right and wrong in the bible [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

cuppajoe_9

04-02-2007, 12:39 AM

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but Jesus does talk occasionally about how in certain situations it is ok to ignore the commandments:

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

-Matthew 12:1-6Ha! Jesus sure showed those uppity pharisees a thing or two! (Translation: God would rather have you work on the Sabbath than starve.)

I don't think very many reasons are given. When they are, they usually just go back to 'God said so':
And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

-Leviticus 19:12-18Yeah, we get it God, you're the Lord.

Edit: I am by no means an authority on this, so you would be wise to wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about comes along before you take this as absolute fact.

amanda_isabel

04-02-2007, 01:59 AM

i can't really give any exact quotes, but yes, the bible does explain why such action is right and wrong, in paragraphs, in jesus' parables. reasons are everywhere in thr bible, and most of them can be found in memory verses... you might want to try to look up those memory veres in children's books and stuff, guzman.

billyjack

04-02-2007, 11:14 AM

i think the "why's" of the bible look like this at the nitty gritty level: if your instinct says do it, then don't do it and vice-versa (kind of like the categorical imperative). reason for this is that going against instinct is a good way to die (find yourself in heaven) a lot quicker than if you followed your instincts. so the "why" behind "right" is getting to go to a magical paradise. and the "why" behind "wrong" is then you'll have to stay in hell longer--hell being earth.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 03:54 PM

My question is, does it also mention why some things are right and some are wrong? Eg. why is it wrong to steal, commit adultery, kill, etc. Im pretty sure it does, however ive never heard anyone mention it so if perhaps someone here could enlighten me I'd appreciate it since im too lazy to read it on my own.

Interesting. Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.

In terms of the other comments here: God is the establisher of Right and Wrong. Contrary to the misguided idea that Right and Wrong are arbitrary concepts that God has decided upon, the reality is that Right/Wrong (Good/Evil) are products of things as they relate to the character of God (because the Bible establishes that God has a personality). As such, things that are in accordance with the character of God (love, justice, compassion, mercy, selflessness, sacrifice, charity, hope, forgiveness, kindness, etc) are good; those things at odds with the character of God (selfishness, manipulation, jealousy, lust, pride, arrogance, hatred, envy, theft, etc) are bad. If doing what God calls "bad" seems to be "natural" (which is often an argument I hear here), that is because human nature is inherently sinful - it is drawn to the "fleshly" things of life because it's "lower" nature (i.e. the "fleshly" or "carnal" nature) is (due to Adam & Eve's sin) at odds with our spiritual nature (the part of us that knows when we do wrong - even if we claim to not believe in God). Most things that the Bible calls "sin" (or bad) do something destructive - either to the person internally in terms of his soul/heart/emotions, or to his relationships with others. That's the short answer.

billyjack

04-02-2007, 04:22 PM

Interesting. Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.

As such, things that are in accordance with the character of God (love, justice, compassion, mercy, selflessness, sacrifice, charity, hope, forgiveness, kindness, etc) are good; those things at odds with the character of God (selfishness, manipulation, jealousy, lust, pride, arrogance, hatred, envy, theft, etc) are bad.

If doing what God calls "bad" seems to be "natural" (which is often an argument I hear here), that is because human nature is inherently sinful - it is drawn to the "fleshly" things of life because it's "lower" nature (i.e. the "fleshly" or "carnal" nature) is (due to Adam & Eve's sin) at odds with our spiritual nature (the part of us that knows when we do wrong - even if we claim to not believe in God). Most things that the Bible calls "sin" (or bad) do something destructive - either to the person internally in terms of his soul/heart/emotions, or to his relationships with others. That's the short answer.

1) i've said this to you before. "good and jesus" is god's right hand. "sin and the devil" are his left. my guess is that he loves each hand as much as the other, and needs each as much as the other. if it was the way you say it, god should cut off his left hand and be done with it. he's all poweful, so he ought to be able to do this. . .but he doesn't: he needs his left as much as he needs his right (the yin needs the yang). you can't mold the world like an artist molds clay with just one hand, you need both.

2) what you call fleshy and bad and lower nature is the instinct to live. what you call spirit and higher nature is "the will to cruelty turned back upon ourselves--" (N)--ie..the will to death or nothingness.

why would god create life and then choose it to wish for death? i think he'd choose life to be lived, not in some distant palace in the sky, but right here, right now, on earth.

cuppajoe_9

04-02-2007, 04:53 PM

Question: if I posted in the Hamlet forum "I'd like to know the main themes of Hamlet but I'm too lazy to read it on my own," what kind of responses do you think I'd get? Just a question.Hamlet is about 100 pages. The Bible is about 70 books.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 04:55 PM

1) i've said this to you before. "good and jesus" is god's right hand. "sin and the devil" are his left. my guess is that he loves each hand as much as the other, and needs each as much as the other. if it was the way you say it, god should cut off his left hand and be done with it. he's all poweful, so he ought to be able to do this. . .but he doesn't: he needs his left as much as he needs his right (the yin needs the yang). you can't mold the world like an artist molds clay with just one hand, you need both.

God does not "need" the Devil and did not create him. Your idea is either gnostic or manichean (can't remember which) and not part of Christian theology. If God allows evil to exist for the time being, then He has a good reason to do so (whether we in our limited perspectives understand His reasoning or not).

2) what you call fleshy and bad and lower nature is the instinct to live. what you call spirit and higher nature is "the will to cruelty turned back upon ourselves--" (N)--ie..the will to death or nothingness.

No - you have swirled together our selfish human nature (which is based on conscious choices we make) with instinctual behavior (which is not necessarily under our control). I speak of those things which we have power over via our freewill and ability to choose. What I call our "spiritual nature" is the part of us that still longs to be with God and serve Him.

why would god create life and then choose it to wish for death? i think he'd choose life to be lived, not in some distant palace in the sky, but right here, right now, on earth.

Who wishes for death? I don't understand what you mean here.

Redzeppelin

04-02-2007, 05:00 PM

Hamlet is about 100 pages. The Bible is about 70 books.

I'm well aware of that. I just made an observation.

billyjack

04-03-2007, 09:53 PM

God does not "need" the Devil and did not create him. Your idea is either gnostic or manichean (can't remember which) and not part of Christian theology. If God allows evil to exist for the time being, then He has a good reason to do so (whether we in our limited perspectives understand His reasoning or not).

No - you have swirled together our selfish human nature (which is based on conscious choices we make) with instinctual behavior (which is not necessarily under our control). I speak of those things which we have power over via our freewill and ability to choose. What I call our "spiritual nature" is the part of us that still longs to be with God and serve Him.

Who wishes for death? I don't understand what you mean here.

1) he has a good reason to do so? that's an unacceptable answer. why wouldnt jerry's girlfriend on Seinfeld tell him why she wouldnt try a slice of pie? because she had good reason to do so? that's not a good eneogh reason. jerry saw this as crazy. i agree.

2 & 3) free will? to quote someone who writes better than I --N--, "the concept of "sin" invented along with the torture instrament that belongs with it, the concept of "free will," in order to confuse the instincts, to make mistrust of
the instincts second nature."

the part of you that is poetically called a "spiritual nature" that longs to be with god and serve him? does being with god mean dying and being with him? if so, then you are longing for death? why?

but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you mean you want to be with god in a figurative sense--act morally, be selfless, church, offerings, going against instinctive drives, ect... so "spiritual nature" is anti-nature. its the part of you that is going against the way of things, against reality. in the sense that morality is the counterconcept of life. reason being, morality accords to the "beyond" in order to devaluate the only world there is, this one. so this "spiritual nature" is your drive to become a spirit, become deader quicker. from an evolutionary standpoint, this trait might not be successful in the broad scheme of survival

Redzeppelin

04-03-2007, 10:06 PM

1) he has a good reason to do so? that's an unacceptable answer. why wouldnt jerry's girlfriend on Seinfeld tell him why she wouldnt try a slice of pie? because she had good reason to do so? that's not a good eneogh reason. jerry saw this as crazy. i agree.

Equating a sitcom plot with the creator of the universe is absurd. If you can't comprehend the idea of a Being capable of creating the reality that you attribute to other factors, just admit it - but don't bother with silly comparisons. Any being capable of creating everything that IS is certainly allowed to have his reasons that you and I may not get.

2 & 3) free will? to quote someone who writes better than I --N--, "the concept of "sin" invented along with the torture instrament that belongs with it, the concept of "free will," in order to confuse the instincts, to make mistrust of
the instincts second nature."

Sin is not a "concept" - it is a reality at the root of humanity's problems. Whoever your writer is, you flatter him to say he (she?) writes better than you: I found him/her just as confusing and difficult to follow as I do some of your statements.

the part of you that is poetically called a "spiritual nature" that longs to be with god and serve him? does being with god mean dying and being with him? if so, then you are longing for death? why?

No - I happen to like being alive. To long for death would be to disrespect the gift of life that God has bestowed upon me.

but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you mean you want to be with god in a figurative sense--act morally, be selfless, church, offerings, going against instinctive drives, ect... so "spiritual nature" is anti-nature. its the part of you that is going against the way of things, against reality. in the sense that morality is the counterconcept of life. reason being, morality accords to the "beyond" in order to devaluate the only world there is, this one. so this "spiritual nature" is your drive to become a spirit, become deader quicker. from an evolutionary standpoint, this trait might not be successful in the broad scheme of survival

You make many statements based on presuppositions that you have not adequately clarified for people outside of your head to follow. You have not made clear in the least how morality is "against" life in any coherent manner; nor have you explained satisfactorily how morality "devalues" the world. You cannot keep throwing out these statements without making clear why you make such distinctions if you expect anybody to understand you. Or are you being vague on purpose?

billyjack

04-03-2007, 10:52 PM

Equating a sitcom plot with the creator of the universe is absurd. If you can't comprehend the idea of a Being capable of creating the reality that you attribute to other factors, just admit it - but don't bother with silly comparisons. Any being capable of creating everything that IS is certainly allowed to have his reasons that you and I may not get.

Sin is not a "concept" - it is a reality at the root of humanity's problems. Whoever your writer is, you flatter him to say he (she?) writes better than you: I found him/her just as confusing and difficult to follow as I do some of your statements.

No - I happen to like being alive. To long for death would be to disrespect the gift of life that God has bestowed upon me.

You make many statements based on presuppositions that you have not adequately clarified for people outside of your head to follow. You have not made clear in the least how morality is "against" life in any coherent manner; nor have you explained satisfactorily how morality "devalues" the world. You cannot keep throwing out these statements without making clear why you make such distinctions if you expect anybody to understand you. Or are you being vague on purpose?

1) what's wrong with analogizing sitcoms or fictions to comprehend fictions?

2) the writer was nietzche. i thought "N" meant nietzche, sorry i'm new. you flatter me to compare me with him. however, i don't think its a matter of my vagueness that entangles my words. i'm not a good writer, this is true, i'm more of a reader. but i think my words are entangling because they describe it how it is, whereas yours describe it how it should be. either i'm all messed up or most of the world is.

3) yet you talk of heaven. "speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth." (thoreau)

4) living is to be content with life. to take a spinozian view on life: "to look at existence and see perfection." your morality leaves people always wanting to change, to be better--which is basically saying, "how things are right now isnt right." this is calling existence imperfect. i refuse to do this. for me, that isnt living.

Robert Jordan

04-04-2007, 12:29 PM

One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.
Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

Redzeppelin

04-04-2007, 07:37 PM

1) what's wrong with analogizing sitcoms or fictions to comprehend fictions?

Because your analogizing on a certain degree of ignorance (because you don't know the Bible/God is fiction) so therefore, those of us who know better see your analogy as false.

2) the writer was nietzche. i thought "N" meant nietzche, sorry i'm new. you flatter me to compare me with him. however, i don't think its a matter of my vagueness that entangles my words. i'm not a good writer, this is true, i'm more of a reader. but i think my words are entangling because they describe it how it is, whereas yours describe it how it should be. either i'm all messed up or most of the world is.

Perhaps - but it is possible to take complex topics and ravel them out in a comprehensible way - take a look at a high school physics textbook.

3) yet you talk of heaven. "speak of heaven, ye disgrace earth." (thoreau)

This earth is a creation of God, and as such, is of great value and not to be despised; however, it is also in a highly degraded, compromised state due to the ravages of sin; as such, it will eventually be "overhauled" and made new; as well, the scriptures warned us of becoming too attached to the world because of its inherently deceptive nature - a nature that can have dire effects on the spirtual being.

4) living is to be content with life. to take a spinozian view on life: "to look at existence and see perfection." your morality leaves people always wanting to change, to be better--which is basically saying, "how things are right now isnt right." this is calling existence imperfect. i refuse to do this. for me, that isnt living.

Contentment with life is taught by the scriptures - but the writer of Ecclesiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but God that can provide true contentment. The unhappy lives of mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-powerful celebrities seems to bear this truth out clearly. Existence is imperfect - if you believe in God - because the presence of sin has negatively affected reality at all levels - personal, social, natural. What "isn't living" is following ourselves into the black hole of our own intellect and our own desires. That way madness lies.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 10:50 AM

Because your analogizing on a certain degree of ignorance (because you don't know the Bible/God is fiction) so therefore, those of us who know better see your analogy as false.

This earth is a creation of God, and as such, is of great value and not to be despised; however, it is also in a highly degraded, compromised state due to the ravages of sin; as such, it will eventually be "overhauled" and made new; as well, the scriptures warned us of becoming too attached to the world because of its inherently deceptive nature - a nature that can have dire effects on the spirtual being.

Contentment with life is taught by the scriptures - but the writer of Ecclesiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but God that can provide true contentment. The unhappy lives of mega-rich, mega-famous, mega-powerful celebrities seems to bear this truth out clearly. Existence is imperfect - if you believe in God - because the presence of sin has negatively affected reality at all levels - personal, social, natural. What "isn't living" is following ourselves into the black hole of our own intellect and our own desires. That way madness lies.

1) the definition of non-fiction:giving facts, information etc, ie not stories, novels, plays, poetry. i mistrust language, but as far as i can see this means the bible is not non-fiction.

2) "the earth is a creation of god, (you say). but because of sin it has become ravaged and put into a state in need of overhaul"(to paraphrase). so where did sin come from. something must exist outside the creation of god? what? who?

3)this contenment argument uses an appeal to unreliable authority as its backbone, "the writer of Ecclisiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but god that can provide contentment." premises have to have their facts based in reality, otherwise the premise is untrue and the argument unsound. of course truth only exist in logic, and logic isnt reality, so never mind that.

what i stuggle to understand is this. god created the world, but not sin. so who made sin--the devil? who made him? i asked it earlier in this post as well. i've more to say, but i'll wait.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 12:10 PM

1) the definition of non-fiction:giving facts, information etc, ie not stories, novels, plays, poetry. i mistrust language, but as far as i can see this means the bible is not non-fiction.

And what is the basis of your decision that the Bible is full of fiction? Because it presents things you think impossible? Because it's an ancient book? What's the basis for this determination?

2) "the earth is a creation of god, (you say). but because of sin it has become ravaged and put into a state in need of overhaul"(to paraphrase). so where did sin come from. something must exist outside the creation of god? what? who?

Answered below.

3)this contenment argument uses an appeal to unreliable authority as its backbone, "the writer of Ecclisiastes makes it clear that there is nothing in life but god that can provide contentment." premises have to have their facts based in reality, otherwise the premise is untrue and the argument unsound. of course truth only exist in logic, and logic isnt reality, so never mind that.

No it does not - I don't quote the Bible as proof - I quote it to show you why I hold a certain view. I contend that people who have dismissed God out of their lives will experience a restlessness and a discontent because - as C.S. Lewis wrote - God designed us to "run" on Him (like a car is designed to "run" on gasoline); trying to "run" on any other "fuel" (sex, money, fame, relationships, addictions, etc) will not only not satisfy, but will drive us deeper into despair.

what i stuggle to understand is this. god created the world, but not sin. so who made sin--the devil? who made him? i asked it earlier in this post as well. i've more to say, but i'll wait.

Evil is a consequence of God's desire that we be "free moral agents": in order for us to be truly free, we needed to have the viable choice to choose other than to serve God; otherwise we are autonomatons who cannot help but choose good because bad is not an option if we don't have freewill (the logic behind the placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden). God is love - and because love is a choice (not a feeling or a chemical reaction) there must be the choice to not love. Lucifer, the greatest of God's angels, used his freewill to place himself in opposition of God - and his rebellion against God resulted in the creation of sin in the universe. God didn't create sin/evil - but the necessary and potential consequence of making morally free creatures is that they might choose to not do the right thing.

Zirkle2007

04-05-2007, 12:23 PM

No it does not - I don't quote the Bible as proof - I quote it to show you why I hold a certain view. I contend that people who have dismissed God out of their lives will experience a restlessness and a discontent because - as C.S. Lewis wrote - God designed us to "run" on Him (like a car is designed to "run" on gasoline); trying to "run" on any other "fuel" (sex, money, fame, relationships, addictions, etc) will not only not satisfy, but will drive us deeper into despair.

This is an excellent point. I've met many people who feel this way in their life and they don't know why. When I talk further with them, I discover they have no association with God. When God is not present in your life, your life simply is not what it should and could be. The result of this is the discontent many people feel. I think this also ties in very closely with Jesus telling us that the poor have a better chance of getting into heaven than the rich. The rich just want more and more, thus feeling discontent with all that they have.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 12:39 PM

This is an excellent point. I've met many people who feel this way in their life and they don't know why. When I talk further with them, I discover they have no association with God. When God is not present in your life, your life simply is not what it should and could be. The result of this is the discontent many people feel. I think this also ties in very closely with Jesus telling us that the poor have a better chance of getting into heaven than the rich. The rich just want more and more, thus feeling discontent with all that they have.

Thank you. Contentment is very elusive - one wonders how Mother Teresa had it and Kurt Cobain didn't. When you compare the advantages/disadvantages of their lives, you have to wonder. We are easily fooled by appearances, but I guess one of the advantages of tabloid papers/TV is that we get to see that beautiful, rich, and powerful people tend to lead lives just as unhappy, addiction-ridden, and relationally challenged as our own. We have a "God-shaped" void inside our hearts; all other "fillers" won't work: they gratify, but not satisfy.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 02:51 PM

And what is the basis of your decision that the Bible is full of fiction? Because it presents things you think impossible? Because it's an ancient book? What's the basis for this determination?

it does not - I don't quote the Bible as proof - I quote it to show you why I hold a certain view. I contend that people who have dismissed God out of their lives will experience a restlessness and a discontent because - as C.S. Lewis wrote - God designed us to "run" on Him (like a car is designed to "run" on gasoline); trying to "run" on any other "fuel" (sex, money, fame, relationships, addictions, etc) will not only not satisfy, but will drive us deeper into despair.

Evil is a consequence of God's desire that we be "free moral agents": in order for us to be truly free, we needed to have the viable choice to choose other than to serve God; otherwise we are autonomatons who cannot help but choose good because bad is not an option if we don't have freewill (the logic behind the placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden). God is love - and because love is a choice (not a feeling or a chemical reaction) there must be the choice to not love. Lucifer, the greatest of God's angels, used his freewill to place himself in opposition of God - and his rebellion against God resulted in the creation of sin in the universe. God didn't create sin/evil - but the necessary and potential consequence of making morally free creatures is that they might choose to not do the right thing.

1) i'd like to argue the bible's being fiction, but then i would have to call every book, including non-fiction, fiction. although this is what i think to be actual, i'm going to spare you because i need to think about it.

2) fair eneogh!

3) that is such a complicated explanation it has to be man-made. . . also, i like occam's razor. all i need to do to know anything is open my eyes, ears and nose and look around. when i look around, i don't see all this intircate stuff you just explained. if i could get out some intricate measuring instraments to look into the stars or down at my feet, i dont think i would find what you are talking about either. so where is all this stuff you just explained coming from? its undetectable this instant for certain. i don't see things like free will when i open my eyes. i don't smell gardens of eden or sin or luciphers either. i see a computer lab with bearded man sitting next to me and a cup of mate tea to my right.

if love is a choice, then why do we fall into it? we dont choose to fall. if i choose to go off a cliff, i'd say i jumped, not fell.

so how did luciphers choice create sin in the universe? you must mean he invented sin in man. because there's no convincing non-men (animals and plants) to do anything, they just do it. so, lucipher taught men how to sin. okay. but i think you need to change your definiton of sin to "lucipher created sin in men", not "sin in the universe."

"so god didnt invent sin, but because he created creatures with free will there's a chance they might choose to do the wrong thing." (to paraphrase you) who decided what the "wrong things" were? god i am assuming, right. . .well simple logic tells us that you can't have a front without a back, light without dark. if god decided what's bad then he must have also decided what's good. and he created the good, so wouldnt that suggest he created the bad as well?

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 04:37 PM

3) that is such a complicated explanation it has to be man-made. . . also, i like occam's razor. all i need to do to know anything is open my eyes, ears and nose and look around. when i look around, i don't see all this intircate stuff you just explained. if i could get out some intricate measuring instraments to look into the stars or down at my feet, i dont think i would find what you are talking about either. so where is all this stuff you just explained coming from? its undetectable this instant for certain. i don't see things like free will when i open my eyes. i don't smell gardens of eden or sin or luciphers either. i see a computer lab with bearded man sitting next to me and a cup of mate tea to my right.

You asked where sin came from and I explained; I'm less concerned with being simple than I am with being clear. There's plenty of things you can't "see" but acknowledge the existence of - love, hate, sorrow, jealousy, hope, joy - and the list goes on.

if love is a choice, then why do we fall into it? we dont choose to fall. if i choose to go off a cliff, i'd say i jumped, not fell.

"Falling in love" is one of our idioms from the feelings associated with the early stages of love - attraction, arousal, excitement, infatuation, even a bit of lust perhaps. Either way, you don't "fall" into love - it does not happen against your will. You agree to enter into an emotional relationship with someone. Eventually, the "floating on air" infatuation will die down - at that point, love becomes a choice. Choosing a partner based only upon that initial infatuation is a recipe for divorce (as our current statistics would seem to bear out).

so how did luciphers choice create sin in the universe? you must mean he invented sin in man. because there's no convincing non-men (animals and plants) to do anything, they just do it. so, lucipher taught men how to sin. okay. but i think you need to change your definiton of sin to "lucipher created sin in men", not "sin in the universe."

Because sin did not exist before Lucifer chose rebellion. He then went to corrupt God's creation (being too weak to rebel directly against God himself [as a created creature]). Lucifer (now Satan) tempts humanity due to God's choice to give humanity freewill, and humanity takes the bait (unfortunatley). At that point, all of creation suffered.

"so god didnt invent sin, but because he created creatures with free will there's a chance they might choose to do the wrong thing." (to paraphrase you) who decided what the "wrong things" were? god i am assuming, right. . .well simple logic tells us that you can't have a front without a back, light without dark. if god decided what's bad then he must have also decided what's good. and he created the good, so wouldnt that suggest he created the bad as well?

"Good" is not a function of what God likes, nor is "bad/evil" a product of what He doesn't like: they are reflections of that which is consistent with His character (good) and that which is inconsistent with His character (bad/evil). He doesn't choose what good/bad are - they just are (because God is the source of all reality in the universe).

billyjack

04-05-2007, 07:45 PM

You asked where sin came from and I explained; I'm less concerned with being simple than I am with being clear. There's plenty of things you can't "see" but acknowledge the existence of - love, hate, sorrow, jealousy, hope, joy - and the list goes on.

"Falling in love" is one of our idioms from the feelings associated with the early stages of love - attraction, arousal, excitement, infatuation, even a bit of lust perhaps. Either way, you don't "fall" into love - it does not happen against your will. You agree to enter into an emotional relationship with someone. Eventually, the "floating on air" infatuation will die down - at that point, love becomes a choice. Choosing a partner based only upon that initial infatuation is a recipe for divorce (as our current statistics would seem to bear out).

Because sin did not exist before Lucifer chose rebellion. He then went to corrupt God's creation (being too weak to rebel directly against God himself [as a created creature]). Lucifer (now Satan) tempts humanity due to God's choice to give humanity freewill, and humanity takes the bait (unfortunatley). At that point, all of creation suffered.

"Good" is not a function of what God likes, nor is "bad/evil" a product of what He doesn't like: they are reflections of that which is consistent with His character (good) and that which is inconsistent with His character (bad/evil). He doesn't choose what good/bad are - they just are (because God is the source of all reality in the universe).

1)love, hate, sorrow, hope, joy--i don't need a story to tell me these things exist. i feel them. all these things that i can't see but acknowledge the existence of are experienced none the less. intricate stories of lucipher falling from heaven to explain why my wife cheated on me is not something that i experience when i get this news.

if records were destroyed and memories erased, do you think christianity or god would exist? i'm talking within the first 24 hours of erasal and destroyal.

2) i'll give ya the whole choosing love thing, but it doesnt sound romantic one bit.

3) there must have been "bad" before lucipher rebelled. the angels must have enjoyed certain things more than others. otherwise everything would just be the same even if it all was good--how boring. even oreos get gross after a while. it sounds like lucipher did everybody a favor and spiced things up a bit. all good, no bad--sorry but that sounds lame.

4) they just are?? you sound like me.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 07:45 PM

if records were destroyed and memories erased, do you think christianity or god would exist? i'm talking within the first 24 hours of erasal and destroyal.

Yes - because He created us in His "own image" and that means that we have a spark of the Divine in us - a spark He gave us and that convicts us in our hearts that He lives.

ennison

04-05-2007, 07:46 PM

The Bible is fiction same as Gibbons 'Decline and Fall ... ' or any other history is fiction. What is this .... Some pointless post modernist mumbo jumbo yaketty yah yah

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 07:59 PM

3) there must have been "bad" before lucipher rebelled. the angels must have enjoyed certain things more than others. otherwise everything would just be the same even if it all was good--how boring. even oreos get gross after a while. it sounds like lucipher did everybody a favor and spiced things up a bit. all good, no bad--sorry but that sounds lame.

C.S. Lewis discussed this attitude like this: it is like a child from the slums who would rather play in a mud puddle by his home because he cannot imagine what it is like to spend a weekend at the seashore.

4) they just are?? you sound like me.

The difference is that I'm talking about GOD - He who transcends all reality (because He created it); there's a bit of a difference between He and you.

billyjack

04-05-2007, 08:20 PM

C.S. Lewis discussed this attitude like this: it is like a child from the slums who would rather play in a mud puddle by his home because he cannot imagine what it is like to spend a weekend at the seashore.

The difference is that I'm talking about GOD - He who transcends all reality (because He created it); there's a bit of a difference between He and you.

1) there always needs to be contrast to appreciate anything--prove that statement wrong!

2) i dont buy into anything you just said in the second statement there. something beyond reality? so how do you know about him if he's beyond reality. because we can't sense anything outside of reality.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 09:24 PM

1) there always needs to be contrast to appreciate anything--prove that statement wrong!

Here on earth, your belief is (for the most part) true - but not forever.

2) i dont buy into anything you just said in the second statement there. something beyond reality? so how do you know about him if he's beyond reality. because we can't sense anything outside of reality.

OK - you're free to rejet it. God created reality - a creator by necessity must be separate from that which he creates. Your response is the equivalent of a pot that denies the existence of a potter.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 09:44 PM

I submit that the differences between a pot and the whole of reality are too large for your analogy to work.

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 09:48 PM

I submit that the differences between a pot and the whole of reality are too large for your analogy to work.

I am probably doomed to create false analogies. However, my analogy is pointed at billyjack's claim that he can't sense God because he is beyond reality (or, probably more accurately stated: nature). The analogy was created to creator; not created to all of reality.

cuppajoe_9

04-05-2007, 09:54 PM

Redzeppelin

04-05-2007, 10:00 PM

billyjack

04-06-2007, 10:59 PM

I suspect that billyjack's definition of the word 'reality' would includes everything, including God if he exists. To say that God "exists outside of the universe" or that he "exists outside of those planes of reality accessible to humans" might be a more precise choice of words.

I will agree with you there.

again: if god is outside of the reality accessible to humans, then how do you know of this god?

even if you use the potter/pot shpeal, this still doesnt tell me how you are aware of god's personality. . . i can look at a pot all day, and this wouldnt tell me that the potter loathed sex before marriage, admiring other potters, or eating beef on good friday.

and who says a creator has to be seperate from his creation. there is no doer behind the deed. the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed, the deed is everything. (N)

Redzeppelin

04-08-2007, 07:37 PM

again: if god is outside of the reality accessible to humans, then how do you know of this god?

1)We were created with a "God consciousness" in our hearts.
2)He left us His divine revelation called the Bible.
3)Jesus told us in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit would come and guide believers into the truth.

even if you use the potter/pot shpeal, this still doesnt tell me how you are aware of god's personality. . . i can look at a pot all day, and this wouldnt tell me that the potter loathed sex before marriage, admiring other potters, or eating beef on good friday.

See above. (And, it's any sex outside of marriage - not just before.)

and who says a creator has to be seperate from his creation. there is no doer behind the deed. the doer is merely a fiction added to the deed, the deed is everything. (N)

The Creator must be separate from His creation - the creator cannot be the art - He creates the art.

Zirkle2007

04-08-2007, 09:49 PM

Just a little add-on to the God being outside of reality topic. Another reason we know there is a God is because of how humans are created. Humans are born with some knowledge of whats right and whats wrong. Where do you sugest that this comes from? Evolution and all the things that want to rule out our Creator can't even explain this! All you have to do is look at a human being, inside and out. I don't understand how anyone who closely examines this could believe in anything but God. It takes way way more faith to believe in no God, than it does to believe in God.

Bakiryu

04-08-2007, 10:15 PM

Not really. Humans beings are born with no knowledge. Their learn from their parents and other persons. People create gods because they need some purpese or sense in their lifw, not because god really exists.

Why is it 'God' anyway? Can't it be 'Goddess'?

billyjack

04-09-2007, 11:05 AM

1)We were created with a "God consciousness" in our hearts.
2)He left us His divine revelation called the Bible.
3)Jesus told us in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit would come and guide believers into the truth.

The Creator must be separate from His creation - the creator cannot be the art - He creates the art.

1/ the reasons given for the knowing that god exist even though he is outside the realm of reality that is knowable to humans is 2/3 bible talk, and 1/3 coherent. so i will talk about the coherent, god consciousness in our hearts part.

how do we know this to be a god consciousness and not just part of our normal consciousness. could it be that the bible said that the consciousness was godly and therefore this god consciousness in our hearts is really another appeal to the bible. . .

2/ the creator is only seperate from his creation in language and symbols, not in reality. any anyways, the art analogy doesnt hold up. i created my body via my genes creating it, but i still call myself my body. creator and art are not two seperate entities.

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 04:54 PM

1/ the reasons given for the knowing that god exist even though he is outside the realm of reality that is knowable to humans is 2/3 bible talk, and 1/3 coherent. so i will talk about the coherent, god consciousness in our hearts part.

Careful there: you originally asked how I know "of" God - not whether I could prove He exists. I know of God through His revelation of Himself (the Bible); as well, I know of God because Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would be sent to help people in their understanding of God; I did not imply that the Bible "proved" God existed - I answered your question as to how I know of God.

how do we know this to be a god consciousness and not just part of our normal consciousness. could it be that the bible said that the consciousness was godly and therefore this god consciousness in our hearts is really another appeal to the bible. . .

The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.

2/ the creator is only seperate from his creation in language and symbols, not in reality. any anyways, the art analogy doesnt hold up. i created my body via my genes creating it, but i still call myself my body. creator and art are not two seperate entities.

You did not "create" your body; you had no choice in its conception, and you have no control over its growth or regulating processes that renew you at a cellular level constantly. When you draw a picture, "you" are not that picture; it is a separate entity from you.

hyperborean

04-09-2007, 06:24 PM

The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.

We are not hardwired to know anything...our parents told us that there is something else out there. Without our peers brainwashing us into believing in some divine being, we would never know it existed.

Redzeppelin

04-09-2007, 09:15 PM

We are not hardwired to know anything...our parents told us that there is something else out there. Without our peers brainwashing us into believing in some divine being, we would never know it existed.

So you say. Your contention is wrong.

billyjack

04-10-2007, 10:57 AM

Careful there: you originally asked how I know "of" God - not whether I could prove He exists. I know of God through His revelation of Himself (the Bible); as well, I know of God because Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit would be sent to help people in their understanding of God; I did not imply that the Bible "proved" God existed - I answered your question as to how I know of God.

The "God consciousness" exists within us whether the Bible exists or not; we're hardwired to know that there is more to life, more to this existence, then ourselves.

You did not "create" your body; you had no choice in its conception, and you have no control over its growth or regulating processes that renew you at a cellular level constantly. When you draw a picture, "you" are not that picture; it is a separate entity from you.

1- i will give you that, my mistake.

2-what you call the god consciousness i call something entirely different. i would call it consiousness. no need throw the god in there. doing so is like putting god in front of horse apple, calling it a god horse apple. its still a horse apple.

3- ah, but i do have control over the growth of my body. its just not a kind of control that i can put into words, so therefore you say i dont control it. but i cant put opening and closing my hands into words, or digesting my meals, or beating my heart, or growing my fingernails or hair into words nor do i have to think about them, i just do them--but these are all still things that are called me, and so therefore i must be doing it.

the artist is his art. we are what we do. where is this imaginary line between that which is done and who does it? show me it...

Redzeppelin

04-10-2007, 03:26 PM

2-what you call the god consciousness i call something entirely different. i would call it consiousness. no need throw the god in there. doing so is like putting god in front of horse apple, calling it a god horse apple. its still a horse apple.

Our "consciousness" is not what I was referring to. The "God consciousness" is the awareness we have at a deep emotional level, that God exists. Our sense of wonder when confronted with the sublime, and our indignation at wrong are both evidence of this consciousness; as well, the greatest of human endeavors - Mozart's music, Shakespeare's writing - are manifestations of the human desire to surpass humanity - to approach absolute truth and beauty. That is a function of the God consciousness IMO. The Bible tells us that all men have been given this awareness.

3- ah, but i do have control over the growth of my body. its just not a kind of control that i can put into words, so therefore you say i dont control it. but i cant put opening and closing my hands into words, or digesting my meals, or beating my heart, or growing my fingernails or hair into words nor do i have to think about them, i just do them--but these are all still things that are called me, and so therefore i must be doing it.

You cannot choose to grow younger; you cannot choose to halt the development of your body/brain/emotions without doing serious damage to yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, the ability to destroy ourselves does not mean we have control over our growth; it just means we can stop it or retard it. Whether you like it or not, your body will get old and die - regardless of how much "control" you think you exercise over your body. It does what it pleases in terms of growth. You may tell it how to move or behave, but not how to grow.

the artist is his art. we are what we do. where is this imaginary line between that which is done and who does it? show me it...

Art is a thing; human beings are not things. Shakespeare wrote plays - we consider them art. Shakespeare is an artist, but he cannot be confused as being "art" himself. Your blurring of the two together occurs only in language.

billyjack

04-10-2007, 05:05 PM

- Mozart's music, Shakespeare's writing - are manifestations of the human desire to surpass humanity - to approach absolute truth and beauty. That is a function of the God consciousness IMO. The Bible tells us that all men have been given this awareness.

You cannot choose to grow younger; you cannot choose to halt the development of your body/brain/emotions without doing serious damage to yourself - and as far as I'm concerned, the ability to destroy ourselves does not mean we have control over our growth; it just means we can stop it or retard it. Whether you like it or not, your body will get old and die - regardless of how much "control" you think you exercise over your body. It does what it pleases in terms of growth. You may tell it how to move or behave, but not how to grow.

Art is a thing; human beings are not things. Shakespeare wrote plays - we consider them art. Shakespeare is an artist, but he cannot be confused as being "art" himself. Your blurring of the two together occurs only in language.

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

Redzeppelin

04-10-2007, 07:31 PM

1-shakespeare, mozart, and allan watts creations are not around to surpass humanity and find absolute truth and beauty. they are around to show humanity how beatiful it is as it is. these artist are like optomitrist. their job is to make us see how beautiful things already are by adjusting attuning our focus a little bit.

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.

there is no absolute anything. every solid has space, every sound has silence, every truth has lies. you yourself said that in our plain of reality, there must be contraries to make things work--theres isnt an absolute anything.

No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.

2- i am not saying i make a conscious decision to control the biological functioning of my body. what i was saying is that my lack of conscious decision doesnt imply me not controlling it none the less. when i take a swing on the baseball diamond, i am not consciously going through every aspect of my swing, if i did i would never hit the ball. rather, i am letting my unconscious do the work. to understand what i say, you have to realize that i dont jsut consider me to be the consious, thinking me. i think me also includes the contrary of that, the unconscious or superconscious and non-thinking me. you know that in hindu philosophy their god is seen as not consciously controlling anything, but just doing everything spontaneously, just like we spontaneously grow our hair or beat or hearts.

Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"

3-on the contrary, the blurring of the two exist only in reality. its in language that the doer and deed are seen as seperate. just showing that what you call reality and what i call reality are two seperate things.

There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

billyjack

04-11-2007, 03:34 PM

I've read one of Watt's books - it was interesting, but it doesn't place him in the same rank as the other two giants listed. Sorry.

No - I said no such thing. I believe "good" is quite understandable without "bad" - I believe "bad" takes its meaning from "good." We don't need contraries. That we can learn from them does not make them essential - only instructive.

Your unconscious does not swing the bat - your swinging of the bat is a consequence of a decision your mind made and the resulting messages sent by your brain to parts of your body that enabled it to coordinate the action of hitting the ball. It's not like Star Wars where you "let go, Luke! Stretch out with your feelings!"

There is a distinction between creator and created. I am not my deeds.

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

Redzeppelin

04-11-2007, 03:49 PM

1) i thought you might object to me throwing watts in there.

Why wouldn't I?

2) i am not going to search the archives to quote you, but you did say what i said you said, you must have slipped?

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.

i agree, being able to learn from things does not make them essential. after all, you learn from the bible. . .

What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.

but, contraries are more than merely instructive. contaries keep things working. the bad weather nourishes the habitat and the good weather does as well, but in different ways. without the former-drought, and without the lat-floods. hence, contraries are essential. prove this incorrect.

We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

The reaction occurs because of the decision/desire to hit the ball. If you really don't want to hit it - guess what? - your body will not override you and swing the bat anyway.

kilted exile

04-11-2007, 03:56 PM

3) funny you should quote star wars, my name is luke and i use the powerful ally known as the force. yet, you missed the point. a conscious decision is made to swing or not, this is true, but even this decision is debatable on how much is choice and how much is reaction. but the swing itself is pure instinct, pure practiced habit, done without thought. that is why ball player practice every day. the goal is to be able to play without thinking about it. thinking gets in the way of its natural ally--instinct/unconsciousness.

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly

billyjack

04-11-2007, 07:16 PM

Ok this example you are using is just wrong. If it was truly an unconcious action the batter would constantly be swinging at every pitch that comes towards him, irrespective of location - a batter like that would not be in the league for long.

A batter always makes a concious decision about where, when and how to swing the bat: Is he looking to get just a base hit to continue the inning? Does he want to pull the ball into a specific gap between the fielders? is he looking for a bunt to advance the runner? etc What makes the professional so good is that he can still process all of these things and still do what he intended correctly

are you saying unconscious activity is chaotic--because the heart is unconscious and it does just fine, in an orderly fashion. i played baseball and i am talking from experience, not theory. when i make the choice to swing (choice, istinctual habit, whatever) i dont think about how i am swinging, faze by faze. i just hit the ball. the faze by faze is what practice is for. there isnt a thought saying step, now load, now lead with the left hand (i am a righty) and punch with the right, keep your eye on the ball, flick the wrist, follow through. i dont think that way, i just do it, without thought. if i did think step by step i would never get the bat off my shoulder. this doesnt mean i dont control my swing, it just means i dont have to think about it.

billyjack

04-11-2007, 07:25 PM

Sorry - you'll have to do your homework and find the quotation, because either here, or elsewhere, I made it clear that contraries are not essential; people advance the idea we need evil in order for us to appreciate "good" - I contest that, pure and simple.

What's the point of this statement? Is it some sort of "dig" because I'd be very disappointed if that was what you intended.

We're talking about two different things; I understand that contraries exist on earth, and I acknowledged that they do hold a necessary function; however, my point is that we do not need evil to appreciate good - good can exist without evil, but not vice-versa. I was making a philosophical point, and you're presenting natural examples. It doesn't work that way.

.

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

Redzeppelin

04-12-2007, 12:24 AM

1) we dont need evil just to appreciate good. we need evil for good to EXIST and vice versa. there would have never been a word meaning "good" if someone didnt know "not good". that is the nature of language. by saying something is "this" we are implying that it's not "that".

I do not agree. Let me finish this off so I can save you valuable time trying to convince me: God is the author of all that is good - He is the very definition of good; as such, God does not need Satan to exist in order that He (God) exists. So, my point stands: good can exist without evil. It cannot and will not here on this earth; so, you are correct in the sense that the two will always be linked on this earth before God makes the earth new. But I'm making a philosophical point about ultimate reality: evil is known by its relationship to good, but although it can work in the opposite direction, that does not mean it must.

2) not a dig, just pointing out that the bible isnt used by a lot of people, therefore its not essential to a lot of people.

And that's relevant how?

3) kind of touched on this in (1). philosophy and nature are not mutually exclusive. i cant use nature as evidence for the neccessity of good AND evil? come one, nature is the best source for any analogy. how about an example of good existing without evil in reality.

Already covered this above.

Robert Jordan

04-13-2007, 11:07 PM

Robert Jordan

04-13-2007, 11:10 PM

I am not trying to offend anyone by the way, I just believe you have to find yourself and follow your own course and what is internal will lead you through the external.

Redzeppelin

04-15-2007, 01:37 AM

I'll repost this:
One thing I never understood was the paradox between the Old and New Testament. Call me crazy but God is very insane in the old Testament. He "wrongly" kills many innocent people caught up in his plan for salvation through Him. Just read Genisis and Exodus. Those poor Egyptians were caught up in a war of who has a bigger you know what between God and The Pharaoh. In The New Testament, when God is in the flesh, he is a loving and very peaceful guy. He wouldnt harm a fly.

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.

Anyway, this is why following someone else's faith is ridiculous too me. You will have plenty of Christians and Hindus and Muslims and Buddhists telling you that their faith is the true way. If you believe in something more, follow what is in your heart and not what is in someone else's. I believe there is a purpose to life and that purpose is to walk on the path that has been chosen for YOU.

"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

weepingforloman

05-12-2007, 11:45 PM

Not sure if this is entirely relevant, but Jesus does talk occasionally about how in certain situations it is ok to ignore the commandments:

Ha! Jesus sure showed those uppity pharisees a thing or two! (Translation: God would rather have you work on the Sabbath than starve.)

I don't think very many reasons are given. When they are, they usually just go back to 'God said so':Yeah, we get it God, you're the Lord.

Edit: I am by no means an authority on this, so you would be wise to wait until somebody who knows what they are talking about comes along before you take this as absolute fact.

Jesus never told people to violate the actual commandments, but he at times said it was okay to ignore tradition--the rules created by Israelite society and rabbinical teaching. By connection to today, that would be like Catholics eating meat on Friday (I know they changed that, but it's the most comparable thing), or like refusing to cross yourself (again, in the Catholic Church--that's the usual thing for Catholics). Oh, and, I forget who originally started the thread, but, how much Friedrich Nietzsche do you read? Seriously, don't take that guy too seriously--he claimed that Also Sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra) was "the greatest gift given to mankind," and also that he was the antichrist.

weepingforloman

05-12-2007, 11:49 PM

We need both testaments' pictures of God in order to get the complete picture. God is a God of mercy (NT) and judgment (OT). God cannot be just if He is only merciful. God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect. We may not see why right now, but all things will someday be made clear to the satisfaction of all.

"Following" one's heart is good advice - assuming that the heart is good. If it's not - then what?

Good points, Red. Another thing to consider is the goal of God during the respective periods of the OT/NT. In the Old Testament, under the old covenant (testament=covenant anyway), God was establishing the nation of Israel as His chosen people--one of the reasons for the ritual cleansing ceremonies for lepers and other physically oriented commandments was to keep His people different from other people in a mundane way. In the New Testament, under the covenant through Christ, He was establishing a spiritual people-hence Paul's words that "there is no Jew nor Gentile, nor male nor female, nor slave nor free" because all believers are united under Christ Jesus. God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

hyperborean

05-13-2007, 12:58 AM

God in the OT was not cruel, He was just establishing a visible, earthly kingdom... to pave the way for the spiritual kingdom.

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 01:26 AM

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

He who created all has the prerogative to destroy what He creates. You level a judgment without knowing all of the facts behind the decision; there may very well be mitigating factors that God takes into consideration in making His decisions that He has not felt fit to share with us.

hyperborean

05-13-2007, 01:28 AM

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 01:31 AM

keep defending a murderer...you guys are more like God's lawyer in this argument.

Ah, hype, just like old times, eh? You and I haven't bantered for seemingly weeks.

God needs no defense from me.

hyperborean

05-13-2007, 01:35 AM

I haven't argued in a while...I had to get it out of my system. I'm glad you guys got a new recruit (weepingfornoman). That should make things even more fun. :)

Morrisonhotel

05-13-2007, 04:36 AM

God doesn't kill "innocent" people; if He destroys a person or a people, the assumption we must make (if God is as the Bible describes Him - all-powerful, all-knowing, benovolent, loving, just, etc) is that He knows more than we do and that His judgment is perfect.

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

weepingforloman

05-13-2007, 08:28 AM

He only wiped out mankind and made people sacrifice each other. If you don't consider that cruel then your morals need some tuning.

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!

weepingforloman

05-13-2007, 08:29 AM

Morrisonhotel

05-13-2007, 09:14 AM

You severely underestimate just how screwed up humanity is.

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

Nightshade

05-13-2007, 10:43 AM

Sorry not a christian, but dont newborn babies, in fact dont children and innocents go straight to heaven by passing the 'grave' and day judgment stages? Because they ar not held accountable for any of ther actions?

hyperborean

05-13-2007, 11:05 AM

He never actually made anyone sacrifice another person... you're obviously alluding to Abraham and Isaac... read the end of the story, it's a real twist ending!

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

weepingforloman

05-13-2007, 12:52 PM

Roman soldiers were getting sick to their stomach when christianity took over Rome. These christians started to practice weird rituals, including sacrifice. And let's not forget about the crusades...killing in the name of God. how about president bush saying that he is killing people in this war because god told him to do so? read the end of this article: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

First of all, Christianity "took over" Rome?
Second, I've talked about the Crusades many times before, it was because Christianity under the medieval popes was becoming secularized and politicized to an unhealthy degree.
Third, even if they did practice sacrifices, that was a period of time when everybody was trying stuff out, Paul was the first to make a large-scale, concious effort to clarify Christianity.
Fourth, who says Bush speaks for all Christians?

weepingforloman

05-13-2007, 12:54 PM

No, I don't. It's the one area that catches every Christian out - no matter what their denomination is - because, simply, there is no justification whatsoever for such actions (and trying to cover it up as sin just seems completely detrimental to serious debate - and the same deal for saying humanity is screwed up. How exactly is that do with the complete innocence of a new-born that drops dead after 5 seconds of living? What has that individual done to deserve to die?)

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

Morrisonhotel

05-13-2007, 01:14 PM

You seem to miss the possibility that there is the capability of evil in any person at all--but, besides, no one actually knows what happens to babies that die... I definitely don't.

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

kari

05-13-2007, 01:45 PM

Why does the death of a newborn have to mean something deeper than the death of an adult? Don't people die because their body basically can't overcome an injury, or illness, disease? Our bodies cannot withstand everything. I would imagine that would apply to a child as well. Couldn't it be just as simple that the baby's body was not strong enough? Or that something went wrong within the womb? If you are going to start making theories about newborn babies that died, what would that mean about miscarages? Are those the extra extra evil people that weren't even allowed to grow within the womb? You would be surprised to know how many women experience miscarages that don't even know it, in the very early stages. I think that is a bit of an absurd theory really. What about babies that were dying when first born, almost died, but somehow managed to survive? Were they babies that God hesitated on, then decided to let them through that stage of life and continue on living? Babies are innocent, and they cannot possibly be sinful. They are also known to be so "new" and aware of so much more than us...that they can even still see through the veil. If that is true, which I don't doubt at all (although I am sure some of you might), they can't possibly be anything more than an innocent child, otherswise that wouldn't be possible. That is a bit nonsensical to think that if we are given free agency, we should be allowed to be grown enough to use it. Death is a fact of life, and it should also be a fact that you know not when, or even what age. If a woman smokes while pregnant, or drinks...whatever, and causes that baby within her to have horrible birth defects, again...that is not inflicted on that child because he/she deserves it, it is a newborn that is affected greatly by the sins of another.
Kari

weepingforloman

05-13-2007, 02:10 PM

That's not much of explanation - if God truly does allow us free will then surely an individual should be allowed to grow into a position where they can use said free will (whether rightfully or wrongfully) (otherwise he is condemning for nothing and thus killing innocents - someone posted previously the claim God didn't do this). You're moving it in to a dangerous area of nature/nurture without really demonstrating one way or the other (or a mixture of both for that matter). If that was an explanation then why would God allow people, who are judged evil by the vast majority of humanity, to live much further past birth? Is it possible that babies who die are potentially more evil than that? Short of exterminating everyone on earth, I guess not.

Okay: I don't believe in full free will. That's for starters. Secondly, there is no "innocent"-with the possible exception of infants, but if they are, then they would go to heaven. God allows people judged to be evil to live because, a.) if he killed all the evil people, there would be no occasion for instances of radical goodness; b.) death is not the ultimate evil--death does not mean you've been judged as sinful, or even punished that severely; c.) God has His own reasons (I listed this last b/c otherwise you'd call it a cop-out). I don't even see what you mean by the last part.

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 08:44 PM

In that case, what about the death of a baby? How can a child, that can't possibly have done anything wrong in this world, not be innocent? I'm assuming I'll get one of the typical responses to this question - the "all people are born sinners" or "humanity's sins are the reason" or the much rarer "It was the parent's sins". Either way, no response is suitable as each is weakly covering up the ineptitude of God's decisions.

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

billyjack

05-13-2007, 08:55 PM

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 08:59 PM

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

The Bible. First book, chapter 3. Cf. Romans 3:10-18

Redzeppelin

05-13-2007, 10:38 PM

The evidence would be in the fact that the default behavior of humanity is generally selfishness. Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself - and that is the root of all evil. (The love of money is pretty bad too).

weepingforloman

05-14-2007, 06:47 PM

where is the empirical evidence for this blatant attack against unconditioned human nature?

Where is the empirical evidence? Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery... that's not evidence of human nature being disposed toward evil? I'll even throw in one that I think perfectly exemplifies innate selfishness, though you may disagree: abortion. I think it's very selfish for someone to terminate a pregnancy, essentially end a fetus's chance to live (I think this whole deal about life "starting" later is really shallow--if it will become a human, isn't it alive?) to make life easier for the parent. Pretty dang selfish.

weepingforloman

05-14-2007, 06:47 PM

Oh, this doesn't count as current politics does it? Hope not.

Morrisonhotel

05-15-2007, 12:31 PM

Unless parents take an active role to discourage this inherent focus on self, it grows into an ego that only sees the world as an extension of itself.

You're placing rather a large amount of your argument on nurture.

Morrisonhotel

05-15-2007, 12:46 PM

All are born into sin - the child has not committed any sin, but his/her nature is predisposed towards sin; it begins with selfishness and will continue if the parents do not intervene and teach the child what it means to love.

The death of a child grieves God - always. God allows (not causes) children to die - and that is terrible and we don't understand it and I wouldn't dream of giving a justification because - here on earth, and not knowing what God knows - I cannot offer any good reason. But: your final sentence tells me that explaining anything to you would be pointless: if you conceive of God as being "inept" what you've really said is that you don't believe in Him and you discount how the Bible describes Him - good, loving, kind, compassionate, merciful, just, all-knowing, all-powerful. Think for a moment: if all those things are true, then we have to assume that God has His reasons; if we don't believe those descriptions, then why has He allowed non-believers to continue to exist to mock and dismiss Him? If you believe in Him, you can't have it both ways: either He is or is not as the Bible describes Him; if He's not, then what is He like? An "inept" God is no God at all - but merely a glorified human.

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?). That, to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it? Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

Redzeppelin

05-15-2007, 01:43 PM

Firstly, see the last post I made above.

Secondly, explaining anything to me would pointless? Way to go on the personal attack.

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.

I see that you are, by your post, one of those types that believe unconditionally in the biblical account of God: that is fine. What is not fine is attacking me personally for the fact that your God allows suffering - to even the most innocent (even those that have no ability to create evil (when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?).

For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.

That [God allows suffering - to even the most innocent], to me, is a completely inept form of decision making by God (whilst it is true that I have agnostic/atheistic leanings, it seems difficult to not judge a book that has been shown, in sections, to be completely false (or, in several cases, very unlikely) - therefore, of course I have difficulty in allowing the God is great, etc. mantra)). Why allow such things to happen? I cannot possibly think one of reason - even less so when the perpetually occurring universal sin is considered.

Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?

You may describe him as a 'good' God but as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise. If all this 'good' omnipotent God can create is the way humanity has been over the last few thousand years then you can keep him.

I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.

Give me a single good reason as to why God would allow it?

From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.

Universal sin marking someone seems so inadequate as an answer - after all, how long do you continue punishing man? Several people have stated the 'evil' persuasion of humanity without the right confines to keep people good - that, to me, seems like a continually perpetrating act as it would require, to break this chain, every single person to behave good (both morally and in terms of biblical teaching). In short, if one is to live a continually sin-free life then one is punished in this life by God for the failings of others - that seems like a thing a good God would do.

A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

Scheherazade

05-15-2007, 03:02 PM

Anymore personal or inflammatory comments, this thread too will be closed.

weepingforloman

05-15-2007, 08:01 PM

when was the last time you read about a new-born that shot someone dead?

as weepingforloman just wrote, "Look around: war, hatred, murder, robbery", the evidence of his creation is all around and suggests otherwise

Why, just the last week I read about a fetus that shot its twin prenatally. Of course, that was in "The Onion," so I'm not sure that counts...

You happen to be using my words out of context. How could you blame God for war? Hatred, war, murder, etc. are not from God.

Morrisonhotel

05-23-2007, 06:28 PM

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.

For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.

Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?

I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.

From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.

A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

1) I felt it was a personal attack.

2)Proven false - where to begin? Archaeologically and geologically speaking, we can flat out disprove quite a few things in the bible: notably, however, a rather obvious one is the Noah story - we can show that there was never and has never been a worldwide flood (even within the limited area that was known about). It is an obvious embellishment - if it is, indeed, the inerrant word of God then you'd think he'd notice that he hadn't actually covered more than the Euphrates river floodplain(where, most archaeologists and historians agree, this story was embellished from).

3) I'm still not convinced on saying God is good (either from the bible's perspective or humanities perspective).

4) I disagree when you say that love cannot exist without 'non-love' whilst I appreciate the philosophical arguments behind such sentiments, I just don't accept it.

5) If we were, hypothetically speaking, to take a baby, place them in an environment where they could not escape but were allowed to live in relative comfort, I fail to see how this child could succomb to sin.

Morrisonhotel

05-23-2007, 06:32 PM

Why, just the last week I read about a fetus that shot its twin prenatally. Of course, that was in "The Onion," so I'm not sure that counts...

You happen to be using my words out of context. How could you blame God for war? Hatred, war, murder, etc. are not from God.

I'd hazard a guess at saying that The Onion isn't the most accurate and trustworthy thing to gleam news from.

I disagree. A good God, at least by my definition, would not allow such things to occur. Whilst he is not to blame directly (except, perhaps, when the occassion arises when such things happen in the name of him - slightly tenuous, I admit), I would argue that he is to blame by proxy.

kiobe

05-23-2007, 08:58 PM

Redzeppelin

05-24-2007, 09:54 AM

1) I felt it was a personal attack.

Feelings don't equal reality; I made it clear that I wasn't attacking; if you wish to insist otherwise, your choice. Sorry you feel that way.

2)Proven false - where to begin? Archaeologically and geologically speaking, we can flat out disprove quite a few things in the bible: notably, however, a rather obvious one is the Noah story - we can show that there was never and has never been a worldwide flood (even within the limited area that was known about). It is an obvious embellishment - if it is, indeed, the inerrant word of God then you'd think he'd notice that he hadn't actually covered more than the Euphrates river floodplain(where, most archaeologists and historians agree, this story was embellished from).

You proved nothing.

No - there are opposing arguments that use the fossile layers to suggest that something very much like a worldwide flood could have happened. Archeology - in fact - has made many discoveries that verify the existence of ancient cities and peoples mentioned in the Bible.

3) I'm still not convinced on saying God is good (either from the bible's perspective or humanities perspective).

Fine: then what would God need to do to convince you He is good?

4) I disagree when you say that love cannot exist without 'non-love' whilst I appreciate the philosophical arguments behind such sentiments, I just don't accept it.

The "while I appreciate your argument I just don't accept it" statement is the kind Christians get nailed for making (especially when debating evolution).

5) If we were, hypothetically speaking, to take a baby, place them in an environment where they could not escape but were allowed to live in relative comfort, I fail to see how this child could succomb to sin.

Sin is pretty much a relational thing - once you put this child with other children, the sin would become obvious.

Morrisonhotel

05-24-2007, 12:54 PM

Feelings don't equal reality; I made it clear that I wasn't attacking; if you wish to insist otherwise, your choice. Sorry you feel that way.

You proved nothing.

No - there are opposing arguments that use the fossile layers to suggest that something very much like a worldwide flood could have happened. Archeology - in fact - has made many discoveries that verify the existence of ancient cities and peoples mentioned in the Bible.

Fine: then what would God need to do to convince you He is good?

The "while I appreciate your argument I just don't accept it" statement is the kind Christians get nailed for making (especially when debating evolution).

Sin is pretty much a relational thing - once you put this child with other children, the sin would become obvious.

1) Wrong. Prior to studying English Literature at university, I studied Environmental Archaeology and Geology - one of the largest areas of study I worked in was flooding and I can categorically state there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. None - in fact, the only evidence that shows there was a world-wide flood is literalist Christian science (hardly the benchmark of good scientific practise). If we are adhering to fundamentalist dating of the earth then the level of evolution and diversification is completely incompatible with this time scale (not to mention the difficulty of the marsupials being in Australia, etc.) - if we aren't then there's no evidence otherwise. End of. I find it a bizarre story: if everyone is mired by sin then how come Noah and a few others escaped? I find it hard to believe that so few people in the world could be considered good - if everyone is, in some way, a sinner then we must surmise that Noah was a sinner. I have to say that I acknowledge that there is no secular evidence to actually show that Noah existed so naturally I'm a bit cynical fullstop.

I did not state that archaeology has disproven everything in the bible. I merely stated that it has disproven significant parts of the bible (of which, the Noah story is one of the most famous).

2) What would God need to do to make me think he was good? Stop perpetually marking humanity as sinners; stop economic injustice; stop 'good' people being killed; stop babies from dying; etc., etc.

3)I hardly think that's the worst thing that Christians can be attacked for in terms of evolution.

4) I meant that the child be kept apart from others at all time. If there is no possible way they can interact with sin then surely, one would think, that that child would not be a sinner as it has no possibilities to be so.

Redzeppelin

05-24-2007, 02:03 PM

1) Wrong. Prior to studying English Literature at university, I studied Environmental Archaeology and Geology - one of the largest areas of study I worked in was flooding and I can categorically state there is no evidence of a world-wide flood. None - in fact, the only evidence that shows there was a world-wide flood is literalist Christian science (hardly the benchmark of good scientific practise).

1) Evidence requires interpretation (which is far from objective in nature). Evidence does not always speak for itself - especially in terms of the fossil record. Your assertion is one interpretation. Creationist scientists look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation (and their science is just as rigorous - they simply come up with a different conclusion).

If we are adhering to fundamentalist dating of the earth then the level of evolution and diversification is completely incompatible with this time scale (not to mention the difficulty of the marsupials being in Australia, etc.) - if we aren't then there's no evidence otherwise. End of.

I'm not interested in pursuing this point too far - it's more germane to the evolution thread. Science doesn't disprove the Bible - it merely disagrees with its interpretation.

I find it a bizarre story: if everyone is mired by sin then how come Noah and a few others escaped?

Noah and family were not spared because they were sinless; they were spared because they served God.

I find it hard to believe that so few people in the world could be considered good - if everyone is, in some way, a sinner then we must surmise that Noah was a sinner. I have to say that I acknowledge that there is no secular evidence to actually show that Noah existed so naturally I'm a bit cynical fullstop.

"Hard to believe" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible"; as well, "good" is a term that we and God see differently, since He knows all; from His point of view, someone who appears very "good" to us may actually be a horrible person.

I did not state that archaeology has disproven everything in the bible. I merely stated that it has disproven significant parts of the bible (of which, the Noah story is one of the most famous).

I'll need something more convincing than the dispute over the flood. ID scientists have advanced convincing interpretations of the fossil record that suggest a cataclysmic flood.

2) What would God need to do to make me think he was good? Stop perpetually marking humanity as sinners; stop economic injustice; stop 'good' people being killed; stop babies from dying; etc., etc.

*God doesn't "make" sinners - we do that all by ourselves.
*So you want a world where there is no suffering or pain of any type? That's called "heaven" and eventually we'll get there (as long as we've made an agreement with the Guy in charge). You seem to suggest some sort of Divine Police Officer to stop all evil. There are (at minimum) two problems with that desire:

1) Such action would negate our free will - in order to be free moral agents we must have the choice to serve God or to reject Him. If He interferes in my free will choice to rob you, He has denied me my free choice - and now I cannot serve Him out of love (His desire) but out of fear.
2) Why stop at people being killed? How about He stops you from telling that "off color" joke, or from flirting with your secretary (which your wife wouldn't like)? How about if He stops even that evil thought you had of flipping off the guy who cut you off in traffic? Can't you see the problem with the kind of God you suggest? That God creates a world of mindless submission because being bad isn't an option. That was the whole point of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden: humanity had to have the legitimate choice to not choose God in order for the choice to choose Him to have any meaning at all. Love must be freely chosen. Free will is necessary for love, and one of the potential problems of free will is that it must allow for the choice of evil. An unfortunate (and thankfully, not a permanent) situation.

3)I hardly think that's the worst thing that Christians can be attacked for in terms of evolution.

It's not.

4) I meant that the child be kept apart from others at all time. If there is no possible way they can interact with sin then surely, one would think, that that child would not be a sinner as it has no possibilities to be so.

More than likely, a baby without human interaction would die. Either way, I think psychology would suggest that no human interaction would severely warp the kids psyche. We are born inherently evil - period. That evil first manifests itself as infantile ego (only I exist). If that world-view is not altered, the child will become the worst of monsters.

Morrisonhotel

05-24-2007, 05:55 PM

1) Evidence requires interpretation (which is far from objective in nature). Evidence does not always speak for itself - especially in terms of the fossil record. Your assertion is one interpretation. Creationist scientists look at the same evidence and come up with a different interpretation (and their science is just as rigorous - they simply come up with a different conclusion).

I'm not interested in pursuing this point too far - it's more germane to the evolution thread. Science doesn't disprove the Bible - it merely disagrees with its interpretation.

Noah and family were not spared because they were sinless; they were spared because they served God.

"Hard to believe" doesn't necessarily mean "impossible"; as well, "good" is a term that we and God see differently, since He knows all; from His point of view, someone who appears very "good" to us may actually be a horrible person.

I'll need something more convincing than the dispute over the flood. ID scientists have advanced convincing interpretations of the fossil record that suggest a cataclysmic flood.

*God doesn't "make" sinners - we do that all by ourselves.
*So you want a world where there is no suffering or pain of any type? That's called "heaven" and eventually we'll get there (as long as we've made an agreement with the Guy in charge). You seem to suggest some sort of Divine Police Officer to stop all evil. There are (at minimum) two problems with that desire:

1) Such action would negate our free will - in order to be free moral agents we must have the choice to serve God or to reject Him. If He interferes in my free will choice to rob you, He has denied me my free choice - and now I cannot serve Him out of love (His desire) but out of fear.
2) Why stop at people being killed? How about He stops you from telling that "off color" joke, or from flirting with your secretary (which your wife wouldn't like)? How about if He stops even that evil thought you had of flipping off the guy who cut you off in traffic? Can't you see the problem with the kind of God you suggest? That God creates a world of mindless submission because being bad isn't an option. That was the whole point of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden: humanity had to have the legitimate choice to not choose God in order for the choice to choose Him to have any meaning at all. Love must be freely chosen. Free will is necessary for love, and one of the potential problems of free will is that it must allow for the choice of evil. An unfortunate (and thankfully, not a permanent) situation.

It's not.

More than likely, a baby without human interaction would die. Either way, I think psychology would suggest that no human interaction would severely warp the kids psyche. We are born inherently evil - period. That evil first manifests itself as infantile ego (only I exist). If that world-view is not altered, the child will become the worst of monsters.

1) Do you know anything about modern science (that isn't a personal attack, it's a serious question)? ID 'science' is not science period. End of story. Almost every part of ID is refutable by good science: that is, science which does not have an objective to prove one's belief system (and, furthermore, presents itself to other experts for debate and discussion. I.D. 'science' does not do that. Want to know why? It does not satisfy good scientific practise and it would be picked to pieces by a good scientist (especially when questioning global flooding: if the earth is indeed a few thousand years old (as ID proponents claim) then it would be very very easy to see this flood - so why can't we?). You have not refuted what I have stated about the impossibility of the 'global' flood because, in simple terms, you can not possibly refute it. The simple fact of the matter is that if I.D. 'scientists' were indeed as rigorous as you claim then they would indeed come to the same conclusions as the rest of the field - I find it really interesting to see how many creationists claim to be experts on such fields as this yet have no academic training on the subject. I can demonstrate that there has been no such flood. Can you, using 'good' scientists?

Scientists do not just postulate their theories and leave it at that. They say to the wider academic community: "here is my intepretation of the evidence. Does this sit true?" The scientific community will then help test this - funnily enough, I.D. 'scientists' (I'm dying to hear about a single respected scientist who actually works within this field (i.e. has a full PhD degree in geology/archaeology or some such)) don't allow this kind of serious testing of their work except within Christianity. I wonder why that is? I have done the exact same kind of testing: as someone who has studied this stuff, I have worked within the same realms of this scientific practise and would happily allow any leading authority on the subject to read my musings above.

Convince me otherwise on I.D. 'scientists' as I see no real reason to introduce their 'work' to a discussion on scientific understanding when it follows none of the same premises that have dominated science since, well, the dawn of modern science.

2) So we are concluding, therefore, that the rest of the world did not serve God in any way. I believe that is the implication of the Noah biblical story but I'm finding that a bit difficult to believe.

3)Show me the evidence of the cataclysmic flood. I want to see articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I want to see science that is both empirical and clearly stated, and I want to see articles in peer-reviewed journals by non-I.D. scientists who agree with that.

4)I see no problems either way. God has impounded constrictions on us already: stating how we should live, and so forth. Several times in the bible he invokes his wrath on the world and, therefore, my summation on the topic is that if he really wanted us to be given free will, he'd never ever interfere.

I see no real problem with such a world. I 'd happily enjoy a world where everyone could prosper equally, and not live in any form of fear - I'm not convinced that God would create fear if all humanity got along (if anything, I think they'd be more inclined to love God if everyone was happy).

5)Really? My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is a biologist. I've seen him debate the same subject with creationists and he always brings up far 'worst' criticisms of the biblical account in regards to evolution.

6)If we were to allow it knowledge of others then surely that would negate such sentiments?

Redzeppelin

05-24-2007, 06:14 PM

1) Do you know anything about modern science (that isn't a personal attack, it's a serious question)? ID 'science' is not science period. End of story. Almost every part of ID is refutable by good science: that is, science which does not have an objective to prove one's belief system (and, furthermore, presents itself to other experts for debate and discussion. I.D. 'science' does not do that. Want to know why? It does not satisfy good scientific practise and it would be picked to pieces by a good scientist (especially when questioning global flooding: if the earth is indeed a few thousand years old (as ID proponents claim) then it would be very very easy to see this flood - so why can't we?). You have not refuted what I have stated about the impossibility of the 'global' flood because, in simple terms, you can not possibly refute it. The simple fact of the matter is that if I.D. 'scientists' were indeed as rigorous as you claim then they would indeed come to the same conclusions as the rest of the field - I find it really interesting to see how many creationists claim to be experts on such fields as this yet have no academic training on the subject. I can demonstrate that there has been no such flood. Can you, using 'good' scientists?

I'm going to answer philosophically: creationists and naturalists view the world through their individual "lenses." As such, both essentially engage in circular reasoning: the creationist starts from the foundation that God is real and then argues backwards, interpreting the evidence to fit the conclusion; the Naturalist does the same: he starts from the conclusion that only matter is reality and that there is no spiritual component of reality; as such, he also argues backwards, interpreting his evidence (the same evidence by the way) to fit his view. That's how it works - that's why I cannot offer you any convincing ID arguments or why you can't offer me any convincing naturalist arguments; it also explains why both sides criticize the conclusions of the other. The scientific method is used by both sides - but since we both begin from completely opposite premises, we automatically discount any conclusions the other side makes because of our presuppositional beliefs that our interpretations and conclusions are based upon. Christians are clear on the fact that they view the world through the filter of God; atheists and naturalists tend to believe that they view the world "directly" - they don't: their view is just as influenced as ours is - but they won't often admit to that.

Scientists do not just postulate their theories and leave it at that. They say to the wider academic community: "here is my intepretation of the evidence. Does this sit true?" The scientific community will then help test this - funnily enough, I.D. 'scientists' (I'm dying to hear about a single respected scientist who actually works within this field (i.e. has a full PhD degree in geology/archaeology or some such)) don't allow this kind of serious testing of their work except within Christianity. I wonder why that is? I have done the exact same kind of testing: as someone who has studied this stuff, I have worked within the same realms of this scientific practise and would happily allow any leading authority on the subject to read my musings above.

See above.

Convince me otherwise on I.D. 'scientists' as I see no real reason to introduce their 'work' to a discussion on scientific understanding when it follows none of the same premises that have dominated science since, well, the dawn of modern science.

See above.

2) So we are concluding, therefore, that the rest of the world did not serve God in any way. I believe that is the implication of the Noah biblical story but I'm finding that a bit difficult to believe.

That's OK. I find evolution difficult to believe too.

3)Show me the evidence of the cataclysmic flood. I want to see articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, I want to see science that is both empirical and clearly stated, and I want to see articles in peer-reviewed journals by non-I.D. scientists who agree with that.

Dealt with already.

4)I see no problems either way. God has impounded constrictions on us already: stating how we should live, and so forth. Several times in the bible he invokes his wrath on the world and, therefore, my summation on the topic is that if he really wanted us to be given free will, he'd never ever interfere.

Oh but there is a problem: the God you're asking for wouldn't even allow you to be expressing the opinions you have right now. The fact that you can doubt His existence and question it is proof that free will exists and must exist. The God who wouldn't allow the consequences of free will would also not allow you to question His existence. As well, free will doesn't mean no consequences; it simply means that you freely choose what happens.

I see no real problem with such a world. I 'd happily enjoy a world where everyone could prosper equally, and not live in any form of fear - I'm not convinced that God would create fear if all humanity got along (if anything, I think they'd be more inclined to love God if everyone was happy).

You would be far more critical of this world you've asked for because even evil thought could not exist - "goodness" cannot legitimately exist on earth without the option to choose evil; goodness does not need evil to exist to be good, but we must have the option to choose evil if we are to be good of our own free will. If God didn't allow evil, there'd be no true love - it would be love by default - but such a thing cannot exist, so now we're into involuntary servitude.

5)Really? My dad, as I've mentioned elsewhere is a biologist. I've seen him debate the same subject with creationists and he always brings up far 'worst' criticisms of the biblical account in regards to evolution.

Not a point I wish to pursue. Just made a comment. It's not a foundational point to the argument I'm making.

6)If we were to allow it knowledge of others then surely that would negate such sentiments?

No. Your experiment is impractical. Sin exists - it is not a matter of nurture or nature (though those things can influence it in either direction).

hyperborean

05-25-2007, 09:33 AM

Sin has nothing to do with nature and nurture. Sin is made up!

Redzeppelin

05-25-2007, 12:01 PM

Sin has nothing to do with nature and nurture. Sin is made up!

Hi Hype. You're wrong. But I still respect you. :D

hyperborean

05-25-2007, 03:56 PM

glad to hear it :)

kiobe

05-25-2007, 04:23 PM

No attack was made upon you; I made an prediction of the success of engaging in dialogue with you about the nature of God because you have revealed that you do not see Him (even theoretically) as He is described: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, the source of all that is Good, Right, Just, Loving, Compassionate, etc in the universe. I'm not attacking your intelligence or you as a person; I'm indicating my idea of projected success in having a discussion based upon your characterization of God as a human being. All-knowing beings cannot be "inept" except when being evaluated by people who refuse to accord them the qualities they are described as having. Socrates' first rule of engagement was an agreement upon what the term being discussed meant; if you and I have diametrically opposed ideas of who God is, our discussion will be at cross-purposes from the start to the finish. That's what my comments were asserting.

For the second time: nobody attacked you. I predicted the "success" we would have in this discussion. You are free to prove me wrong.

Your evaluation is based on your limited understanding of God's decision-making process; you make evaluations on what you observe in the world and what you believe is the right thing to do in terms of evil and suffering; while I respect your humanitarian view, it ignores certain realities about free will, love, and the cosmic nature of the battle between good and evil.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God; why don't you show me where it has been "proved false"?

I do not describe God as "good" - the Bible (the authority on His character) does so (many times and in many ways). The presence of sin does not mean that God isn't good; it means that there is a reason that God chooses not to eliminate these things at this point in time.

From the human perspective, there is no good reason to allow evil to exist - period. I can't give you an example you'll accept because I don't know the mind of God. I will tell you this: since the Bible tells us that God desires that we freely love Him, there must also exist the choice to rebel against Him and reject Him; if God stops us from rejecting Him and stops us from commiting evil, then we really don't have free will - because free will involves the ability to choose between two legitimate choices. If God stops us from commiting evil, then He is not a God of love, because love cannot exist without the choice to not love.

A sin-free life is impossible. God counterbalances the suffering and evil in this world through His provision of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - the death of whom allows all sinners to come to God, to be justified, forgiven and saved. The Holy Spirit provides comfort to those in affliction. None of this - I understand - is probably even remotely reasonable or acceptable to you. I would suggest that the "good" God you want - if He existed according to the parameters you set - would be a horrible God to live under.

If you don't mind I'd like to take a stab at the bible's inerrancy.

But first lets agree to keep things factual and not include biblical references that don't occure anywhere else in historical writings. Ok?

Let's start our discussion with Noah's arc. The lenght of the arc is roughly 450 feet. The largest confirmed seaworthy wooden vessel ever built was 341 feet long. The arc would have been 109 feet longer. While slightly longer ships were built than the 341 foot ship, the use of iron was needed to make them seaworthy. The claim made by the bible and the bible only is that Noah built a wooden ship that would dwarf any wooden ship in the history and Noah did this at the ripe old age of about 500. Does the biblical accout allow for helpers? A team of 50 people would still take years to acheve. How would Noah have fed the million of species of animals, insects and alike. He would have to get 2 Chinese pandas, from china, and a, excuse the pun, boatload of live bamboo to feed the pandas. The arc is said to have set down on Mt. Ararat in what we now call Turkey and while being connected by land to China, would be a bit of a walk. Wouldn't all the passangers of the arc have disembarked where the arc layed to rest? If so why are there no kangaroos in Turkey. How did Noah return the roos to Austrailia, along with everything else that is found exclusivly on that continent? For the sake of space I'll stop here but there are too many imposibilities to believe that this is error free.

Redzeppelin

05-25-2007, 04:55 PM

If you don't mind I'd like to take a stab at the bible's inerrancy.

But first lets agree to keep things factual and not include biblical references that don't occure anywhere else in historical writings. Ok?

Let's start our discussion with Noah's arc. The lenght of the arc is roughly 450 feet. The largest confirmed seaworthy wooden vessel ever built was 341 feet long. The arc would have been 109 feet longer. While slightly longer ships were built than the 341 foot ship, the use of iron was needed to make them seaworthy. The claim made by the bible and the bible only is that Noah built a wooden ship that would dwarf any wooden ship in the history and Noah did this at the ripe old age of about 500. Does the biblical accout allow for helpers? A team of 50 people would still take years to acheve. How would Noah have fed the million of species of animals, insects and alike. He would have to get 2 Chinese pandas, from china, and a, excuse the pun, boatload of live bamboo to feed the pandas. The arc is said to have set down on Mt. Ararat in what we now call Turkey and while being connected by land to China, would be a bit of a walk. Wouldn't all the passangers of the arc have disembarked where the arc layed to rest? If so why are there no kangaroos in Turkey. How did Noah return the roos to Austrailia, along with everything else that is found exclusivly on that continent? For the sake of space I'll stop here but there are too many imposibilities to believe that this is error free.

OK - but you're not going to like my answer because it's going to sound a lot like the "it's a mystery" answer. How about we bypass the ark and go back 5 chapters to Genesis 1? God creates the heavens and the earth ex nihilo. If we grant that as being true, then there is nothing that occurs afterwards in the Bible that is unbelievable because - compared to creating the universe - building a boat that survives a world-wide flood is child's play. As such, my answer will probably strike you as unworthy at best, a "cop out" at the worst: God knows more about ship design than humans do. We are not told if the provisions for the animals were solely provided by Noah, or if God worked a miracle (like Christ's feeding of the 5000 in the New Testament). You wish to argue this point on the grounds of empirical, evidential considerations - and from that point of view, the story is ridiculous; but, when one begins from the conclusion that God is real, then everything the Bible says becomes perfectly reasonable. If the Bible is lying about creation, then it's lying about everything else. You can't pick it apart and have it maintain some of its integrity.

Morrisonhotel

05-27-2007, 01:22 PM

I'm going to answer philosophically: creationists and naturalists view the world through their individual "lenses." As such, both essentially engage in circular reasoning: the creationist starts from the foundation that God is real and then argues backwards, interpreting the evidence to fit the conclusion; the Naturalist does the same: he starts from the conclusion that only matter is reality and that there is no spiritual component of reality; as such, he also argues backwards, interpreting his evidence (the same evidence by the way) to fit his view. That's how it works - that's why I cannot offer you any convincing ID arguments or why you can't offer me any convincing naturalist arguments; it also explains why both sides criticize the conclusions of the other. The scientific method is used by both sides - but since we both begin from completely opposite premises, we automatically discount any conclusions the other side makes because of our presuppositional beliefs that our interpretations and conclusions are based upon. Christians are clear on the fact that they view the world through the filter of God; atheists and naturalists tend to believe that they view the world "directly" - they don't: their view is just as influenced as ours is - but they won't often admit to that.

Oh but there is a problem: the God you're asking for wouldn't even allow you to be expressing the opinions you have right now. The fact that you can doubt His existence and question it is proof that free will exists and must exist. The God who wouldn't allow the consequences of free will would also not allow you to question His existence. As well, free will doesn't mean no consequences; it simply means that you freely choose what happens.

You would be far more critical of this world you've asked for because even evil thought could not exist - "goodness" cannot legitimately exist on earth without the option to choose evil; goodness does not need evil to exist to be good, but we must have the option to choose evil if we are to be good of our own free will. If God didn't allow evil, there'd be no true love - it would be love by default - but such a thing cannot exist, so now we're into involuntary servitude.

No. Your experiment is impractical. Sin exists - it is not a matter of nurture or nature (though those things can influence it in either direction).

1) No, no, no. In case you had not realised, science has displaced the importance of philosophy over the last couple of centuries. As this discussion is, in fact, on the role of science in relation to the accuracy of the bible then let's keep the discussion focused on scientifically speaking rather than philosophically speaking, ok with you?

What is important, in relation to science, is that one of the end products of scientific study is a conclusion. For example, I can pose the question: if I mix two chemicals together, what will happen? I offer my hypothesis; do all the necessary leg-work (undertake the experiment and repeat ad nauseum); and then see whether it holds up to my hypothesis; I then provide a conclusion which can be tested by other scientists. That is, in a nutshell, how science works. Therefore, regardless of a scientist's Naturalism, they would be able to determine whether something was true or not. How does this all relate to Noah? Simple: any scientist can test for signs of flood. If that shows an effect concurrent with several places in the world then there is a good chance that there was, indeed, a flood. Scientists have widely studied this - taking samples from all over the world. What do their results show? Nothing, whatsoever, that suggests that there has ever been a worldwide flood. Nothing. I.D. 'scientists' might proclaim otherwise but, quite simply, their methods are incredibly unsound, and have been tested by other scientists and found to be completely wrong. We are, of course, talking about the same scientists who proclaim that , in relation to the Noah story, the Grand Canyon was created by the same flood waters (you don't have to be a scientist to realise that this is obviously stupid. A few days of flooding would not do that kind of damage to something made up of such heavy rocks: shale, etc.). The fact of the matter is, my friend, that I.D. science does not stand up in this case (and I'm dubious whether it does elsewhere) - scientists have shown that it has never occurred due to samples taken all over the place. The onus, therefore, is on I.D. scientists to disprove a 'proof' (put as such as proving something unequivocally can have some limitations) provided by other scientists - something they have not managed to do. End of story. Look in to it - there are literally hundreds of websites on this matter all by reputable scientists.

I challenge you to provide evidence which holds up to scientific rigour and at least allows questioning on whether there is a possibility that there was a flood. Don't dismiss this challenge, take it on: whilst I'm skeptical of the outcome, I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong. I come from a scientific background, I have studied science myself, and thus am in an excellect position to judge the merits of scientific work. From what I've seen on the matter by I.D. scientists, I have been astounded by the shocking lack of basic implementation of, you know, actual science.

2) If the God I'm asking for porovided the things I asked for then the ability to question his existence via free will would not be necessary - we would, after all, not doubt someone if our lives were perfect. The free will argument does not prove God's existence. It just seems a perfectly legit way of determining the complete, as I see it, uselessness of God (should He exist).

3) You're assuming that there has to be exact opposites (nothing is exactly opposite: there are all kinds of limitations in this). It reminds of two things: Orwell's 1984 for the placing of 'un' before words to create polar opposites and also the system of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics - and the complete limitations of that in regards to opposites.

4) That doesn't really address my experiment. I see no reason why it would not work.

Morrisonhotel

05-27-2007, 01:28 PM

You can't pick it apart and have it maintain some of its integrity.

At least we agree on something.

Redzeppelin

05-27-2007, 10:56 PM

1) No, no, no. In case you had not realised, science has displaced the importance of philosophy over the last couple of centuries. As this discussion is, in fact, on the role of science in relation to the accuracy of the bible then let's keep the discussion focused on scientifically speaking rather than philosophically speaking, ok with you?

What is important, in relation to science, is that one of the end products of scientific study is a conclusion. For example, I can pose the question: if I mix two chemicals together, what will happen? I offer my hypothesis; do all the necessary leg-work (undertake the experiment and repeat ad nauseum); and then see whether it holds up to my hypothesis; I then provide a conclusion which can be tested by other scientists. That is, in a nutshell, how science works. Therefore, regardless of a scientist's Naturalism, they would be able to determine whether something was true or not. How does this all relate to Noah? Simple: any scientist can test for signs of flood. If that shows an effect concurrent with several places in the world then there is a good chance that there was, indeed, a flood. Scientists have widely studied this - taking samples from all over the world. What do their results show? Nothing, whatsoever, that suggests that there has ever been a worldwide flood. Nothing. I.D. 'scientists' might proclaim otherwise but, quite simply, their methods are incredibly unsound, and have been tested by other scientists and found to be completely wrong. We are, of course, talking about the same scientists who proclaim that , in relation to the Noah story, the Grand Canyon was created by the same flood waters (you don't have to be a scientist to realise that this is obviously stupid. A few days of flooding would not do that kind of damage to something made up of such heavy rocks: shale, etc.). The fact of the matter is, my friend, that I.D. science does not stand up in this case (and I'm dubious whether it does elsewhere) - scientists have shown that it has never occurred due to samples taken all over the place. The onus, therefore, is on I.D. scientists to disprove a 'proof' (put as such as proving something unequivocally can have some limitations) provided by other scientists - something they have not managed to do. End of story. Look in to it - there are literally hundreds of websites on this matter all by reputable scientists.

I challenge you to provide evidence which holds up to scientific rigour and at least allows questioning on whether there is a possibility that there was a flood. Don't dismiss this challenge, take it on: whilst I'm skeptical of the outcome, I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong. I come from a scientific background, I have studied science myself, and thus am in an excellect position to judge the merits of scientific work. From what I've seen on the matter by I.D. scientists, I have been astounded by the shocking lack of basic implementation of, you know, actual science.

In your own way, you are dogmatic as a Christian in your approach. You ignored my post completely. The whole point of my post was to inform you that there is no evidence that will convince either of us of the truth the in which the other believes because the premises that we begin from (God is real; God isn't real) determine how we shall interpret the info at hand. Your example of chemicals is irrelevant in terms of my assertion because there is no interpretation required; in terms of reading the fossil record, yes, some interpretation does come into play there. Interpretation is subjective in nature and will be heavily influenced by the philosophic world-view that the scientist holds - whether that be creationism or naturalism; stop with the "unsound" science stuff - ID scientists use the same tools as naturalists - it's the conclusions that you think are unsound. Why don't you give me an example of unsound method?

And, whether you do or not, the point still stands: we will not prove anything to each other because of our "filters." Your dismissal of my philosophic point simply tells me you don't want to deal with what I've said. Your science is grounded in a particular philosophic position, and so it is relevant to the discussion. Your dismissal of it tells me that you don't want to acknowledge my point.

2) If the God I'm asking for porovided the things I asked for then the ability to question his existence via free will would not be necessary - we would, after all, not doubt someone if our lives were perfect. The free will argument does not prove God's existence. It just seems a perfectly legit way of determining the complete, as I see it, uselessness of God (should He exist).

I didn't say the free will proved anything - I said it necessitates the potential for evil in the world. Again: you want some sort of cosmic policeman, but that policeman would create a nightmare universe because you would have no choice in how you behaved.

3) You're assuming that there has to be exact opposites (nothing is exactly opposite: there are all kinds of limitations in this). It reminds of two things: Orwell's 1984 for the placing of 'un' before words to create polar opposites and also the system of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics - and the complete limitations of that in regards to opposites.

Good and evil are opposites.

4) That doesn't really address my experiment. I see no reason why it would not work.

The predisposition to sin is inherent. You can come up with all kinds of unrealistic experiments but that doesn't change the fact that all are born into sin; whether the individual is given a chance to act it out or not doesn't change that fact.

NikolaiI

05-28-2007, 01:58 AM

"The Bible is the inerrant word of God"?

This is dangerous, completely false, and has led to many peoples' deaths. The Bible was written by people, and all Christian theology has been evolved by humans throughout the years. It is not clear whether God reacts to prayers, or whether He does not interfere with the laws of the universe. People who say one thing or the other are merely people asserting this. They got these ideas from other people, and those from other people, all the way back to the beginning of any religious ideas.

I mean what is the Bible? It was not God, but people who decided what would be in it, and what would not.

The Bible is not the inerrant word of God in any sense, nor does it claim to be. Some of it is written by kings, some by prophets, some of it is simply poetry...

People believe what they're told, what they're taught as children. If they do not have any contact with different opinions, they will not ever think any differently. If they do not have contact with other opinions until they are adults, they will be very hard to convince, and will react defensively. If you are brought up to believe something and every person in your universe holds it as undisputed truth, even more than that - holy, sacred, where to dispute it is blasphemous, and brings death - it is what you will adopt. This is why these things survive, and why people believe them. The history of Christianity is a strange one.

- Which doesn't mean that it doesn't have its good points. Obviously, the Christians of today are much better people by our standards, if that means full of love, tolerant, kind, accepting, etc...peaceful of mind, happy...

"A sin-free life is impossible."

Impossible for humans? But not for Christ? What about the Buddha? What about Saint Francis? Do you consider life as the length of time from birth to death? What if I am born again in the Christian sense, and do not sin until I die?

I wrote about this another place, I think it was Werther who said something like "You create an ideal of perfection, that you bow down and worship with tears, and yet you feel inadequate, that you will never for a moment be perfect, you will never measure up to what you are obliged to, and it makes you mean and curse your ideal, and be mean to others, and be far below it, and yet you still bow down and worship it," and this is how I feel.

We can't be perfect? No no - nothing is more instantly shot down, and nothing is more frowned upon than someone saying they are perfect, or free of sin. Nothing is more immediately seen as a sign that someone has taken leave of their senses, but perhaps they are not as stupid as you think? Perhaps they have indeed - gasp - realized the universal contempt for themselves, and they know that you will shun them for saying what they have. But maybe they have read Walt Whitman say he is perfect, and they think that it's okay to think this, even that it is not such a big deal for one person on earth to think they are perfect...maybe they have heard of "Instant Buddhahood," which makes sense to them.

But no one is perfect, not from start to finish, and there is good and bad in all people. ("People are the same wherever you go, there is good and bad...") But who decides the start, who decides the finish?

All of this - this entire argument - every point made on this thread is based off of a host of other errors. What we are talking about is all make-believe. All of our words and language are all arbitrary, and don't relate to reality.

Of course, language started innocent enough - descriptive words, describing things in our environment - tree, rock, person, apple - but look what they have led us to! I shall do away with all words!

We are part of the world, not seperate. Life begins a thousand times in a lifetime...we live many lives. Many of mine were free of sin. Many were very close with God.

The playmates of Krishna are so immersed in pure love that they do not realize it is the Supreme Godhead they are with, they think of him as a friend.

Anyway, nothing meant to be criticising. Namaste, everyone...

Redzeppelin

05-28-2007, 09:33 AM

"The Bible is the inerrant word of God"?

That is correct.

This is dangerous, completely false, and has led to many peoples' deaths. The Bible was written by people, and all Christian theology has been evolved by humans throughout the years. It is not clear whether God reacts to prayers, or whether He does not interfere with the laws of the universe. People who say one thing or the other are merely people asserting this. They got these ideas from other people, and those from other people, all the way back to the beginning of any religious ideas.

Sorry - but you're flat-out wrong on all counts. You are free to think that your statements are true, but they're not. That the Bible has been misused does not mean that it is not an inspired document; that problem is due to the fact that sinful human beings try to interpret it.

I mean what is the Bible? It was not God, but people who decided what would be in it, and what would not.

And what is your authority to state such a thing? Personal feeling? Vague generalization? Or, to keep it simple: says who?

The Bible is not the inerrant word of God in any sense, nor does it claim to be. Some of it is written by kings, some by prophets, some of it is simply poetry...

I repeat: says who? Upon what authority do you attempt to dismiss the validity of the Bible?

People believe what they're told, what they're taught as children. If they do not have any contact with different opinions, they will not ever think any differently. If they do not have contact with other opinions until they are adults, they will be very hard to convince, and will react defensively. If you are brought up to believe something and every person in your universe holds it as undisputed truth, even more than that - holy, sacred, where to dispute it is blasphemous, and brings death - it is what you will adopt. This is why these things survive, and why people believe them. The history of Christianity is a strange one.

Everything you said is equally true for parents who choose to bring their children up as atheists - just as difficult to reach in terms of offering them a different view from the one they absorbed - in fact, true for all philosophic positions passed on by parents. So?

Things survive for the reason you gave; they also survive because they have value and generation after generation sees that value. That is another valid option.

- Which doesn't mean that it doesn't have its good points. Obviously, the Christians of today are much better people by our standards, if that means full of love, tolerant, kind, accepting, etc...peaceful of mind, happy...

"Better"? What does that mean? "Better" than what?

"A sin-free life is impossible."

Impossible for humans? But not for Christ? What about the Buddha? What about Saint Francis? Do you consider life as the length of time from birth to death? What if I am born again in the Christian sense, and do not sin until I die?

Buddha and St. Francis were humans - they sinned (and St. Francis would tell you that he sinned daily - if he was indeed the Christian he was said to be). Sin is unaviodable; no human can totally avoid it - we all commit some form of it every day; God's forgiveness covers our sins, and we are to avoid sin as much as we are humanly capable of doing, but the Bible makes it clear that sin is unavoidable for "fallen" human beings.

I wrote about this another place, I think it was Werther who said something like "You create an ideal of perfection, that you bow down and worship with tears, and yet you feel inadequate, that you will never for a moment be perfect, you will never measure up to what you are obliged to, and it makes you mean and curse your ideal, and be mean to others, and be far below it, and yet you still bow down and worship it," and this is how I feel.

Well, Werther has his ideas - which sound solidly rooted in secular humanism. We can tout human potential all we want - history reveals that we are pretty incapable on our own of bringing society into a better form; we tend to contribute pain and suffering to this world.

We can't be perfect? No no - nothing is more instantly shot down, and nothing is more frowned upon than someone saying they are perfect, or free of sin. Nothing is more immediately seen as a sign that someone has taken leave of their senses, but perhaps they are not as stupid as you think? Perhaps they have indeed - gasp - realized the universal contempt for themselves, and they know that you will shun them for saying what they have. But maybe they have read Walt Whitman say he is perfect, and they think that it's okay to think this, even that it is not such a big deal for one person on earth to think they are perfect...maybe they have heard of "Instant Buddhahood," which makes sense to them.

"Perfection" means different things to a Christian and an atheist; to the Christian it means being like Christ; to the atheist (I'm guessing) it means being the "best I can be." There's a difference.

But no one is perfect, not from start to finish, and there is good and bad in all people. ("People are the same wherever you go, there is good and bad...") But who decides the start, who decides the finish?

Don't follow where you're going here.

All of this - this entire argument - every point made on this thread is based off of a host of other errors. What we are talking about is all make-believe. All of our words and language are all arbitrary, and don't relate to reality.

Your opinion. Do you have anything to support this opinion?

Of course, language started innocent enough - descriptive words, describing things in our environment - tree, rock, person, apple - but look what they have led us to! I shall do away with all words!

Good luck. Any hint as to what you'll substitute it with?

We are part of the world, not seperate. Life begins a thousand times in a lifetime...we live many lives. Many of mine were free of sin. Many were very close with God.

Which God do you believe in if not the one of the Bible? Because if the Bible has no authority, then how do you even know who God is and whether or not He is worthy of your worship?

The playmates of Krishna are so immersed in pure love that they do not realize it is the Supreme Godhead they are with, they think of him as a friend.

Anyway, nothing meant to be criticising. Namaste, everyone...

But that is all you've done, my friend: criticize the Bible and those who believe in its veracity.

NikolaiI

05-28-2007, 12:05 PM

It is impossible to go for one day without sinning? What is the significance of a 24-hour period? I ask you, is it possible to go for one hour without sinning? One minute? Are you saying there are not periods free of sin? Well, you agree there are some such periods, only, they are by neccessity less than 24-hours?

About the fact that our langauge is arbitrary, I back that up with both "No Boundary," by Kin Wilber, a book integrating Eastern and Western approaches for personal growth.

About the fact that words are bad, I back it up by the book "The Way of the Heart" by Henri Nouwen. I sincerely recommend that book. It is written by a Christian Minister, written to other ministers, about Christian spirituality, particularly, the spirituality of the Desert Fathers, who were Christian saints, or ascetics. It's where I learned about Saint Athony, the Father of the Saints. It's a remarkable book.

Anyway, I have to go, have a nice day, namaste. Thanks for your time.

Oh, and the ideas I have that we are not seperate from the world, that comes from Buddhism and Hinduism, I'd really really recommend "Entering the Stream," if you could find it, it's another really amazing book. Thanks, bye.

hyperborean

05-28-2007, 03:01 PM

Redzeppelin

05-28-2007, 06:44 PM

The whole idea of "sinning" is so ridiculous. If I do something "bad" why I do I have to worry about what God thinks of it? I should worry about how it effects myself and my peers, therefore, leaving the focus on humanity (where the focus should be in the first place).

If you don't believe in God then there's nothing to worry about; if you do, however, you worry about what God "thinks of it" because you care about your relationship with God because sin has a negative effect on one's relationship with God (just like selfish, negative behavior would negatively effect any relationship here on earth).

kiobe

05-29-2007, 03:27 PM

OK - but you're not going to like my answer because it's going to sound a lot like the "it's a mystery" answer. How about we bypass the ark and go back 5 chapters to Genesis 1? God creates the heavens and the earth ex nihilo. If we grant that as being true, then there is nothing that occurs afterwards in the Bible that is unbelievable because - compared to creating the universe - building a boat that survives a world-wide flood is child's play. As such, my answer will probably strike you as unworthy at best, a "cop out" at the worst: God knows more about ship design than humans do. We are not told if the provisions for the animals were solely provided by Noah, or if God worked a miracle (like Christ's feeding of the 5000 in the New Testament). You wish to argue this point on the grounds of empirical, evidential considerations - and from that point of view, the story is ridiculous; but, when one begins from the conclusion that God is real, then everything the Bible says becomes perfectly reasonable.
If the Bible is lying about creation, then it's lying about everything else. You can't pick it apart and have it maintain some of its integrity.

Please excuse my attempts to reply to parts of your comment, I am still trying to figure how this is done. But,
I am not trying to show the there are lies in the bible but to shed a light on a phoenominal, to me anyway, amount of inconsistancies, gaps and a lack of real world answers to questions concerning the gaps and inconsistancies that are found by people that question the bible's perfection. Genesis 1 tells of God's creation of the heavens and earth and all the beasts, whales, fowl, seeds, trees, but not until the end of the 6th day does God create man and woman. Man and woman are created [I]after[I] the rest of His creations. In Genesis 2, Man is created then, so not to be alone God creates all the beasts, then sometime later creates woman from man's rib. But didn't God just create man and woman in genesis 1, and didn't God just create the beasts before man and woman, now.....after? Just one of hundreds of contradictions. The acception of contradictions as "we can't know God's reasons" or the acception of unanswered issues to common everyday questions as "miracles" just helps to create an air of disbelief. Is it possible that the bible is a collection of folk tales, stories and fables handed down as a record of cultural folk history?

Redzeppelin

05-31-2007, 03:48 PM

Please excuse my attempts to reply to parts of your comment, I am still trying to figure how this is done. But,
I am not trying to show the there are lies in the bible but to shed a light on a phoenominal, to me anyway, amount of inconsistancies, gaps and a lack of real world answers to questions concerning the gaps and inconsistancies that are found by people that question the bible's perfection. Genesis 1 tells of God's creation of the heavens and earth and all the beasts, whales, fowl, seeds, trees, but not until the end of the 6th day does God create man and woman. Man and woman are created [I]after[I] the rest of His creations. In Genesis 2, Man is created then, so not to be alone God creates all the beasts, then sometime later creates woman from man's rib. But didn't God just create man and woman in genesis 1, and didn't God just create the beasts before man and woman, now.....after?

The accounts are not contradictory - to do so would mean that they say things that are irreconcilable; that is not so. There is no clear statement of order in Genesis 2 - Genesis 2 is a recap of Genesis 1 (which establishes the order). Just as two war correspondents at different locations will give different accounts of the battle, the two chapters give different (but not contradictory) accounts of creation. There is no clear time indication to suggest a sequence disagreement between Gen 1 & 2.

Just one of hundreds of contradictions. The acception of contradictions as "we can't know God's reasons" or the acception of unanswered issues to common everyday questions as "miracles" just helps to create an air of disbelief. Is it possible that the bible is a collection of folk tales, stories and fables handed down as a record of cultural folk history?

"Hundreds of contradictions"?

Folk tales do not contain the comprehensive and cosmic answers that the Bible gives us in terms of morality, suffering, human nature and the existence of God. No comparison.

weepingforloman

06-03-2007, 10:36 PM

NikolaiI

06-04-2007, 12:10 AM

And what is your authority to state such a thing? Personal feeling? Vague generalization? Or, to keep it simple: says who?

http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm, for one. I do not claim to be an expert, but this is what I was taught and what I believe. As if it is not arbitrary enough. I don't believe half what I have been taught. Sometimes I believe what makes sense, other times just what feels right to me.

I do believe certain miracles in the bible are possibly true, but I know that having powers doesn't necessarily mean divine contact. As for the bible being literally or inerrantly true, that just doesn't make sense. Again, as if it is not arbritrary enough. But then, it is important to people, and probably no less to me. Therefore I make this effort.

Really, Red, there are so many fragments, I don't know how to reply to your comment. It seems like you set me up as someone you didn't want to agree with. Maybe that's because I was arguing a point. I don't know, nevermind.

Better - that didn't mean anything, and it was out of place. I simply meant people are better nowadays than in past, it is a generalization and totally opinion.

The history of Christianity - that is a strange one, and bloody and terrible. It's not one that's been about love, or compassion, it's mainly been about politics, greed, and money - again, an opinion, take it with a grain of salt. It's not important. So unimportant you wouldn't believe. I don't think it has anything to do with events - that is determined by people's hearts in the time they are acting.

You say we are incapable of bringing society into a better form on our own, but have we not? If society is better than no society, if any form is better than no form, then that disproves it right there. Unless you argue that we did not do it alone, without God. Which is arguable.

There is a difference between being the best you can be and being like Christ. One is an Army slogan. I would say there are very many atheists that consider perfection being as Christ, or being as some other perfect being. It's the definition of the word - perfect. Others would say simply being as you should be, as my girlfriend says, totally happy and carefree and knowing things are as they should be.

I meant when does life begin? When does it end? And, you didn't answer my other point - what is special about a 24-hour period? Why am I not allowed to be perfect for 24 hours? 23? One hour? A minute? This seems arbitrary and I didn't see where you were going. We breathe sin? I disagree.

I do understand the...struggle with sin, but I think people make it out to be more than it is, until it hurts them, and others. I think hyperborean said there was no such thing as sin. My definition of it would be: unwholesome thoughts, speech or action.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing your post. I haven't read all of those articles, I am in the midst of it now, but I take it there is one article saying one thing, and a rebuttal, and then a counter-rebuttal. Seems interesting.

Ah, talk to you later. Thanks.

NikolaiI

06-04-2007, 12:25 AM

Analysis of Whitman, this is a very interesting, short little article you might like, not concerning the bible actually but concerning the inherent state of man. I apologize for posting philosophy here.
http://montanaacademy.tripod.com/id7.html

weepingforloman

06-04-2007, 10:00 PM

1) No, no, no. In case you had not realised, science has displaced the importance of philosophy over the last couple of centuries. As this discussion is, in fact, on the role of science in relation to the accuracy of the bible then let's keep the discussion focused on scientifically speaking rather than philosophically speaking, ok with you?

What is important, in relation to science, is that one of the end products of scientific study is a conclusion. For example, I can pose the question: if I mix two chemicals together, what will happen? I offer my hypothesis; do all the necessary leg-work (undertake the experiment and repeat ad nauseum); and then see whether it holds up to my hypothesis; I then provide a conclusion which can be tested by other scientists. That is, in a nutshell, how science works. Therefore, regardless of a scientist's Naturalism, they would be able to determine whether something was true or not. How does this all relate to Noah? Simple: any scientist can test for signs of flood. If that shows an effect concurrent with several places in the world then there is a good chance that there was, indeed, a flood. Scientists have widely studied this - taking samples from all over the world. What do their results show? Nothing, whatsoever, that suggests that there has ever been a worldwide flood. Nothing. I.D. 'scientists' might proclaim otherwise but, quite simply, their methods are incredibly unsound, and have been tested by other scientists and found to be completely wrong. We are, of course, talking about the same scientists who proclaim that , in relation to the Noah story, the Grand Canyon was created by the same flood waters (you don't have to be a scientist to realise that this is obviously stupid. A few days of flooding would not do that kind of damage to something made up of such heavy rocks: shale, etc.). The fact of the matter is, my friend, that I.D. science does not stand up in this case (and I'm dubious whether it does elsewhere) - scientists have shown that it has never occurred due to samples taken all over the place. The onus, therefore, is on I.D. scientists to disprove a 'proof' (put as such as proving something unequivocally can have some limitations) provided by other scientists - something they have not managed to do. End of story. Look in to it - there are literally hundreds of websites on this matter all by reputable scientists.

I challenge you to provide evidence which holds up to scientific rigour and at least allows questioning on whether there is a possibility that there was a flood. Don't dismiss this challenge, take it on: whilst I'm skeptical of the outcome, I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong. I come from a scientific background, I have studied science myself, and thus am in an excellect position to judge the merits of scientific work. From what I've seen on the matter by I.D. scientists, I have been astounded by the shocking lack of basic implementation of, you know, actual science.

2) If the God I'm asking for porovided the things I asked for then the ability to question his existence via free will would not be necessary - we would, after all, not doubt someone if our lives were perfect. The free will argument does not prove God's existence. It just seems a perfectly legit way of determining the complete, as I see it, uselessness of God (should He exist).

3) You're assuming that there has to be exact opposites (nothing is exactly opposite: there are all kinds of limitations in this). It reminds of two things: Orwell's 1984 for the placing of 'un' before words to create polar opposites and also the system of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics - and the complete limitations of that in regards to opposites.

4) That doesn't really address my experiment. I see no reason why it would not work.

I'm sorry, but your entire post is wrapped up in a particular philosophical view. You obviously have a belief in Progress (capital needed). Do you really believe that science has "overtaken" philosophy? Even in the Middle Ages there were "scientists." And if science has really overtaken philosophy, why the sudden outburst of political correctness and "tolerance?" I would say that these are the biggest influences in modern, western society, not science. Furthermore, what many people believe to be statements of science are not quite fact, but packaged up with the fact as if they belong there. Lastly, consider this: most people believe that science will eventually be able to prove all facts are facts (oxygen is good, the sun provides warmth, and so on through the most complex of scientific facts). Even if that were possible, science could never prove that it could prove all facts. Science cannot establish its own authority. Science can never remove the final doubt of the faithful.

linz

06-05-2007, 03:50 PM

I'll tell you my opinion, but I am not sure of anything. I believe that before Christ, many prophets said many things, and it is Christ who made since of them. When Christ was in the wilderness, Satan tried to make him use scripture for selfish reasons instead of selfless reasons. Therefore it is likely from this, that the whole of the Old testament can be incorrectly interpreted for ill, or correctly for good. Maybe it is best not to assume anything, as Christ himself said after the last supper in John, "I have spoken to you figuratively, but one day I shall speak to you plainly about the father. I have much else to say to you, but you couldn't bare it now. One day you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.' This seems to say Christ himself admits to have spoken symbolically, as the mystery of himself and the father are not explained plainly yet. This goes all the way back to Daniel and the abomination of desolation, the sweet and bitter book, and so on.

weepingforloman

06-05-2007, 09:00 PM

linz

06-05-2007, 09:25 PM

It was part of the prophecy of Isaiah that the Suffering Servant (Christ) would speak in parables. It was necessary for Jesus to speak figuratively because the truth is not within the realm of understanding of the fallen brain.

Are you trying to say Christ tried to mislead people? In that case I say he mislead you, as you think you can decipher who has fallen by who doesn't believe in him, but John said a time will come when all will believe in him. "He is coming with the clouds, and everyone will see him, even those who pierced him, and everyone will mourn because of him." - Revelation of St. John the Divine

Anyone who truly scrutinizes Christ words can understand them, otherwise he would would have also lied! In other words maybe it is those without openness, humility, and love, but who look at scripture as black and white, hell and heaven, who might be in danger of damnation.

Remember the parable of the master who forgave his servant, but the servant himself would not forgive someone else the same thing so the master punished him. Therefore any sin you have ever done you must also not hold against anyone else ever! Nor judge anyone for anything, even not believing in Christ! In this day and age who truly believe anyways, for if they did they could move a mountain! This is the true meaning of Christ's parable.