covenant?

Could and did. They may not have known or understood some of the details but God made it clear to them that He would send a redeemer. There was an Old Testament saint by the name of Simeon. He is mentioned in, I believe it is, Luke. He recognized the Redeemer in His infancy. They looked forward to the cross just as we look back at it.

God specifically used the words for ever AND your generations so how can those commands be discounted now?

Great question to which I don't immediately know the answer. But I bet I can find out. Orthodox Jews still observe those events, BTW. But He (God) could have been speaking to them in their context as Old Testament Jews which would allow for an end to those observances upon the onset of the New Covenant.(Language can be very confusing.)

Where in the new testiment does it take us off the hook?

At some point it is mentioned in Acts. Remember Peter's dream about "kosher" food? By that time, it had already taken place.

Great questions, O. You'll keep me in Scripture. I appreciate that!

[big-o]

bootlen ---

I still don't get the part about God is the same, never changes and Jesus saying he doesn't do anything he did not see his father do before him. That being said, how could anything Jesus did be NEW or DIFFERENT than what was already laid out in the OT?

Most people refer to Colossians 2:14 and saying that, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" is the place where we are off the hook for the OT stuff, but if you read the verses from the begining of the chapter I think they are wrong.

If I could get this maybe the rest would fall in place.

Because, if God never changes and Jesus only did what God did, then calling it the New Testiment seems out of place. Maybe the "Proof Testiment" would be more appropriate.

[player89]

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh;

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Now, big-o, look at Colossians 2 again and see if anything clicks.

[big-o]

Originally posted by player89
Now, big-o, look at Colossians 2 again and see if anything clicks.

Well the thing in Colossians 2 that strikes me is
2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Then it goes on and lists all the things Jesus hanging on the cross got rid of, but they were in reference to the traditions on MAN not of God/Christ.

It finishes in Colossians 3:1-3 summing up with look up and not at MAN.

[player89]

You're doing good, keep up the study.

The traditions of men won't get you anywhere, but the precepts of God will.

Which one matters most?

[big-o]

Player89 ---
I agree the things of God are most important, my issue is why doesn't the church celebrate those events God instructed to be followed for ever, like Passover, Tabernacles, First Fruit, etc. And why don't Christians follow God's dietary instructions as well?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think salvation hangs on a pork tenderloin, but God did say if you want to be health eat this way....

It seem to me the church has picked through the bible and selected verses of convenience.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by chillbilly

[i]Originally posted by RoBoTeq

In other words; the Bible is an instructional manual that has been related to as commands. More then likely, this misinterpretation of intent would be the doings of God's antagonist, which we refer to as Satan. After all, Satan is given the responsibility of allowing us to "think" we know as God knows. The lesson, I assume, is that we need to seek out God's approval of things we "think" of, before we put them into action. Most of everything we can "think" of is related to in the Biblical teachings. Again, the Bible is an instructional manual.


While the Bible may be instructive, it's a heck of alot more than that to me personally.
It inspires me and gives me courage and compassion, at times forgiveness.
The Scriptures speak to me with fresh power and give me wisdom that leads to salvation.
I am a Bible reader, but all who choose to ridicule can call me a Bible thumper. I don't take offense :)

Oh, I quite agree that the Bible passages are very inspirational and bolstering to my psychy. I believe that is a major part of its timeless teachings. The Bible relates to all times under different circumstances because its stories expose the very essence of what we all are, assets and faults alike. And through it all, we are let to know that as fallible as we are, our Creator loves us and just wants to have a relationship with us. No different then loving parents, eh?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by big-o
Player89 ---
I agree the things of God are most important, my issue is why doesn't the church celebrate those events God instructed to be followed for ever, like Passover, Tabernacles, First Fruit, etc. And why don't Christians follow God's dietary instructions as well?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think salvation hangs on a pork tenderloin, but God did say if you want to be health eat this way....

It seem to me the church has picked through the bible and selected verses of convenience.

Those (dietary laws) were part of Levitical Law and not the Ten Commandments. They were laws written specifically to protect and sanctify the nation of Israel. As to pork, there was no good way of making it safe to eat. Or any other scavenger for that matter. It was later declared acceptable by God for ALL to eat pork, shellfish, etc.

We (Christians) celebrate Passover every year. Only we call Easter now, much, I'm sure, to God's chagrin (although He is not surprised).

The others, once again may be in the context of their OT Jewishness, allowing a release fom their required observance upon onset of the NT.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by big-o
bootlen ---

I still don't get the part about God is the same, never changes and Jesus saying he doesn't do anything he did not see his father do before him. That being said, how could anything Jesus did be NEW or DIFFERENT than what was already laid out in the OT?

It seems you see some contradiction here. Old to new does not necessarily mean a difference. It just means new. What's the difference between a white cotton washcloth made in January, 2006 ans one made in February, 2006? Nothig except that one is old, the other is new.

Most people refer to Colossians 2:14 and saying that, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" is the place where we are off the hook for the OT stuff, but if you read the verses from the begining of the chapter I think they are wrong.

That's stinkin' thinkin'. It let no one off. The wages of sin was, is, and always will be death. Go back to the begiining of this section of Scripture. It says, "And when you (believers) were dead in your (believers) transgressionsand the uncircumcision of your flesh (that is sanctified, set apart), He (Jesus Christ) made you (believers) alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressionshaving cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decreees against us and which is hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

See, no one was let off. The price had to be paid and Jesus paid it for us. And it has to do with sin and nothing to do with keeping Levitical Law or observing religious events. David, known as "a man after God's own heart" said it best in Psalms 40..."sacrifice and meal offering...Burnt offering and sin offering You have not required...I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your law is within my heart." In other words, God has never preferred law keeping over a yielded heart.

If I could get this maybe the rest would fall in place.

Because, if God never changes and Jesus only did what God did, then calling it the New Testiment seems out of place. Maybe the "Proof Testiment" would be more appropriate.

See the washcloth analogy above.

[TB]

Big-o

Let me take a stab at it too, maybe a slightly different POV will help.

The words "Old Testament" and "new Testament" are not scripture, they are titles someone added to the cannon for convinience once upon a time, just like the chapter and vers designations. I think you are right, that they are misleading.

When Jesus gave that first communion, with the bread and whine to the disciples at their last meal together before he died, He said in Luke 22:20...
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
The KJV uses the words , "new testament". The parallel passages in Matthew and Mark don't say ' new' , they only say, " this is my blood of the covenant.


When Jesus died, the curtain seperating the most Holy place from the Holy place was ripped in half. Some speculate it was the spirit of Jesus Himself tearing it as He went into the most Holy place on our behalf. This suggests the ceremonial law of the Levitical priesthood was ended.

Hebrews 10:1

1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Here we are told the ceremonial law concerning sacrafices was only to point to Jesus' final sacrafice, and in Gal. 3:24
24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. the law was there to show us what sin was, and that we can't deal with it ourselves, and need Jesus. Vs. 25 points out that we are no longer governed by the law, those who have faith, because the law was made for lawbreakers, 1 Timothy 1:9
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,


In Acts 10, God declairs to Peter that all foods are clean, and also, all people.

Galatians 3:17-18
17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Paul here points out that the Levitical law did not nullify the covenant made with Abraham, and the wrighter of Hebrews calls it an eternal covenant in 13:20

The covenant given to Abraham was in Genesis 17
Genesis 17:7,8
7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” Note that it was given as an everlasting covenant, to be Israels God and they, His people

The 'New Covenant' God established, as the wrighter of Hebrews points out in chapter 10 as he quotes from Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 31:31-33
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

In Exodus 24, God re-establishes the covenant with the Israelites, that He made with Abraham,
Exodus 24:3-8
3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the LORD has said we will do.” 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey.”
8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.”



So what about the 'New Covenant, or New Testament' is New?

1) Its the same covenant, same terms, but re-made because it was broken by the people

2) New blood, instead of the blood of animals meant to forshadow, the 'New Covenant' blood of Jesus

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

But the intent of the topic was not really so that we could all come in and defend our positions. I am more interested in this debate; why is it necessary for beleivers to take portions of the bible literally?

I am not a bible scholar... so I am going to make a statement here and feel free to tell me that I am wrong.

The bible is not the word of God in this sense; he did not write it. He did not speak directly to the writers. Instead, the bible is supposed to be the words of men who have *experienced* God.

The only "real" word of God that exists would be the 10 commandments.

True or false?

Once we talk about that a little, I'll have more to say. :) IMO
The Bible is a love letter to us, from God. It is God communicating with us, revealing himself to us both in statement of who He is, and illustrating His character by revealing His actions. Through the evidences in Arcaeology, science, history, and the bibles prophesy, the perponderance of the evidence strongly suggests the Bible is true. Some of the Bible can be proven true, none can be proven false, and so this suggests that it would be valid to take those yet unproven parts of the Bible as true too. It's not the case that I stubbornly and mindlessly cling to the unverified promises of the Bible with no reason to do so. The track record of science is that absolute scientific truth lasts about 10-20 years. They're constantly changing their minds. When a claim of some 'truth' that contradicts what the bible says comes out, what sence would it make for me to abandon the Bible--which has never been unreliable, or proven false--to accept scientific 'fact'.

In much of Scripture, there is no reason not to take it litterally. In poetic portions though, it can be taken a little more loosly, like our poetry sometimes makes a point on a subject without really addressing it specifically. Some of the disagreements amongst Christians are right on these lines. How should we correctly interpret the book of Acts? Some churches make it their example, some leave it alone as much as possible. This leads us to your other topic, why do we disagree so much? You hit it on one of your posts, we are human and as soon as Gods perfect word hits our corrupted minds, anything can, and does happen.

I believe there is only one truth. I believe that God can and does communicate it to us as we ask Him to, but I wonder how often it is that we really do want him to. A lot of times I'm more comfortable with my interpretation of this passage, than your understanding of it which mandates I deal with something in my life.

When I was drinking, I read the passages in the Bible about beer and whine and justified myself. When I quit drinking, I read those same passages as noone can legitimately drink. I was mad that I couldn't drink so by gum noone else can either. Now I look at those passages and recognize that some alcoholic beverages are fine, but for me they aren't. the first two interpretations I held were made as me being the standard, the one I hold now as the Bible being the standard---but you don't know if thats really true, so you need to look for yourself. Did the Bibles opinion on alcoholic beverages ever change? no, only mine did. Thats why it is more reasonable for you to read the Bible yourself and see what it says, than to believe what I say. Ultimately, when I went to the church of the holy drinkers, I disagreed with the members of the holier than thou non-drinkers, (but eventually I joined them) on their take on drinking, but on who Jesus is and many other points of doctrine we agreed. As you see the many points of disagreement between christians and wonder, remember that the important points, like who Jesus is and what He did, we are generally in full agreement on.


Scrogdog, I like your questions and want to address them the way they deserve but I run out of time, so keep asking them untill one of us presents a model with the detail you want.

[Edited by TB on 04-25-2006 at 05:38 AM]

[tonys]

...and all this time, I thought it was written by a politically driven group of 'humans',
with its content easily controlled by the few folks in-town who actually knew the Greek alphabet.


fascinating!


Bible Babble - ROCKS!

[bootlen]

[/i]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Thanks everyone for your replies so far.

But the intent of the topic was not really so that we could all come in and defend our positions. I am more interested in this debate; why is it necessary for beleivers to take portions of the bible literally?

I am not a bible scholar... so I am going to make a statement here and feel free to tell me that I am wrong.

The bible is not the word of God in this sense; he did not write it. He did not speak directly to the writers. Instead, the bible is supposed to be the words of men who have *experienced* God.

The only "real" word of God that exists would be the 10 commandments.

True or false?

Once we talk about that a little, I'll have more to say. :)


Actually, Scripture says literally that the Word id "God breathed" so yes He did speak it but not in the sense that we understand "speak". He inspired it. "Inspiration" has the same root word as "respiration", if that helps any. You can see the sense of a sort of "moving air".

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys

Bible Babble - ROCKS!

Exactly!

[player89]

Originally posted by big-o
Player89 ---
I agree the things of God are most important, my issue is why doesn't the church celebrate those events God instructed to be followed for ever, like Passover, Tabernacles, First Fruit, etc. And why don't Christians follow God's dietary instructions as well?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think salvation hangs on a pork tenderloin, but God did say if you want to be health eat this way....

It seem to me the church has picked through the bible and selected verses of convenience.

I agree also...people (who are the church), have tried to find a way to circumvent God and please him in ways that is acceptable to them, but is is pleasing to God?

In the Old Testament, there were established those things that God intended to be perpetual (for ever). God does not change, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever. Has God changed his mind? If so, He is not the same...that is what you are maintaining, and trying to sort out.

Yet Jesus came to show us a better way, not a different way. In Acts 10, what did God cleanse? It does not say God cleansed everything, but verse 15 of that chapter says "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. There is still unclean, other wise all of creation would have been cleansed by that statement.

Peter and all of the Jews not only feared that which was unclean, but that which was common. The biggest insult to a Jew was to be put in a "common" place. A common place meant that there was the possibility of uncleanness being present, and thus, to the Jews they could become unclean by association.

This is the entire lession of Acts 10. God was telling Peter not to fear being unclean by association with uncleanness. Jesus was not afraid to touch the lepers, or go where death was..his example had been shown in the eyes of Peter. That is also why there were "all manner of beasts and creatures" in the sheet", clean and unclean. He knew not to eat the unclean, but feared the clean that was now common. The unclean is still unclean, an abomination to God is still an abomination, and sin is still sin.

Personally, I eat clean because I know it pleases God. I cannot condemn, yet Jesus did not condemn either, he, once again, came to show a better way.

He also showed in his Word how to commune with him and not eat a small wafer and drink a cup of juice. The feasts were instituted for a purpose, yet man corrupted them and made them into that which displeased God. Each feast had a Godly purpose, and that purpose can be now lived through an individual lifestyle that pleases God.

Many will disagree, and that is Ok. I'm not living to please or satisfy men, but to please God. I do not condemn, yet know there is a better way.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact


The point is that in one situation the OT says "A" and then in the NT jesus says "non A". You can't hold both as true because they contradict each other. Which one are you going to go by and why?

Either the OT writer is a fool for making the claim or he isn't. Who is right here? Jesus or the OT writer?


The Author of the OT is the same as the Author of the NT.

No contradiction.

So an author who authors two books cannot possibly contradict himself in the other book? Simply amazing the knee slappers you bring on here booty!

I think you are confused. Whta specifically is the address of the Scriptures in question?


You see! You had all of that crap to say and you don't even know what freakin verses I am talking about!

that's integrity!

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact


You see! You had all of that crap to say and you don't even know what freakin verses I am talking about!

that's integrity!

Why do I have to know which verses you are talking about if you are confused? I already know there are NO contradictions in Holy Scripture. EVERYBODY knows you are confused...you like men! I simply challenged you to give an example of your assertions. If you can't do that, say so, rather than make stupid statements like the one above.

[RoBoTeq]

Booty; why are you arguing with someone who's only intent is to argue? Whether we heed the warnings of throwing our pearls to swine or by not accepting something, that something belongs to he who tried to give it to you, it does no good to speak to deaf ears.

[bootlen]

Believe me, it's not for the sake of braces. there are tender ears out there and I don't think it's too good to let someone like braces have the last word. I'm not trying to convince braces as much as I'm "keeping the back door locked". ;)

[chillbilly]

Good point Booty.

"Heed instruction, be wise and do not neglect it.
Blessed is the man who listens to me"

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact


You see! You had all of that crap to say and you don't even know what freakin verses I am talking about!

that's integrity!

Why do I have to know which verses you are talking about if you are confused? I already know there are NO contradictions in Holy Scripture. EVERYBODY knows you are confused...you like men! I simply challenged you to give an example of your assertions. If you can't do that, say so, rather than make stupid statements like the one above.



This is another good example of dogma that I was talking about before. You have concluded apriori that there are no contradictions in the bible . To come to such a conclusion you would have to have studied every verse in relation to all the other verses and that is impossible. This statement of yours is flagrant dishonesty. At least if you were honest you would say something to the effect that , maybe there are contradictions in the bible but I have not seen any as of yet. Bu then again you have no problem plagiarizing others work so I'm not surprised.

Not only that but what is this "you like men" crap? If I like men I like them in the same way that you do.

Also an example of my assertions was given. I clearly explained how it is a contradiction and that both premises cannot be held as true simultaneously.

The contradiction is quite clear. If the bible is the word of god then god clearly changes his mind latter on about rather or not it is immoral to call someone a fool.

The "word of god" says in one part that someone who doesn't believe is a fool. In another part the "word of god" say to call someone a fool is immoral.

[chillbilly]

Those parts of biblical text that refer to fools do not contradict each other as far as I can see.
Firstly, they are 2 different issues.
As you have pointed out, one alludes to calling your fellow human a fool and the other alludes to denying God.Both are considered wrong.
Keep in mind that when God expressed his contempt for someone by calling him a fool, he did it with complete, accurate knowledge that the one to whom he attributed foolishness was in reality, a fool.
Christ emphasized that when one uses any criticisms of such a grave nature, whether or not in a fit of anger of which the injurious statements are a part,leads to calling someone a fool,he puts his soul in jeopardy.

There are more passages in Proverbs than I care to count that use the word "fool". Are any of them contradicting the other? None that I can find.
I'm sincerely going to try and understand where you are coming from here, and there will be no more insults hurled toward you, at least not from me.

[Edited by chillbilly on 04-26-2006 at 08:00 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen
Believe me, it's not for the sake of braces. there are tender ears out there and I don't think it's too good to let someone like braces have the last word. I'm not trying to convince braces as much as I'm "keeping the back door locked". ;)

Wouldn't it be better to just follow all of braces idiotic commentaries with; "braces is a Satan influenced idiot; do not pay attention to him."?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by chillbilly
[B]Those parts of biblical text that refer to fools do not contradict each other as far as I can see.
Firstly, they are 2 different issues.
As you have pointed out, one alludes to calling your fellow human a fool and the other alludes to denying God. Both are considered wrong.

But then if calling someone a fool is wrong then it is wrong no matter if they deny god or not.



Keep in mind that when God expressed his contempt for someone by calling him a fool, he did it with complete, accurate knowledge that the one to whom he attributed foolishness was in reality, a fool.

But from what I can tell the OT verse is refering to ANYONE who denys god. Not just about a specific person.


And according to the OT verse to be a fool all you have to do is deny god. So god can call someone a fool but others can't? This is a double standard on ethics and poses a problem for the Christian who says that ethics are objective. If god can call someone a fool, but it is wrong for others to, ethics in this case biols down to might makes right.





Christ emphasized that when one uses any criticisms of such a grave nature, whether or not in a fit of anger of which the injurious statements are a part,leads to calling someone a fool,he puts his soul in jeopardy.

ok


There are more passages in Proverbs than I care to count that use the word "fool". Are any of them contradicting the other? None that I can find.
I'm sincerely going to try and understand where you are coming from here, and there will be no more insults hurled toward you, at least not from me.

Well that would be a welcome change. Maybe I will not lock on the heat seeking missles so often if you can hold to that.





[Edited by braces4impact on 04-26-2006 at 10:58 PM]

[scrogdog]

Interestingly... and I suppose predictably in topics such as these... my question remains unanswered.

Why is it important that the bible be interpreted literally? Why can't it just be a guide... with good examples set... on how to live?

You know... it would be really cool if it could be like that... because then you folks could enjoy the wonders of science too! :)

I did not mean that offensively... again... just trying to understand the mindset. :)

[TB]

Scrog,

Are you asking why we choose to look at the Bible from a literal position and interpretation, instead of a more general/liberal approach to it

or,

what would be the consequenses in interpretation paradigms between a literal view, and a non-literal or suggestion type interpretation.

[TB]

...and I do enjoy the wonders of science, thats why I'm an HVAC service tech. The physics intrigues me. :D

[big-o]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Why is it important that the bible be interpreted literally? Why can't it just be a guide... with good examples set... on how to live?

The most difficult part of being a beliver is turning over your life to God, letting go. It is far more satisfying to man to maintain control.

If you are able to make what ever you want out of the Bible, then you maintain the control. If you maintain the control, then you have made yourself the god and therefore have no one to answer to for your actions.

Turn your life over means you now are required to be subserviant... and who wants to be a servant?

[scrogdog]

When asked, from my experience, a believer will tell you that your path to salvation means that you must accept Christ as your savior. I don’t believe that I have ever heard more than that, really. Accept Jesus and you are saved.

I’m sure you will correct any misinterpretation on my part.

Why does that simple path need to be convoluted by HOW the bible is interpreted? Roboteq, for example, seems to me to be a good Christian… I mean he has accepted Christ as savior. He has seen things from the other side too… as you may have heard from him, he found God while attempting to dis-prove Him in his own mind. However, Robo also accepts evolution and is able to not let niggling details of the bible get in the way of either faith or science. To him I say, bravo sir!

To some, I guess they believe that although Robo thinks he is saved, that he really isn’t since he has… I do not know… defied the word of God by accepting evolution?

What does whether or not the Earth was created 5000 years ago have to do with loving your fellow man and accepting Jesus?

You know, all of the religion discussions here are fascinating to watch… not because I like to see believers disagree, but it help on my never ending quest to understand. :) One thing seems clear to me as a sideline observer, disagreements do not occur over fundamentals, they occur over niggling little details. How does this niggling make you a better Christian? How does in improve your relationship with Jesus? How does it help you love your fellow man?

Why do I care? Simple. I want our children to learn about proper science. I do not mind if they accept Jesus along the way. :)

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact


But then if calling someone a fool is wrong then it is wrong no matter if they deny god or not.
__________________________________________________ ______
Yes, it is wrong regardless of who is called a fool.






But from what I can tell the OT verse is refering to ANYONE who denys god. Not just about a specific person.
And according to the OT verse to be a fool all you have to do is deny god. So god can call someone a fool but others can't?
__________________________________________________ ________
Well, yes. If God is all knowing as I have suggested, than not only does he call you a fool, he has determined by looking into a person that they ARE a fool.
As a human, I'm not capable of making that type of judgement. God is the only being capable of judgement and therefore he reminds us not to judge and that only he can judge.

[big-o]

scrogdog ---

I don't see any reason to interpret the bible, it says what it says. To finagle a slue of different meanings out of the words just to fit a particular situation seems like a scam to me. Either take it as written or not. No one is under any obligation to accecpt it one way or the other.

That’s what the Pharisee did. For example: They (Pharisee) looked at "thou shall not kill" and said; "If we hire someone else to do it then we are not doing the killing so its ok, we have not broken the commandment".

What gets me is why people who really have no interest in what God and/or Jesus have to say, yet spend so much time trying to disprove them.

I don't belive in the Easter Bunny, why would I spend any time trying to disprove it. I mean there are entire website, books, movies etc. that focus on trying to disprove or discredit God and/or Jesus. Why bother?

[player89]

Originally posted by scrogdog
When asked, from my experience, a believer will tell you that your path to salvation means that you must accept Christ as your savior. I don’t believe that I have ever heard more than that, really. Accept Jesus and you are saved.

I’m sure you will correct any misinterpretation on my part.

Why does that simple path need to be convoluted by HOW the bible is interpreted? Roboteq, for example, seems to me to be a good Christian… I mean he has accepted Christ as savior. He has seen things from the other side too… as you may have heard from him, he found God while attempting to dis-prove Him in his own mind. However, Robo also accepts evolution and is able to not let niggling details of the bible get in the way of either faith or science. To him I say, bravo sir!

To some, I guess they believe that although Robo thinks he is saved, that he really isn’t since he has… I do not know… defied the word of God by accepting evolution?

What does whether or not the Earth was created 5000 years ago have to do with loving your fellow man and accepting Jesus?

You know, all of the religion discussions here are fascinating to watch… not because I like to see believers disagree, but it help on my never ending quest to understand. :) One thing seems clear to me as a sideline observer, disagreements do not occur over fundamentals, they occur over niggling little details. How does this niggling make you a better Christian? How does in improve your relationship with Jesus? How does it help you love your fellow man?

Why do I care? Simple. I want our children to learn about proper science. I do not mind if they accept Jesus along the way. :)


Perhaps my definition of "accept" is a little different than most, but when I believed on the Lord and accepted him, I accepted his ways. To some, acceptance simply means reciting or repeating back something someone else thinks they should say, shaking the preachers hand, and being welcomed into the flock.

The Bible is very clear that salvation belongs to the Lord God. Thus, for any man to proclaim salvation for or to someone else is Biblically incorrect...yet it happens frequently. Man cannot take ownership of something that is God's, he has not given the right of saying someone is saved to anyone...he makes that determination.

If Robo says he is saved, I must take his word for it, recognizing that God himself will sort it all out in the end. Man is not to judge another's salvation. The fruits of salvation will be evident, however, and manifest themselves in someone who is truly saved. Yet, even these fruits are not the final determination. It is not enough to simply be "good", otherwise John 3:21 would have no meaning. It is apparent that we must let God have control of our life if it is to be a new life. I appreciated the words of big-o in his previous post. Few desire to become a servant.

For a life to be new, it must be a changed life. My current lifestyle is nothing like it used to be. I cannot thank myself for that, but do thank God, who made it possible.

Hope this makes some sense.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact


And according to the OT verse to be a fool all you have to do is deny god. So god can call someone a fool but others can't? This is a double standard on ethics and poses a problem for the Christian who says that ethics are objective. If god can call someone a fool, but it is wrong for others to, ethics in this case biols down to might makes right.
[Edited by braces4impact on 04-26-2006 at 10:58 PM]

God is God. Man is not. That's over-simplified but it pretty much sums up the answer to your question. There are things God can do because He is God and man may not because he is man. Dems da rules.

Tell ya what, braces. Go out there and build a universe from nothing...literally NOTHING. Create the elements, mix 'em togther, and create another earth and all that you find in this one...and do it in 6 days. When you accomplished that feat, check back with me on this issue. Would I worship YOU if you accomplished all this? Crap no! You still won't be God. Christians don't worship God for what He did, does, or will do. We worship Him because of WHO He is.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog
When asked, from my experience, a believer will tell you that your path to salvation means that you must accept Christ as your savior. I don’t believe that I have ever heard more than that, really. Accept Jesus and you are saved.

I’m sure you will correct any misinterpretation on my part.

Look at Romans 10:9. Very simple. Not really any misinterpretation on your part...just slightly incomplete.

Why does that simple path need to be convoluted by HOW the bible is interpreted? Roboteq, for example, seems to me to be a good Christian… I mean he has accepted Christ as savior. He has seen things from the other side too… as you may have heard from him, he found God while attempting to dis-prove Him in his own mind. However, Robo also accepts evolution and is able to not let niggling details of the bible get in the way of either faith or science. To him I say, bravo sir!

To some, I guess they believe that although Robo thinks he is saved, that he really isn’t since he has… I do not know… defied the word of God by accepting evolution?

Actually, it isn't a salvation issue so much as an issue of trust. If you cannot trust that God can create creation literally exactly as it is written in Genisis, then how can you trust Him to save you from the wages of sin?

It is, of course, possible that God used many thousands of years to create creation but that's not what He said He did. I don't know. I wasn't there. He was. I figure He knows and not only does He have a reason to lie about it but He cannot lie. Otherwise he would not be God.

What does whether or not the Earth was created 5000 years ago have to do with loving your fellow man and accepting Jesus?

You know, all of the religion discussions here are fascinating to watch… not because I like to see believers disagree, but it help on my never ending quest to understand. :) One thing seems clear to me as a sideline observer, disagreements do not occur over fundamentals, they occur over niggling little details. How does this niggling make you a better Christian? How does in improve your relationship with Jesus? How does it help you love your fellow man?

Extremely good point, scrog. You are precisely correct and Scripture addresses exactly that. It warns believers to not get caught up in it...and I did anyway. (I told you early on I would fail you and to not put any faith in me but to rely only on Scripture itself.)

Why do I care? Simple. I want our children to learn about proper science. I do not mind if they accept Jesus along the way. :)


Good enough reason for you as the parent. But what about you as scrog?

[braces4impact]

Well, yes. If God is all knowing as I have suggested, than not only does he call you a fool, he has determined by looking into a person that they ARE a fool.
As a human, I'm not capable of making that type of judgement. God is the only being capable of judgement and therefore he reminds us not to judge and that only he can judge.

Ok let's review for clarity.

The OT verse says that he who denies god is a fool.

Now I am clearly telling you that I am an atheist. You don't have to be omniscient to know everything else about me because a criteria that makes someone a fool ( according to the OT verse) is if the deny god which is what am clearly telling you that I do. Not only that you have seen my numerous post on this topic so you know what my position is.

[braces4impact]

God is God. Man is not. That's over-simplified but it pretty much sums up the answer to your question. There are things God can do because He is God and man may not because he is man. Dems da rules.

So much for being made in his image huh!?

Anyways what you explained boils down to might makes right. Something isn't intrinsically right or wrong. It is only right or wrong because god says so. This is as subjective (the opposite of objective) as you can get.


Tell ya what, braces. Go out there and build a universe from nothing...literally NOTHING. Create the elements, mix 'em togther, and create another earth and all that you find in this one...and do it in 6 days.

How absurd that people in the 21st century think that this stuff happened.

[braces4impact]

You know, all of the religion discussions here are fascinating to watch… not because I like to see believers disagree, but it help on my never ending quest to understand. One thing seems clear to me as a sideline observer, disagreements do not occur over fundamentals, they occur over niggling little details. How does this niggling make you a better Christian? How does in improve your relationship with Jesus? How does it help you love your fellow man?

No I disagree. There are no two issue on which all Christians agree. Some don't believe in a bodily resurrection and some don't believe in freewill etc.

[sline-dawg]

Created all of the universe.......Who created God ??



What did God do for fun before making us ??


Where is heaven ?? Or,( for me and my friends)... hell ??

[TB]

If, after an having been gone for an extended period of time, your Fiance sent you a letter telling you how, and where she would be returning, and what she wanted you to be wearing at that meeting (the suit she sent you) , would you pay attention to every detail of that letter, or would you tend to take some instructions seriously, leave some, and fuge on some? It isn't really a case of have to take the Word literally, but more that the most accurate understanding we can get from it comes by literal interpretation, and so we want to do what results in the greatest understanding. Sometimes however, we do get caught up in arguing over the finer points, weather it be from ego, or enthusiasm, we wind up in a quarrell we shouldnt be in.

I believe the reason God authored the Bible for us, was to communicate to us all, the simple, and the scolars, so He used the term 'day' in the creation account to communicate to us the meaning commonly understood as a day.


When asked, from my experience, a believer will tell you that your path to salvation means that you must accept Christ as your savior. I don’t believe that I have ever heard more than that, really. Accept Jesus and you are saved.

Jesus said, ": unless a man is born again He cannot enter the kingdom of heaven". John the Baptist said Jesus is the one who ' baptizes with the Holy Ghost'. Paul pointed out that we recieve the Holy Ghost when we Believe the word. Therefore, to recieve Jesus ( Holy Ghost) presupposes the word was believed. Now to believe something is more than just knowlege of it. The definition as used in the bible is to, ' completely commit to, to be persuaded of, to place confidence in'. By placing complete confidence in the promices of Jesus in his Word, we are allowed to relax in this life, and trust Him. We're living and walking with Him, and thats the part of salvation we are given in this life, freedom from the cares of this life. If you can read Luke 12:24
24 Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds!
and take it literally for what it says, believing it, dosent that yield comfort for the concerns of the future? If you only took it metaphorically, then how much less comfort would it give? Would it still mean that God considers you to be valuable, scrog? much more so than the birds, who He daily provides fore?

If Bill Gates came to your house and knocked on your front door, so that He could show you that you are a very important person to him, would you let him in? Revelation 3:20 says Jesus is doing exactly that.

Revelation 3:20
20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

In the Jewish tradition, eating with someone was high praise that spoke of a high value placed on that person.

[player89]

Originally posted by braces4impact

You know, all of the religion discussions here are fascinating to watch… not because I like to see believers disagree, but it help on my never ending quest to understand. One thing seems clear to me as a sideline observer, disagreements do not occur over fundamentals, they occur over niggling little details. How does this niggling make you a better Christian? How does in improve your relationship with Jesus? How does it help you love your fellow man?

No I disagree. There are no two issue on which all Christians agree. Some don't believe in a bodily resurrection and some don't believe in freewill etc.


I will disagree about the first point you disagree with. If they profess to be Christian, they believe there is a God, and they believe in Jesus Christ. These two issues are the most basic and fundamental beliefs in the Christian walk. Both are Biblically based, there is no argument (although some may argue for the sake of arguing).
If someone is going to be a Christian, they must believe these two.

Having said that, I do very much agree with the second point of your disagreement. There is but one truth, but many different factions. Entire denominations have been built around these different factions. To me, this is a gross error that has been perpetuated for centuries. It has caused many to doubt and even cease to believe. This cannot be pleasing to God. Men have manipulated the truth for their gain, corrupting that which was intended for good, making it evil. Some have been fooled, and have been hurt; others recognize the inconsistencies and refuse to accept them. In doing so, they miss the truth.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by braces4impact
Ok let's review for clarity.

The OT verse says that he who denies god is a fool.
Now I am clearly telling you that I am an atheist. You don't have to be omniscient to know everything else about me because a criteria that makes someone a fool ( according to the OT verse) is if the deny god which is what am clearly telling you that I do. Not only that you have seen my numerous post on this topic so you know what my position is.




Yes, I do know your position. I guess what I'm saying is that, IMO, God sees your denial and judges you accordingly.
I, on the other hand, am NOT allowed to judge you according to Jesus Christ's teachings becuase I am fallible and thus incapable of such an act of judgement.

Also, using the word 'fool' in proper context should be a priority. My interpretation is that the act of denying God is foolish more than the suggestion that you are a complete fool. God never gives up on anyone.
God may see many things about you that are pleasing.
You are smart, quite witty and inquisitive, yet, in the eyes of a creator, you may be lacking because you have disassociated from any higher power.

It's a wonder people believe at all with all the infighting among different denominations who think they somehow have a lasso around the correct interpretation of biblical text.

[scrogdog]

But what about you as scrog?

Thanks for all of the great replies… but I am going to choose to reply to this. I will now try to show you the other side. :)

What I am about to say is essentially what Geer would tell you. But I am going to try to attempt to explain without being offensive and without implying you are foolish for not seeing things the same way.

First, let me establish a hierarchy of confidence. I think it is very likely that science will completely explain our origins. Less likely but possible is the concept of a creator. Even less likely is the idea that any one of the religions of man have properly identified the creator and what he/she/it is.

Even more important than what I think is WHY I think it.

Ok, so… here you have a young man… interested in science. He has friends who are Christians… but he himself cannot see the sense in it. Why? Simple observation.

I observed that two people… who have never met each other… who come from completely different cultures and backgrounds… who do not share a common language… can share the same observation about science. They can perform the same test… without one prompting the other to do so. And if the science is valid, they see the same exact result. These two folks who will likely never meet have discovered the same thing, made the same observations and conclusions, and yet they have very little in common with each other.

At the same time, this young person began to dabble in the ugly world of politics.

And as he examines these things… he sees that they do not hold common intellectual and social and even moral values. Poltics and religion to this young man… is a world of danger and fear… a world of manipulation and irrational beliefs.

Even to a child the contrast is clear. Science held different social and intellectual values than either politics or religion. Science is international in scope, forging working relationships and friendships that see beyond national boundaries and political systems… encouraging a dispassionate way of thinking and problem solving… and ultimately leading to knowledge and technology that would benefit all of mankind.

So… this young mind observed that science is the ONLY universal thing among the three.

He also came to the quite logical conclusion that religion is not something “discovered”… it is something passed along. Without hearing about it from someone else, without being handed a book… a given believer would not have independently arrived at the God of Abraham (though he may logically speculate about a creator of some sort, that is quite a different thing than arriving at the God of Abraham). On the other hand, people can routinely arrive at the same results and conclusions in science even never having spoken to each other.

Tell me, to the logical mind, which of these things seems more likely to be “the truth”? The truth should be universal and easy to see. Religion’s “truth” is not universal. It is not “easy to see”. Everyone’s opinion disagrees. There is even argument over which version of the good book is actually good.

I truly hope I have not offended anyone, but I do hope to have shown you that my position is one that I consider logical and logically arrived at. It is difficult for me to understand people who do not arrive at things logically, so I do things like have these discussions. And though I may get closer to understanding a believer, when it gets right down to it, I don’t “have the plumbing” so to speak, to truly and completely understand. :)

However, that does not mean that religion is a thing to be ignored. Religion is huge in this world and has a huge social impact on all of us. And so, my personal agenda is not to have you drop Jesus like a rock… far from it. It is to try and show that God and science need not be in conflict UNLESS YOU PERSONALLY MAKE IT SO. To me, it would be an easy thing to rationalize that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It also solves a few social problems, like people denying the FACT of evolution, thus causing a bad social domino effect… they then go on to challenge evolution in court and replace it with philosophy. This is such an inherently dangerous thing to me that it deserves a lot of attention. Then, when kids are lead away from good science educations by philosophical matters, they find themselves to be those people who are buffaloed by charlatans. They become those who believe that c02 causes global warming just because some scientist says it. Science isn’t what scientists say, it is what they do… and those doings need to be checked for validity by ensuring that the scientific method was and is followed, and that the testing done is repeatable and FINALLY that peer scientists agree with the conclusion. That is very good science. And we need to do it that way because we are all imperfect humans prone to mistakes and prone to letting our own agendas getting in the way of just about everything.

The only way to tell bad science from good science is to know what makes good science. If we lead our young people away from good science... it is very dangerous and has huge social consequences.

Neither politics or religion have any such “safety mechanism” (scientific method/repeatable testing/peer review) in place. And so agendas and opinions are the rule of the day.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-28-2006 at 11:06 AM]

[player89]

I appreciate your candidness, scrog. You do obviously try to interact in a logical way.

We people have been bombarded with all kinds of information over the years, and an incredible amount of that information has come about in the past 25 years or so. I understand what you are saying about good science and bad...how many studies over the years have contradicted other studies? Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good again.

Personally, I use science every day. Without it, I could not do my job. Because of science, I have become very successful in what I do. I cannot deny science.

However, I have realized that science has allowed me to become interpretive regarding that which I study. I can take the results of my work and choose to use them 100%, or, use them in some range between 0-100%, or use them not at all. It is very rare that I choose the 100%..why, because my experience tells me that not all of my study has revealed all the information. I then, must interpret and draw from other experiences to come to a successful conclusion. Most of the time, it works out very well. Occasionally, there is a failure. This seems to mirror life very well.

Interpretation has an important place in human life. How else could someone hear the same virtuoso performance by a master muscian or vocalist and have totally different impressions except by interpretation.

We have the same types of interpretations with religion. Truth is not subject to interpretation, it is truth or it isn't. Thus, if truth is doubted, there is now confusion. We have much confusion in the religous world today. It is because of interpretation.

Thus, it remains there is still a truth. Personally, I do believe the truth of God is self-evident (God is not hiding it from me), also realizing that I have not seen all of the truth due to my personal inhibitions/doubts/lack of understanding/personal bias/walls/or whatever. That, like a scientist looking for his answer, does not stop my pursuit of the truth. At some point, I will see it, although I don't know how or when. That is the basis for my faith.

[scrogdog]

I understand what you are saying about good science and bad...how many studies over the years have contradicted other studies? Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good again.

Indeed! I am glad you mentioned this, as it happens to be part 2 of my little “crusade” (hehehe – sorry).

Since about the early 1960s, science became something that it was never meant to be – a tool to drive social policy. There is now a growing movement, of which I consider myself a part, to get the pendulum swung back the other way. It will be difficult. A good case study of this is global warming. At this point, it would be nearly impossible to extract the political and social factors away and look at this as it should be by science… dispassionately. I can’t see it happening.

Here is another good example of what I mean… the scientific concept of Nuclear Winter, and the Drake equation linked to the SETI project. These two items were shown to the masses in a very similar way. One is just a silly and fun thing… who cares about SETI? But Nuclear Winter had a HUGE social impact on this world.

In 1960, a man by the name of Francis Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

[where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.]

Looks like a pretty serious intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the elements can be known or even estimated. If you need to state how many attempt to communicate, there is no such thing as an “informed guess”. What you get is an agenda-laden guess… like the C02 global warming modelers have done. Since any number from “zero” to “billions and billions” can be used in any one of those computational elements, the Drake Equation is rendered meaningless. An equation that can mean anything means nothing. And it is not science.

While I might agree that it is LIKELY that we are not alone in the universe, there is absolutely NO evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

Fast forward ahead a few years. Scientists start to publish highly-theoretical papers regarding the effect of multiple nuclear explosions on the Earth. Carl Sagan is among 5 scientists that publish “"Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” – also known as the TTAPS report.

At the heart of this report was another serious looking equation;

Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe etc

(The amount of tropospheric dust = # warheads x size warheads x warhead detonation height x flammability of targets x Target burn duration x Particles entering the Troposphere x Particle reflectivity x Particle endurance, and so on.)

See any similarity to the Drake equation? Nobody knows how much smoke will be generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so on.

The mistake here was the lack of challenge by scientific peers. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably more restrained in their comments. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."

But these comments were not in the spotlight. Carl Sagan appeared on Johnny Carson like 40 times. He wrote an article about Nuclear Winter in Parade Magazine. But the common person never heard the comments of Sagan’s peers. Carl Sagan did a lot for science, but he also did a lot against it in my view. Sagan was the type to first construct a media campaign, and then months later publish the scientific papers. Rather shoddy in my view.

Anyone, and I mean anyone… with a solid science education would have seen through this crap like a knife through butter. But America accepted this shinola hook, line and sinker. So, it has been shown time and time again that science education in America is a damn joke!

Eggs are bad… eggs are good… salt is bad… salt is good. Makes your head spin. However… how many people do you think simply accepted what they read in Parade magazine instead of checking out the science behind it? Eggs were never demonstrated to be bad… scientists uses logical extrapolation to come up with that, just as they did with C02 as a causal factor in global warming. It is junk science. But the common man does not know that, so all he sees is the pendulum swinging back and forth… eggs are bad… eggs are good… scientists are crazy… science is a joke.

Then some clown from South Korea who buffaloed people so well that he made it in to established and respected scientific publications was really a bad smack in the face. Really bad. This will cause setbacks in medical science like nobody’s business… just because of one idiot. This crap will occur BECAUSE WE LET IT.

Want to fight back? Good… me too. Learn about science. What it is, what it does, how it is properly performed. Then… check out the claims, read the studies… and if they do not follow procedure and peer review…, cast them aside! (I do not refer to you specifically Player).

At this time I would like to credit author Michael Crichton as a source for many of the views I have on the matter. In fact, a lot of what I use making this case came from an article he wrote… I’ll see if I can find it.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-28-2006 at 01:37 PM]

[chillbilly]

Religion is not merely passed along. Any insinuation that mere acceptance is logical to a Christian is biased and without foundation.
If you were a man whose logic was infallible, your logic argument could be considered legitimate.
But you are not infallible and your logic must be considered flawed, at best.
The spirit of Christ must be discovered.
To insinuate that religion is merely accepted without examination is an insult and I take offense to it.
You want to know something about religion? Study it and the people depicted in biblical text before you make a blanket statement that is as prejudiced as I've ever heard.


[Edited by chillbilly on 04-28-2006 at 04:10 PM]

[big-o]

There is no way Science, Logic or Religion can provide all the answers for everything. Each has a weakness.

Logic has Zeno’s Paradox for example. It says if you are going to travel 1 mile you must first travel half a mile. But in order to travel half you must first travel a quarter mile and before that a 1/8 of a mile. If you continue the process, it becomes clear that you will never reach your destination, because you always have to go the half distance first. In fact, you can’t move at all!

Mathematics is based entirely on a concept developed by man. I personally don't belive man to be perfect, leaving the possibility that math only produces consistent answers because it has been handed down from generation to generation, just like religion.

From the medical stand-point, the bible said to wash your hands and anything else that touched a sick person. It was not until the 1500's that science agreed.

[scrogdog]

The spirit of Christ must be discovered.
To insinuate that religion is merely accepted without examination is an insult and I take offense to it

Well I apologize for any offense, but I think you read a little more in to my statement than I intended. It seems obvious that there is more to it just by the fact that some people who have read the bible and have heard about the God of Abraham did not accept Jesus as saviour. Others did. So it is not just a situation where information is passed and then belief is assured.

However, I maintain that you could not have independently arrived at the idea of The God of Abraham on your own. This somewhat explains why certain religions have "regional" strength. You do not see many Buddists in the West for example. Why do you think that is true, Chill?

[big-o]

Example of interpretation: Noah's Ark

Would I be correct if I picked up a hand full of dirt and said "this earth will be great for growing a garden"?

If so then when the historical record of Noah's ark is reviewed, could it be possible that the reference to earth just ment the local area and not the entire world?

Not once is the word "world" used in the recount, only earth, land and face of the ground are used.

If this were the case, then putting 2 of each type of animal that live in the area would not be so difficult to belive.

[big-o]

Originally posted by scrogdog

The spirit of Christ must be discovered.
To insinuate that religion is merely accepted without examination is an insult and I take offense to it

Well I apologize for any offense, but I think you read a little more in to my statement than I intended. It seems obvious that there is more to it just by the fact that some people who have read the bible and have heard about the God of Abraham did not accept Jesus as saviour. Others did. So it is not just a situation where information is passed and then belief is assured.

However, I maintain that you could not have independently arrived at the idea of The God of Abraham on your own. This somewhat explains why certain religions have "regional" strength. You do not see many Buddists in the West for example. Why do you think that is true, Chill?

scrogdog ----

You assume that just because one reads the bible they have a choice and that is not what it says. It says God picks. So someone does not believe then God did not pick them.

As a matter of fact it goes further to say that if one does not believe God will make them even more deceived and therefore even harder for them to do so.


[Edited by big-o on 04-28-2006 at 04:58 PM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact


God is God. Man is not. That's over-simplified but it pretty much sums up the answer to your question. There are things God can do because He is God and man may not because he is man. Dems da rules.

So much for being made in his image huh!?

Not really. You have any pictures (images) of you around the house? Can any of them walk, talk, bug people on the net, etc.? They can't? Imagine that. Something in your iamge not able to do what you do!

Anyways what you explained boils down to might makes right. Something isn't intrinsically right or wrong. It is only right or wrong because god says so. This is as subjective (the opposite of objective) as you can get.

The things that God has said is wrong are those things which destroy persons and society as a whole. The things that God says is right strengthens persons and society as a whole. You have problem with good advice?


Tell ya what, braces. Go out there and build a universe from nothing...literally NOTHING. Create the elements, mix 'em togther, and create another earth and all that you find in this one...and do it in 6 days.

How absurd that people in the 21st century think that this stuff happened.


One day soon you will say, "How absurd that I could think this stuff did not happen!" But then it might be too late.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog


I observed that two people… who have never met each other… who come from completely different cultures and backgrounds… who do not share a common language… can share the same observation about science. They can perform the same test… without one prompting the other to do so. And if the science is valid, they see the same exact result. These two folks who will likely never meet have discovered the same thing, made the same observations and conclusions, and yet they have very little in common with each other.


[Edited by scrogdog on 04-28-2006 at 11:06 AM]

Funny. Same can be said of a Pacific Christian, a North American Christian, a South American Christian,a European Christian, an Asian Christian, and an Australian Christian who have read Scripture.

Good try, though.

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrogdog
However, I maintain that you could not have independently arrived at the idea of The God of Abraham on your own.



Read your post again. You suggested that religious beliefs are accepted as truth without examination.

That is quite different from you maintaining that someone independently arrived at an idea of God.
Of course, suggestion is a part of formulating any idea or belief. Thinking beyond the suggestion is also a part of human reason. Cognizance of an idea, whether it be religious, scientific, or anything else, does not necessarily result in any conclusions based on the idea alone.

Most people, even those of religion, examine fact, circumstance, hypotheticals and various interpretive reasoning before making conclusions.

I really resent this notion that I have seen used frequently that people of religion are narrow minded and somehow do not possess the same abilities of reason and awareness as everyone else.
It's a typical argument presented in a subtle fashion....



"Truth should not be universal and easy to see"??
What does that mean? How do you know that?

[scrogdog]

Funny. Same can be said of a Pacific Christian, a North American Christian, a South American Christian,a European Christian, an Asian Christian, and an Australian Christian who have read Scripture.

I'm not sure what the big misunderstanding is here. For Bootlen has said exactly what I have said. Which was, and I quote...

The God of Abraham could not have been INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT. You were handed a book. You were guided.

Religion is not a process like science. So, once you know the process, conclusions CAN be independently arrived it by two people with out being led there.

I am sorry for any offense. I don't mean it... honest. :) Just telling you how I see things. I am not suggesting you are somehow unintelligent... um... am I?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog

Funny. Same can be said of a Pacific Christian, a North American Christian, a South American Christian,a European Christian, an Asian Christian, and an Australian Christian who have read Scripture.

I'm not sure what the big misunderstanding is here. For Bootlen has said exactly what I have said. Which was, and I quote...

The God of Abraham could not have been INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT. You were handed a book. You were guided.



I said that? Where? I am not even sure what the above "quote" means.

[scrogdog]

I really resent this notion that I have seen used frequently that people of religion are narrow minded and somehow do not possess the same abilities of reason and awareness as everyone else.

Hmmm... well... all I can say is that there is more to it than that. As I said, it takes a special mindset to live in denial of one of the most robust areas of science that there is. That was one of the reasons I started this, was an attempt to understand the mindset.

Chill, you have not even shown me that you understand what a scientific theory IS. You still think that challenging the theory somehow disturbs the FACT that started the process to understand the FACT. I have tried to explain to you how this line of reasoning is meaningless, but you have not yet gotten it as far as I can see. That does not mean that you do not have the power of reason, though it may mean that you have chosen to consider science a joke and so do not pay all that much attention. :)

It's a free country and that is your perogative. Personally, as I said, I do not really care about you as much as I do care about all the children being told that philosophy trumps scientific fact!

[scrogdog]

The key to your post Boot is "WHO HAVE READ SCRIPTURE".

Again, I am not sure what it is about my point that is difficult to understand. You said exactly what I did more or less. lol

[acmanko]

Boot isn't the Pope, he can and will make a mistake

[scrogdog]

We are on equal ground then. :)

[acmanko]

I'd look for some flat ground, it's safer than living on the edge.

[scrogdog]

So someone does not believe then God did not pick them.

I see. Can you give me any indication, an example perhaps, of how I could have gone wrong? Or was I simply tainted at birth?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog

So someone does not believe then God did not pick them.

I see. Can you give me any indication, an example perhaps, of how I could have gone wrong? Or was I simply tainted at birth?

I think either you misunderstand what O is saying or O is incorrect in what he is saying.

God chooses us out of His foreknowledge, not out of a random choice. He has great plans for those who follow Him. Of course, thereare plans for those who do not follow Him as well. We are each free to follow or to go our own way. Each way leads to an already determined fate.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog
The key to your post Boot is "WHO HAVE READ SCRIPTURE".

Again, I am not sure what it is about my point that is difficult to understand. You said exactly what I did more or less. lol

Can you provide a thread, page, and post for the quote? I don't even know what issue you are addressing.

[big-o]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by scrogdog

So someone does not believe then God did not pick them.

I see. Can you give me any indication, an example perhaps, of how I could have gone wrong? Or was I simply tainted at birth?

I think either you misunderstand what O is saying or O is incorrect in what he is saying.

God chooses us out of His foreknowledge, not out of a random choice. He has great plans for those who follow Him. Of course, thereare plans for those who do not follow Him as well. We are each free to follow or to go our own way. Each way leads to an already determined fate.

I've often wondered. Since God knows who will believe, and he only chooses them. Then what is the point of the bible, Jesus or any of the rest of christianity?

I mean God could just make himself known to those that will believe, teach them and forget all the rest. Why have a savior if God is in fact the savior by his selection of the saved?

You don't even have a choice in the matter, you might as well do what ever you feel like doing and wait to see if God selects you. If he does he will change your life and you will start working toward God's goals and objectives.

The bible also says "not one will be lost". So, if you are one of the chosen then you don't even have the option of turning it down, not sure why anyone would, but still.

It says Jesus died for the sins of all, does that mean ALL as in everyone that has, does or ever will live? Or does that mean only the chosen?

I mean if you think about the letters written by the diciples they were always to a group of believers not to the general population. It is reasonable to think it means ALL as in all the chosen.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by big-o

I've often wondered. Since God knows who will believe, and he only chooses them. Then what is the point of the bible, Jesus or any of the rest of christianity?

He wants us to love Him out of our own free will, not robotically.

I mean God could just make himself known to those that will believe, teach them and forget all the rest. Why have a savior if God is in fact the savior by his selection of the saved?

He is not Savior by His selection of the saved. He is Savior by the election of the saved. The choice is ours to be saved or to remain condemned. God foreknew who would be saved and who would not be saved.

You don't even have a choice in the matter, you might as well do what ever you feel like doing and wait to see if God selects you. If he does he will change your life and you will start working toward God's goals and objectives.

Wrong. The choice is ours. He selects us based on His foreknowledge of our election, not on a random selection basis. We have a fully free will to choose.

The bible also says "not one will be lost". So, if you are one of the chosen then you don't even have the option of turning it down, not sure why anyone would, but still.

Could you provide book, chapter, verse on this? Maybe we could discuss this a little further. It's been a long week, it's latre, I'm tired and about to hit the sack. But I'd like to pick this up in detail when I'm "awake".

It says Jesus died for the sins of all, does that mean ALL as in everyone that has, does or ever will live? Or does that mean only the chosen?

ALL means ALL. Even those who choose to not be saved. But for a gift to be a gift, it must be given AND received. The gift is on the table. Each one must receive it to be saved. We have the "right" to refuse it.

I mean if you think about the letters written by the diciples they were always to a group of believers not to the general population. It is reasonable to think it means ALL as in all the chosen.

Not really. Some Scripture, including portions of letters, are to non-believers.

The letter to the Romans, for instance, is to non-believers as well as believers. All the Gospels are to non-believers as well as believers.The entire OT is to non-believers as well as believers.

[TB]

Good job bootlen.

Big-o what then do you do with 1 Timothy 2:3-4
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

You recognize some of the problems with Calvanism, thats good. Read the entire Bible with those questions in mind, and when a contradiction occurs, believe the Bible instead of what you've been told. It's hard, I know, but I've done it before too.

Philippians 3:15
15 ... And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you.

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
The key to your post Boot is "WHO HAVE READ SCRIPTURE".

Again, I am not sure what it is about my point that is difficult to understand. You said exactly what I did more or less. lol

Both of you described a conclusion drawn by different people from looking at the same thing.

Scrog, your people drew the same conclusion about science, because they were looking at the same thing. Same as Boot's, they drew a conclusion on religion, by looking at the same thing.

Why should one model be invalid because the Bible was involved in it?

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
The mistake here was the lack of challenge by scientific peers. Although Richard Feynman was characteristically blunt, saying, "I really don't think these guys know what they're talking about," other prominent scientists were noticeably more restrained in their comments. Freeman Dyson was quoted as saying "It's an absolutely atrocious piece of science but who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?" And Victor Weisskopf said, "The science is terrible but---perhaps the psychology is good."

But these comments were not in the spotlight. Carl Sagan appeared on Johnny Carson like 40 times. He wrote an article about Nuclear Winter in Parade Magazine. But the common person never heard the comments of Sagan’s peers. Carl Sagan did a lot for science, but he also did a lot against it in my view. Sagan was the type to first construct a media campaign, and then months later publish the scientific papers. Rather shoddy in my view.

Anyone, and I mean anyone… with a solid science education would have seen through this crap like a knife through butter. But America accepted this shinola hook, line and sinker. So, it has been shown time and time again that science education in America is a damn joke!

Eggs are bad… eggs are good… salt is bad… salt is good. Makes your head spin. However… how many people do you think simply accepted what they read in Parade magazine instead of checking out the science behind it? Eggs were never demonstrated to be bad… scientists uses logical extrapolation to come up with that, just as they did with C02 as a causal factor in global warming. It is junk science. But the common man does not know that, so all he sees is the pendulum swinging back and forth… eggs are bad… eggs are good… scientists are crazy… science is a joke.




Where was the scientific process done with the theory of evolution? when did they duplicate it. Isn't evolution merely bad science, and propaganda, beginning in pre-school?

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog

The God of Abraham could not have been INDEPENDENTLY ARRIVED AT. You were handed a book. You were guided.
Guided by Who??? God? If God dosent exist, then they were not guided, they merely assimilated information and came to a conclusion.


Originally posted by scrogdog

Religion is not a process like science. So, once you know the process, conclusions CAN be independently arrived it by two people with out being led there.

Independant of what? each other? so were the people in Bootlens model. If they are arriving at conclusions then there must be premises from which to draw a conclusion right? Where did the premises come from? a book? In your model, all your people start at the same point, "They first had to know the process. Bootlens model didn't even have that much going for it guaranteeing similar conclusions.

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
You do not see many Buddists in the West for example.


Sure do. We tend to call them Witches, mormons, freemasons, and a few other things. Catholics even teach many of the same principals in their catechism.

[sline-dawg]

http://www.tzworld.com/originalopen1.wav

[bootlen]

Originally posted by sline-dawg
http://www.tzworld.com/originalopen1.wav

Ah! So that's where you're coming from. Thanks, sline. That explains a lot.

[sline-dawg]

I hope that makes your day...... I hear that allot when in ARP.....:)

[bootlen]

Funny. Me, too! :D

[braces4impact]

Yes, I do know your position. I guess what I'm saying is that, IMO, God sees your denial and judges you accordingly.
I, on the other hand, am NOT allowed to judge you according to Jesus Christ's teachings becuase I am fallible and thus incapable of such an act of judgement.

Again, you don't need to be perfect to judge me because 1. ) You know I'm an atheist and 2. ) You believe that the bible is true so therefore you have to believe I'm foolish according to the OT verse.

Also I find your position rather a strange one that you can't pass any moral judgement on me because you are not perfect. Does this apply to other areas of the Christian ethics or just to this one situation?



Also, using the word 'fool' in proper context should be a priority. My interpretation is that the act of denying God is foolish more than the suggestion that you are a complete fool. God never gives up on anyone.
God may see many things about you that are pleasing.
You are smart, quite witty and inquisitive, yet, in the eyes of a creator, you may be lacking because you have disassociated from any higher power.

But clearly the verse say that one who denies god is a fool. Not the act of denying god being foolish. The verse is clearly ad hominem ( which is another reason it's fallacious). Apparently the author used that verse as an attempt to coerce people to accept a certain way of thinking or thus be labeled a fool. It is one method of brainwashing. Similar to the peer pressure kids use against each other. It's very effective against those afraid to use their mind and come to their own conclusions freely.



It's a wonder people believe at all with all the infighting among different denominations who think they somehow have a lasso around the correct interpretation of biblical text.

It's also strange how they all claim that the holy spirit guided each of their interpretations isn't it?

[Edited by braces4impact on 04-29-2006 at 11:40 AM]

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TB

Both of you described a conclusion drawn by different people from looking at the same thing.
EXACTLY

Scrog, your people drew the same conclusion about science, because they were looking at the same thing. Same as Boot's, they drew a conclusion on religion, by looking at the same thing.
EXACTLY

Why should one model be invalid because the Bible was involved in it?
EXACTLY


If science keeps updating information and supplying us with data, they are not concluding anything.
Furthermore, any conclusions or theories delivered by science do not disprove creation.
How does science explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics? According to that theory, everything is building up into the ultimate domain of man.
As far as I understand it, the 2nd law demonstrates that all things are breaking down and wearing out and order trends toward disorder.

Scrog;
I'm not posting on this thread to verify, acknowledge or prove anything to you. I'm responding to your posts and refuting your assessment that science deals in something more real than does religion.
It sure as hell doesn't take a scientist to verify that I have a fever any more than it takes a religious man to verify a higher power.

[Edited by chillbilly on 04-29-2006 at 02:57 PM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by TB
Where was the scientific process done with the theory of evolution?The scientific process has been applied to evolution for 150 years in the field and the laboratory.


when did they duplicate it. The first time man bred animals to bring out desireable characteristics.



Isn't evolution merely bad science, and propaganda, beginning in pre-school? Nope. It is state of the art science supported by a mountain of evidence not only from the biological field but other fields of science.

[Edited by geerair on 05-01-2006 at 01:51 AM]

[geerair]

Originally posted by chillbilly

Why should one model be invalid because the Bible was involved in it?
EXACTLYAs literature or metaphor it is fine. As science it is invalid.





]If science keeps updating information and supplying us with data, they are not concluding anything.In the case of evolution they are concluding that it is supported even more strongly. For 150 years now the evidence has supported evolution. The latest evidence has done nothing but bolster the theory of Evolution.




Furthermore, any conclusions or theories delivered by science do not disprove creation.Science absolutely destroys a literal interpretation of biblical creation.


How does science explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics? According to that theory, everything is building up into the ultimate domain of man.Who told you that? Only a quack creatonist would ever say anything that ridiculous.



As far as I understand it, the 2nd law demonstrates that all things are breaking down and wearing out and order trends toward disorder.That is the problem....you don't understand it.

[TB]

Originally posted by geerair
[B][QUOTE] Originally posted by TB
Where was the scientific process done with the theory of evolution?The scientific process has been applied to evolution for 150 years in the field and the laboratory.


when did they duplicate it. The first time man bred animals to bring out desireable characteristics.



Isn't evolution merely bad science, and propaganda, beginning in pre-school? Nope. It is state of the art science supported by a mountain of evidence not only from the biological field but other fields of science.

[Edited by TB on 05-01-2006 at 03:44 AM]

[TB]

OK, I'll try posting this way. My post wont work when I [edit].

Here we go again...:D

Micro-evolution, has been shown to be true, but that does not support the claim that macro-evolution is true. The science of animal husbandry has been practiced for millenia, and never was there a case where two parent animals were bred and the result was an animal of a different kind than the parents. The fact that the expected result of breeding two animals is the same kind of animal reveals that the science of animal husbandry itself believes macro-evolution false. A german sheperd / black lab mix is allways the result of breeding the two individual breeds, and the offspring of that breeding are allways dogs.

The scientific process you appeal to demands a proposition that is repeatable. The proposition is that two animals can breed and result in a different kind of animal that can itself, reproduce. The science of animal husbandry proves this proposition false.

[bootlen]

Bring a ladder next time, geer.

[tonys]

more red-neck-code-speak???

[scrogdog]

The Short Proof of Evolution

by
Ian Johnston

Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

[scrogdog]

I'll concede that other point that you guys seem so upset about. I don't see how you can call being mentored in to Christianity the same thing as two people that do not even know each other arriving at the same conclusion using the scientific method, but that point is not all that important to my overall point, so I'll leave it alone in favor of keeping our eye on the ball. :)

[geerair]

Originally posted by TB

Micro-evolution, has been shown to be true, but that does not support the claim that macro-evolution is true. They both rely on the same process. There is nothing preventing small changes from accumulating and producing different species. There is no barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution except time and as we all know there is and was plenty of that.



The science of animal husbandry has been practiced for millenia, and never was there a case where two parent animals were bred and the result was an animal of a different kind than the parents.Nor does evolution expect there to be. In fact if this happened it would turn evolution on its ear.



The fact that the expected result of breeding two animals is the same kind of animal reveals that the science of animal husbandry itself believes macro-evolution false.Not at all. See above.



The scientific process you appeal to demands a proposition that is repeatable.And it has been amply shown to be repeatable.


The proposition is that two animals can breed and result in a different kind of animal that can itself, reproduce. That is your proposition, not evolution's.




The science of animal husbandry proves this proposition false. In fact animal husbandry is supports evolution. It is evolution.

[bootlen]

Geer apparently doesn't know the difference between a ladder and a shovel.

[geerair]

Originally posted by bootlen
Geer apparently doesn't know the difference between a ladder and a shovel. What's to know? I hire people like you to handle that blue collar stuff.

[tonys]

muah haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa


ooooohhhh haaaaaa!!!

[bootlen]

Wow! Didn't know you are an elitist, geer. You and tony truly are a matched set.

My, my, truth and more truth eeks its way to this site.

[player89]

Ever been the only guy laughing, and then realize everyone was looking at you just like you had lost your mind?

[tonys]

Ever post 354 times on a web board and not managed to make a single 'point'.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
Ever post 354 times on a web board and not managed to make a single 'point'.

I can answer that for him. "No."

He apparently made his point seein's how you responded.

Now go ahead and laugh some more. This is fun.

[tonys]

"I hire people like you to handle that blue collar stuff."


ooooowwww haaaaaaa

hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa...!

[bootlen]

This is called verbal spooning. My guess is that they sleep that way, too.

[tonys]

but, seriously.

what's your favorite ABBA song?

'ya know, 'guys' like you tend to drift into the ABBA tip - no?

[player89]

This point even tony should be able to understand, if not then .....


.


It's even in bold for clarity.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
but, seriously.

what's your favorite ABBA song?

'ya know, 'guys' like you tend to drift into the ABBA tip - no?



:D:D I really wouldn't know. S'pose YOU tell ME.

[TB]

Probly "S.O.S."


considering their position here


:D


You guys bust me up these last couple pages


")

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
The Short Proof of Evolution

by
Ian Johnston

Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]



This is a joke right??? I havent laughed so hard since I read Boot and player in the last two pages.

[TB]

One thing I been wondering about...

If evolution is true...

For the sake of argument I will use chimps evolving into humans. I know that scientific truth isn't true any more, but hypothetically

OK, so a couple chimps had a couple decendants that mutated a bit in such a way so as they were able to survive the conditions and have other mutants that survived the conditions and elements too, and so on till man. Each mutation produced an animal that could survive the elements long enough to mutate again, but chimps still exist, so they must have been able to survive the elements without mutating, so their decendant mutants must not have been anything special since the originals survived right along with them. Fast forward to now, and the chimps still exist, man exists, but all the other mutants that were stronger couldnt survive the elements the originals survived, so those mutants must have been actually weaker than the original chimps. Evolution says that the weaker mutants were stronger, because they couldnt survive as well as the original. The more the weaker mutants mutated, the stronger they got untill the end result, that the stronger mutants died off because they wern't as strong as the weaker ancesters who still survived....


This mutants brain just siezed up.

[scrogdog]

Well, discounting the fact that you are a mutant, I thought you said you liked science and knew what it was?

Your knowledge of evolutionary theory does not even make the 101 level.

Man did not descend from apes or chimps, rather, apes, monkeees and man share a common ape-like ancestor which is now extinct.

So, you have simply chosen to view evolution as junk science, without even bothering to find out what the darn theory actually is and says! Lol - very scientific of you.

But regardless of that, I can't beleive I have to explain the difference between fact and theory YET AGAIN! lmao.

Poking a hole in evolutionary theory is meaningless. Just because we can't completely explain how something works does not mean that it does not exist! Up until last year, science could not explain how bees flew. Well now we can explain it. Think REALLY hard now, TB, before science explained it, could bees still fly?

As I have often repeated, science education in this country SUCKS, and it is showcased time and time again right here before our very eyes! Sorry if that's insulting but it is a fact.

And therein lies the basis of my little crusade. Your preacher says evolution is wrong, so it's wrong. Don't bother to actually check it out or anything, preacher said it's wrong. And this is EXACTLY what folks like you will do to today's children. Sad. More than sad... DANGEROUS!

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 10:32 AM]

[scrogdog]

This is a joke right??

Know what an ad hominim argument is TB? It is the last refuge of scoundrels who can't take up the point.

Well, you know so much about sources and science, obviously, why not take the 3 *self-evident* points that he made and show us all how they are wrong?

This should be good. Lmao.

You are like the guy who, when I showed him links on page 28 of the other Evolution topic, came back with this scientific assessment.

"I only read a few pages before realizing it was a pack of lies".

Man... you guys are good! lol

Wasn't someone asking why some folks like this are considered closed-minded and/or lacking the power of reason?

*Scrog points at TBs "scientific" post on evolution and rolls on the floor!*

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 10:30 AM]

[scrogdog]

Ok, sorry for that. I am getting away from my normal nature.

Ok... so you can't accept a LAW OF NATURE. A scientific fact.

When I say that I am trying to understand, I am not saying that we'll ever agree.

But, here's the thing... A LAW OF NATURE versus a rather small passage in the bible. Is Christianity about how long ago the Earth was created or how it was done exactly?

In other words, I do not exactly see Genesis as a DEFINING (in terms of what Christianity is all about) passage, but here some of you folks are ready to do just about anything, including ignoring a FACT, over a passage that isn't a fundamental teaching of Christianity?

Or is it? I'm no bible scholar just as it is clear that several of you aren't even middle school level scientists. :)

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 09:59 AM]

[RoBoTeq]

The only thing that Christians need to take as a fundamental fact from Genesis is the very first line; In the begining, God created.....

Details are absolutely where Satan has a great foothold. After all, do we of faith not believe that it was Satan who gave us the ability to think for ourselves and rationalize...way before we God felt we were capable of being able to do so? I tend to believe that God was right by keeping the ability to be such "rational thinkers" from us until we were ready to handle such a tool.

Do we currently demonstrate that we are able to handle the gift of rational thinking that Satan gave us?

[geerair]

Originally posted by TB
OK, so a couple chimps had a couple decendants that mutated a bit in such a way so as they were able to survive the conditions and have other mutants that survived the conditions and elements too, and so on till man. Each mutation produced an animal that could survive the elements long enough to mutate again, but chimps still exist, so they must have been able to survive the elements without mutating, so their decendant mutants must not have been anything special since the originals survived right along with them. Okay so far.


Fast forward to now, and the chimps still exist, man exists, but all the other mutants that were stronger couldnt survive the elements the originals survived, so those mutants must have been actually weaker than the original chimps.More correctly, the mutations apparently did not confer a competitive advantage that would lead to a higher reproductive success rate as the chimps.






Evolution says that the weaker mutants were stronger, because they couldnt survive as well as the original. Evolution says nothing remotely similiar to this.





The more the weaker mutants mutated, the stronger they got untill the end result, that the stronger mutants died off because they wern't as strong as the weaker ancesters who still survived....So, you have basically said nothing here, since in your scenario the mutants were actually weaker than the chimps all along. No surprise the chimps were able to outreproduce the mutants.


Your scenario is flawed by the fact that you apparently consider all mutations beneficial and that you believe that evolution favors all mutations.






This mutants brain just siezed up.Unsieze it by reading what Evolution actually says rather than what your preacher tells you it says.

[scrogdog]

Geer is right. Even though man and ape evolved from an ape-like ancestor that is now extinct, there is no violation of evolutionary principle just because a parent species might still exist along with some spin off from it.

That's because evolution is a question of adapting to an environment. And environments are not uniform across the planet. Here's a case in point; within the next 100 years, we will have permanent colonies on both the Moon and Mars. As people are born in those places, we will begin to see adaptive change due to the low G environment. However, the Earthbound humans will remain the same as they always have been.

This is also why it is silly to imagine man evolving in to some huge-headed super-smart being. :) That truly IS science fiction. Evolution is not destiny. It is simply adaptation to an environment. Not only that, but adaptive change is not always seen as "improvement". For example, I can't imagine an Earthbound athlete considering an evolutionary loss of muscle mass, as will surely happen in space, as an improvement. It's in the eye of the beholder. :)

[tonys]

exactly where does the sky-daddy fit into all of this?

and, did those drunken scribes have any insight into this when they authored 'the word of God'?

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
The only thing that Christians need to take as a fundamental fact from Genesis is the very first line; In the begining, God created.....Since there is no evidence supporting this alleged fact, it becomes unsupported conjecture.


Do we currently demonstrate that we are able to handle the gift of rational thinking that Satan gave us? If theists were able to handle rational thinking then their god would disappear in a puff of pure logic.

[player89]

Originally posted by scrogdog
However, the Earthbound humans will remain the same as they always have been.



Relative to??

[scrogdog]

Relative to the ones who will colonize the Moon and Mars!

Of course, I probably should not have said that we will "stay the same", we are constantly evolving... but we may be adapting to global warming, for example, while the colonists are adapting to low G. Different environments will yield different evolutionary paths.

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 12:36 PM]

[player89]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Relative to the ones who will colonize the Moon and Mars!

Of course, I probably should not have said that we will "stay the same", we are constantly evolving... but we may be adapting to global warming, for example, while the colonists are adapting to low G. Different environments will yield different evolutionary paths.

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 12:36 PM]

Thought that was a poor choice of words, but wanted the clarification to come from you.

[scrogdog]

It was a poor choice of words indeed. Thanks for pointing it out. :)

[chillbilly]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scrogdog
[B]Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.

How does this concept conflict with what is written?





This is the OP's topic and question.
Now it appears he is professing to have all the answers and has turned the thread into yet another science disproves creation thread. To assert that anyone is "right" or wrong as it pertains to theory shows about as much ignorance as it does arrogance.


The concept of evolution (mutation) does not conflict with what is written in biblical text any more than it conflicts with what is written in science textbooks.

[scrogdog]

That was not the purpose of the thread. As I have said many times, the purpose of this thread is to try and understand the mindset of a person who would flatly deny a FACT.

So far, all you seem to have done is to get offended. Of course, practically none of you can stop yourselves from laughing at science, so you might want to look in a mirror there Shell Answer Man.

[chillbilly]

Well, I'd suggest you post your topic with some clarity.
First, you posted....

Let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that God set the universe in motion long, long ago... KNOWING that man would eventually evolve in to his image.
How does this concept conflict with what is written?



Now, you post....

That was not the purpose of the thread. As I have said many times, the purpose of this thread is to try and understand the mindset of a person who would flatly deny a FACT.



Huh? What fact? You started a thread with the question asked.....How does this concept conflict with what is written?
What "writings" are you referring to??
Biblical text, scientific text, WHAT?
When you get an answer that does not satisfy your version of reality and what is fact, you abandon your supposed "search for the mindset of a person" and start on your quest to dictate what is fact and what is supposition.
How could someone NOT be offended?
You're not looking for anyone's "mindset".
You're looking to refute an opinion that YOU originally asked for.

[scrogdog]

Well Chilly, it's like this. When someone gives an answer that I do not understand, I might say what about this fact or that fact. Why does that not affect what you are saying is what I am asking when I point these things out.

Why you would consider this out of bounds is beyond me.

So far, none of you have really answered WHY Genesis MUST be taken literally, instead you whine about how offended you are while in the next sentence you rip science. Hehehe... whatever. Frankly, I never thought the search for truth would be so convoluted or contain as much tap dancing as I've seen here.

However, one thing is continually made clear. To suggest that evolution is only a mutation shows the depth of your knowledge on the subject. You must be like TB then. You see fit to cast doubt on things you have never even read!

*chuckle*

[chillbilly]

Oh yada, yada. I've heard all the "you've never picked up a science book BS before". It's funny how atheists presume to know the facts and are the only people in the world to have researched scientific theory yet they still can't prove anything...only provide what they feel are logical explanations. Whatever. You're not objective and you're the one whining as far as I can see.
What part of the answers that you have been given do you not understand? It's more of a problem of acceptance than understanding for you and that's your problem.
You still never answered my questions so I'll answer yours as originally posted....


Creation DOES NOT conflict in ANY way with what is written, provided that what is written has been verified to be more than "plausible".

[scrogdog]

Well, you have probably heard it before because the content of your posts is a pretty clear indication. Of course, that simply puts you in the same boat with over 50% of America. And the problem stretches far wider than evolution vs creation.

Just for fun Chilly, the three truths that are self-evident from the "Short Proof of Evolution"... on what path do those data points lead you and why? Or tell us why you would invalidate those observations.

Asking for proof of evolution is akin to asking for proof of gravity. What would convince you? Again, if you had a science clue, you would understand that there is no need for a theory to prove anything. All science begins with OBSERVATION... such as the three observations discussed in "The Short Proof of Evolution". As the man said, there is no other reasonable course given the observations that we have.

There is no need to prove an observation. Again, if you understood science, you would understand that science is about explaining facts... not attempting to prove that the initial observation exists. In fact, I still cannot understand why you can't see that this is a non sequitur argument. Rather silly in fact. Again, does the theory of gravitation attempt to prove to you that gravity exists?

That I have to explain science 101 to you Chilly.... sort of tells me something.

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-02-2006 at 06:42 PM]

[TB]

Scrog,

I began my question with this statement:



For the sake of argument I will use chimps evolving into humans. I know that scientific truth isn't true any more, but hypothetically


I know this model that followed is not scientifically true now, but it is what I was taught in hi school, or what I remember anyways. I was attempting to address the question of what happened to the graduations of evolution from the original--which exists today, to the result--which exists today, when the path does not exist today. Geer caught my meaning.

As I've said before, it takes more than a couple sarcastic comments to offend me, so don't worry about it, but thanks anyway. At this point in my life, I'm real sick and tired of people who draw conclusions from assumtions based on ignorance, so I took your original post on this thread as a breath of fresh air. I appreciated it, and will continue to try and address it till you are satisfied, but bear with me a bit, our different paradigms cause the communication problem I think.

Yes, science is one of my intrests, and some sciences approach passions, but some sciences don't hold my intrest as much. I like physics, but the science of astronomy is not one of my passions, though I recognise its importance.

[Edited by TB on 05-04-2006 at 03:56 AM]

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog


So far, none of you have really answered WHY Genesis MUST be taken literally,

I see the Bible as a collection of 'books', compiled together for the purpose of communicating to us, something that God wanted us to know.

In general, the entire book points to Jesus. It does this with statements about Him, metaphores and prophesy about Him, and situations that demonstrate His character as God. In turn, the person of Jesus demonstates the character of God. The entire Book then, is God revealing to us who He is, who we are, and what He has done to remedy that situation of who we are. The evidences that compel me to accept the Bible as true are a different argument, but assuming for now that it is true, we have a story being communicated to us, first hand by the Being who would know--the one who was there.

The understanding that the Bible is Gods communication to us, leads me to take it literally (Genesis too), just like if I was talking to a buddy about what bait works best when fishing a lake he would know better than I would. Jesus validated Genesis when He said, in Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ Jesus took it literally, so why shouldn't I?


This, of course, rests on who we choose to appeal to as the authority on the subject, the God of the Bible, who was there, or the speculation of man who wasn't. Since you claim that evolution is a fact, despite our lack of understanding of how it happened, then it must be the case that I don't need to understand how it happened to choose to believe evolution is not a fact, but speculation.

Without getting tangled up in the evidence for or against either philosophy, does this make sence?

[TB]

Originally posted by chillbilly
...When you get an answer that does not satisfy your version of reality and what is fact, you abandon your supposed "search for the mindset of a person" and start on your quest to dictate what is fact and what is supposition.

How could someone NOT be offended?



Because it isn't our message.

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog
Just for fun Chilly, the three truths that are self-evident from the "Short Proof of Evolution"... on what path do those data points lead you and why? Or tell us why you would invalidate those observations.




Originally posted by scrogdog

Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup)self refuting argument

If the statement that life must come from life, is true, then the first life form must have had its origin from something living



Originally posted by scrogdog

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others.
Does not disqualify a creator of the two individual life forms


Originally posted by scrogdog

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones This statement assumes evolution is true in order to "prove" that evolution is true. Thats called, 'begging the question', and is a logical fallacy.


Originally posted by scrogdog
The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable ...
...untill it meets a logical assailant.

[scrogdog]

Since you claim that evolution is a fact, despite our lack of understanding of how it happened, then it must be the case that I don't need to understand how it happened to choose to believe evolution is not a fact, but speculation.

Without getting tangled up in the evidence for or against either philosophy, does this make sence?

Well, no it doesn’t, to me. Because now you are asking me to NOT believe what I can see with my eyes. You are basically saying that we can observe something, but unless we understand how it works, that the observation is not valid? For example, my earlier point about bees. Could bees fly before we explained it? Observation would seem to indicate that they could. :) Is the universe here, even though we can’t completely explain its origins? Is global warming here, even though we do not completely understand the hows and whys of it? Did gravity change at all when Einstein modified the explanation of it?


If the statement that life must come from life, is true, then the first life form must have had its origin from something living

Regardless of the origins of all life on Earth, we can only make rockets that fly to the moon and perform research that results in a cure for a disease IF we trust what we observe. Life operates under several guidelines and principles, and if we had in our history chosen to ignore what we see with our eyes, then there would be no medical science, no moon landing and no ability for us to be having this discussion on the internet. If you will note, the author does not deny the possibility of a life coming from space, whether we were seeded or had some key elements arrive on a comet (which in turn began a reaction)… whatever. Again, evolution is not really concerned with the origin of life… nothing in evolutionary theory attempts to show or demonstrate where that first simple life form came from, could have been from space, or the hand of god. If it is either of those things, than the principle of life from life is not invalidated.

But even so, the author’s further point is that even if you want to go with primordial soup, none of its proponents suggest that a complex multi-cellular life form can come from a spontaneous mix and combustion of chemicals. Such a complex life form would have HAD to have evolved from lower forms.

Since neither of us know whether or not God placed that first life form, or whether we were seeded by an alien race, or had elements for the reaction arrive on a comet… the only thing we agree on is that we do not know. So, let’s examine what we DO know, and in fact has been relentlessly validated over the last 150 years. Life comes from life. :)


This statement assumes evolution is true in order to "prove" that evolution is true. Thats called, 'begging the question', and is a logical fallacy.

Not quite. Evolution is the conclusion, not the observation. The observation is the layers of strata, and the fossil evidence… and how that evidence is seen each and every time it is uncovered. We OBSERVE very simple forms of life a very long time ago… but more complex forms in more recent layers. That alone is nothing if we were to determine that life can just somehow spawn on its own without coming from other life. So no, evolution is NOT assumed just by making this observation alone.

Note that all we are concerned with in the most basic form of this discussion is where the more complex forms of life came from.

Now, there is only one place this discussion can logically go at this point. The idea that God has created an Earth that *appears* old, but really isn’t. He created an Earth that *appears* to have had dinosaurs long ago, but really didn’t. He created it in such a way that the fossils were not all mixed up, but showed a clear progression. Indeed, it would only take a single genuine find that goes against established principle to toss evolution out the window.

I can’t for the life of me get a handle on this. I mean, countless times when I have these discussions, believers say to me “I can’t accept evolution because it makes God out to be a liar”. However, in the next breath, they trot out this piece of “logic”. :)

Isn’t it true that if you are the one that is correct, that it was God himself which gave me the tools and the ability to question? God gave me the ability to doubt and to reason, and not only that, but he is perfect. So, he knew what we humans would think of the Earth he created. He knew that science would show us these things. He knew that we would use science to come as far as we have with technology. So, now that we have progressed this far to ask the question… using science and observation… all of a sudden he is more or less going to pull the rug out from under science? To what end?

Well, the only thing that makes philosophical sense is that science is some sort of test. Or religion is. So, god may be testing us, to see who is willing to disbelieve their eyes and instead accept his so-called word. Of course, if one accepts this premise, then one also must accept that the reverse might be true. That, in fact, it is religion that is the actual test… to see, again, who is willing to disbelieve their eyes and accept something that can’t be demonstrated. Maybe God is testing to see who can be swayed from the facts with non-facts. For whatever reason. :)

[Edited by scrogdog on 05-04-2006 at 12:35 PM]

[scrogdog]

In general, the entire book points to Jesus. It does this with statements about Him, metaphores and prophesy about Him, and situations that demonstrate His character as God. In turn, the person of Jesus demonstates the character of God. The entire Book then, is God revealing to us who He is, who we are, and what He has done to remedy that situation of who we are. The evidences that compel me to accept the Bible as true are a different argument, but assuming for now that it is true, we have a story being communicated to us, first hand by the Being who would know--the one who was there.

So, God "breathed" and gave us his word. Then man took that word... and wrote it down.

But wait a sec... we know that once man is in the mix that errors occur.

Isn't it true that since the early forms of the bible, that sections have been removed and others added? So, what happened to God's word, then? Has God breathed on us once again to correct himself? Or has he breathed on us again because man did not properly understand the first time?

Well, the former can't be true, God is perfect. But the latter also seems implausible... again a perfect God knows man. He knows that if we screw up his words once we can do it again. So, what value do these words actually have then, given that humans making mistakes is rather our lot in life? :)

See how complex this gets?

My OP was a suggestion as to how things could be approached to solve several issues. I see what you are saying, but my question is still unaswered from a fundamental standpoint.

You know... people often say... "even if I am wrong... so what? Jesus and the bible have caused me to lead a better life".

So, I can only assume that the bottom line is the type of life you lead.

Let me ask you TB, *IF* you could consider the bible as a book of stories and parables that teach us the *intent* of God... do you think you would somehow be UNABLE (just because the bible is not taken literally) to live the good Christian life that the bible suggests? Can't you learn lessons from the bible whether or not evolution is true? Isn't your faith unshakable enough to withstand ANY assailing of its base principles?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by tonys
exactly where does the sky-daddy fit into all of this?

and, did those drunken scribes have any insight into this when they authored 'the word of God'?

Biblically, Satan is the ruler of the sky. So, do you want to know where Satan fits into all of this? I suggest you ask those who represent him....try geer and braces.

Earlier documents have proven that scribes, drunk or not, did not alter the content of earlier Biblical writings. Therefore, it is innacurate to state that these scribes "authored" the word of God.

[geerair]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

So, do you want to know where Satan fits into all of this? I suggest you ask those who represent him....try geer and braces. Yeah, have your people call my people, we'll do lunch and I'll clue you in.

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog

Isn't it true that since the early forms of the bible, that sections have been removed and others added? It is true that Mormons claim that is true, but the evidence does not support it. The copies of the Bible we have today, are virtually unchanged from the earliest writings we have found. The septuagint copy found in the 'dead sea scrolls', buried/hidden arround 200 BC says the same thing we have today, and was validated by Jesus with His many quotes from it, and by Paul in Acts 17:11. Never once did they correct the text of the OT they had then, only the understanding of it as it was taught by the Pharisees, and they did so by quoting it, such as the Matthew passage I quoted a couple posts ago. One of the interesting things about the Bible is that you can 'loose' 1,2,3,5,...books from it, and it would still say the same thing. One of the practical advantages to us now, of the legalism of the Scribes, was that they treated their scriptures, and the copies they made with such rigidity so as to make sure each page of each copy made was identicle to the one being copied, to the extent that if they made three errors on a page, they threw it away and copied the page over. They counted the characters on each page copied to ensure accuracy.


Originally posted by scrogdog

Let me ask you TB, *IF* you could consider the bible as a book of stories and parables that teach us the *intent* of God... do you think you would somehow be UNABLE (just because the bible is not taken literally) to live the good Christian life that the bible suggests? Can't you learn lessons from the bible whether or not evolution is true? Isn't your faith unshakable enough to withstand ANY assailing of its base principles?

I can't live the 'good christian life,' as it is now, how could I do it equal or better if I had a more liberal view of the Bible? The Bible isn't a rule book, or play book that shows us how to live, it's a mirror that shows us what we do not look like, and are supposed to. The commandment part that is. The part about Gods grace shows us what we look like clothed in Him. I'm still me though, the guy who does not look like the picture in the law, as christians, we are only declared right with God in this life. If I can't believe the creation account after Jesus said it was true, then I would be placeing myself as a higher authority than Jesus, my observation higher than His say so, and placeing trust in me instead of Him. I never said, or implied that we can't believe our observations, but I do think we need to be carefull about our interpretations of those observations. David Copperfield is a master at slight of hand, but he wouldnt have the carreer he has now, if our interpretations of our observations were allways true.

The purpose of the Christain faith is not that we would have a philosophy to govern our behavior, or even so we get to heaven, although those are some results of it. The purpose is that we experience the God who chose to reveal Himself to us. By trusting Him and what He says, we experience the salvation He won for us--to the degree we trust Him--in this life.

[Edited by TB on 05-05-2006 at 05:26 AM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by scrogdog

In general, the entire book points to Jesus. It does this with statements about Him, metaphores and prophesy about Him, and situations that demonstrate His character as God. In turn, the person of Jesus demonstates the character of God. The entire Book then, is God revealing to us who He is, who we are, and what He has done to remedy that situation of who we are. The evidences that compel me to accept the Bible as true are a different argument, but assuming for now that it is true, we have a story being communicated to us, first hand by the Being who would know--the one who was there.

So, God "breathed" and gave us his word. Then man took that word... and wrote it down.

But wait a sec... we know that once man is in the mix that errors occur.

Isn't it true that since the early forms of the bible, that sections have been removed and others added? So, what happened to God's word, then? Has God breathed on us once again to correct himself? Or has he breathed on us again because man did not properly understand the first time?

Well, the former can't be true, God is perfect. But the latter also seems implausible... again a perfect God knows man. He knows that if we screw up his words once we can do it again. So, what value do these words actually have then, given that humans making mistakes is rather our lot in life? :)

See how complex this gets?

My OP was a suggestion as to how things could be approached to solve several issues. I see what you are saying, but my question is still unaswered from a fundamental standpoint.

You know... people often say... "even if I am wrong... so what? Jesus and the bible have caused me to lead a better life".

So, I can only assume that the bottom line is the type of life you lead.

Let me ask you TB, *IF* you could consider the bible as a book of stories and parables that teach us the *intent* of God... do you think you would somehow be UNABLE (just because the bible is not taken literally) to live the good Christian life that the bible suggests? Can't you learn lessons from the bible whether or not evolution is true? Isn't your faith unshakable enough to withstand ANY assailing of its base principles?



There are some misconceptions here that need to be addressed. First off, we need to keep in mind that there are two Bibles. For clarity, I prefer to refer to the Hebrew Testament as the Bible and the New Testament as The New Testament. Then, by calling the Bible either the Hebrew Testament or the Old Testament, we distinguish whether it is being interpreted by Jewish standards or by Christian standards.

While it is common for Christians to refer to both the Old Testament and the New Testament together as the Bible, for study purposes that take us outside of Christianity, it is better to refer to the two collections of writings seperately.

The Bible, which Christians refer to as the Old Testament, states essentially the same thing whether it is a Jewish version or a Christian version. While this collection of writings have the same content, these writings are viewed by Christians and Jews very differently. The difference in how the Bible is viewed is so stark that Jews consider the Bible, as organized by the Jewish faith, to be a holy icon very much the way Muslems consider the Qu'ran a holy icon. Jews do not have such a regard for the Christian Old Testament, which is essentially the same exact book.

Only Christians see the passages of the Old Testament leading mankind to Jesus Christ. Jews read the Bible as referring to a Saviour who has yet to come. For this reason, Jews do not see any connection between the Bible and the New Testament.

While the individual books that combined make up the Bible were composed seperately over hundreds of years by different authors, the Bible itself was not put together as the book we know today until the first century.

Feeling that their faith had been hijacked by the Jews who accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the prophesied Saviour, the Jewish religious authorities decided they better formalize the books they believed to be devine in one accepted volume. Etymologically, "bible" simply means "book".

So, the Jewish religious authorities got together and picked the most relevant books from their faith to be canonized (accepted) into one book. There were many writings that did not pass this canon for various reasons. Mostly, the reasons were that those writings did not pass the Jewish test of having been spiritually inspired but rather more the thoughts of man.

The writings that make up the New Testament are a bit different. When Jesus Christ was first crusafide and ressurected, His followers took Him to mean that the end of time would occur in their lifetime. When it became apparent that they misunderstood Jesus, they began to write testimonials, hisorical diaries and letters to document what they had witnessed and were teaching. These writings would not be considered for canonization for a couple of hundred years.

During the time between Jesus's life on earth and the compilation of writings that make up the New Testament, many other writings were composed. So when it came time to compile a singular book of writings, all of the Christian leaders were brought together to decide which of the writings were accurate and which ones embellished or were more the thoughts of man rather then documentation of the accounts of Jesus.

So, there was a couple of hundred years between the canonization of the Bible and the New Testament. Both books used writings compiled by religious scholars of the time to descern which writings should represent the faith and which were more from man's concept of the events. This is where the later written books that keep appearing come into play. They simply were dismissed by the religious experts of the time as not being from God, but rather being extensions of known events embellished by man long after the events had occured.

The most famous of these writings are the Coptic Gospels which were found in Egypt. These writings are written in an Arabic language and originate in the second century. While these writings are very important historical testimony as to how persons of the Christo/Jewish faith thought during the second century, they were not considered to be accurate depictions of the persons who they were about. At least, there was no proof of anything that was written in these so called gospels.

Very basically, other then a group of books referred to as the apocrophy, the writings of todays Bible and New Testament are accurate to what was published in the first century.

[TB]

Originally posted by scrogdog


I can’t for the life of me get a handle on this. I mean, countless times when I have these discussions, believers say to me “I can’t accept evolution because it makes God out to be a liar”.

I agree, this statement kind of turns my stomach too, when used as a reason. Though it is true, it should be understood as the result of our decision, not used as a reason for it. IMO

Every day, science makes new discoveries. That fact alone proves the conclusion science drew last week was not based on all the evidence, therefore it cannot be completely 100% relied on to be absolutely true. I'm not appealing to ignorance here either, by asserting that because we dont know, that therefore we can't know, but we need to leave room for other possibilities.

Take the proposition that The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. Though it is a true statement, it does not lead to the conclusion that evolution is true, as the only possibility. Though that conclusion is one possibility, another one is that God created some living creatures very different from some others. An absolute conclusion can't be drawn if there are other possibilities that havent been proven false yet, and it is impossible to prove that God dosen't exist.

[scrogdog]

Thanks for the great replies. However, I am out for the weekend... so I'll be back with a carefully considered reply next week. :)

As for now... golf! What a great day outside here in Boston!

[TB]

One other think-about-it I'll just throw into the mix:

How would you describe 'love' without useing descriptions of its resulting actions and behaviors? I don't think I could, and I think if the law portion of the Bible was viewed not as a laundry list of do's and don't do's, but an attempt at communicating to us the state-of-being of 'love' that is behind those actions prompting them, then I think what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-40 makes more sence:
37 Jesus replied: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”


What Paul said is still true, that the law is there to show us our sin, (Rom 3:20) but not because of what we do or don't do, because of the state-of-being of 'love' that we don't have---and Jesus can reinstate in us.

[geerair]

Originally posted by TB
Every day, science makes new discoveries. That fact alone proves the conclusion science drew last week was not based on all the evidence, therefore it cannot be completely 100% relied on to be absolutely true. 100%? No. However Evolution has stood for 150 years despite rigorous scientific scrutiny. In fact Evolution has been further strengthened by new discoveries in genetics, molecular biology, paleontology and other field of science. Science is as certain about evolution as any other scientific theory.



I'm not appealing to ignorance here either, by asserting that because we dont know, that therefore we can't know, but we need to leave room for other possibilities.I agree. However there is no competeing theory that can explain bio-diversity even remotely as well as Evolution.




Take the proposition that The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. Though it is a true statement, it does not lead to the conclusion that evolution is true, as the only possibility.True enough, but I would feel safe in betting the ranch on it. All of the evidence supports evolution while other possibilities have negligible evidence supporting them.


Though that conclusion is one possibility, another one is that God created some living creatures very different from some others. The fossil record does not support this interpretation.

But then maybe your god did create different creatures and fiddled the evidence to make it look like Evolution.



An absolute conclusion can't be drawn if there are other possibilities that havent been proven false yet, and it is impossible to prove that God dosen't exist. It is also impossible to prove that Larry the Space Lizard doesn't exsist.

Science has however shown that god is not necessary.

[chillbilly]

Correct. The main reason for our existence is founded in love. God's love of his creation and his will for us to love each other and him.


Scrogdog posted....
But wait a sec... we know that once man is in the mix that errors occur.

Of course human flaw is in the mix. So what?
Human flaw and inaccuracies are as prevalent in science as they are in religion. That only reinforces the fact that intellect and reason can only take you so far.
Thus, many have faith in God and the belief that love is why we are here. They simply cannot justify any other determination after reading the bible and gaining spiritual enlightenment.
It's amazing that atheists can reason with themselves about the premise of right and wrong and justify what is good or bad in society, yet they see no origins of good and evil in a spiritual way.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by geerair

Evolution has stood for 150 years despite rigorous scientific scrutiny. In fact Evolution has been further strengthened by new discoveries in genetics, molecular biology, paleontology and other field of science. Science is as certain about evolution as any other scientific theory.


Ppffffttthahahahahahahaha! You mean like the pig's bone from MO and the other dozens of hoaxes?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You are so wrong!

[chillbilly]

Originally posted by geerair

Evolution has stood for 150 years despite rigorous scientific scrutiny. In fact Evolution has been further strengthened by new discoveries in genetics, molecular biology, paleontology and other field of science. Science is as certain about evolution as any other scientific theory.
__________________________________________________ ________

THEORY;
1- an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
2- abstract thought or contemplation
3- geer believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

CERTAIN;
1- having no doubts about something
2- definitely known, fixed, or settled
3- able to be relied on

You see geer, science explains things an does not deal in certainties, thus we have the word theory as referenced by science boy.

Asserting that science is certain about a theory is a contradiction. Of course, saying science is AS CERTAIN about theory is like saying nothing at all.

[Edited by chillbilly on 05-08-2006 at 09:29 PM]

[acmanko]

I just can't figure out why, if God created everything,He created weeds. Talk about evolving, the pesky sprouts just appear. Pulling weeds from flower beds and vegetable gardens, somehow doesnt fit into the bigger picture