right and wrong in the bible

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-23-2007, 06:28 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.
05-23-2007, 06:32 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

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.
05-23-2007, 08:58 PM
kiobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.

What's the cutoff. At what age does God no longer considere us children?
05-24-2007, 09:54 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.
05-24-2007, 12:54 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.
05-24-2007, 02:03 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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

It's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.
05-24-2007, 05:55 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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?
05-24-2007, 06:14 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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).
05-25-2007, 09:33 AM
hyperborean

Sin has nothing to do with nature and nurture. Sin is made up!
05-25-2007, 12:01 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperborean

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

Hi Hype. You're wrong. But I still respect you. :D
05-25-2007, 03:56 PM
hyperborean

glad to hear it :)
05-25-2007, 04:23 PM
kiobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.
05-25-2007, 04:55 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiobe

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.
05-27-2007, 01:22 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.
05-27-2007, 01:28 PM
Morrisonhotel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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

At least we agree on something.
05-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.
05-28-2007, 01:58 AM
NikolaiI

"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...
05-28-2007, 09:33 AM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"The Bible is the inerrant word of God"?

That is correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

- 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

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.
05-28-2007, 12:05 PM
NikolaiI

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.
05-28-2007, 03:01 PM
hyperborean

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).
05-28-2007, 06:44 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by hyperborean

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).
05-29-2007, 03:27 PM
kiobe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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?
05-31-2007, 03:48 PM
Redzeppelin

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiobe

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiobe

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.
06-03-2007, 10:36 PM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

"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...

If anyone kills in the name of God (not in a war declared by a nation, or just punishment by the state) he is utterly wrong and totally ignores, rather than believes in, the literal statements of the Bible. Jesus asked for unending mercy.

We take it on faith that the Bible's creation (called canonization) was guided by the Spirit of God. We know it was written by men (hence names like "The Book of Isaiah").
06-04-2007, 12:10 AM
NikolaiI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

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.
06-04-2007, 12:25 AM
NikolaiI

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
06-04-2007, 10:00 PM
weepingforloman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrisonhotel

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.
06-05-2007, 03:50 PM
linz

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.
06-05-2007, 09:00 PM
weepingforloman

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.
06-05-2007, 09:25 PM
linz

Quote:

Originally Posted by weepingforloman

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.
06-05-2007, 10:48 PM
weepingforloman

I said the "fallen brain"-- we are all fallen. I am fallen, and have a fallen brain. You are fallen and have a fallen brain. Everyone else is fallen and has a fallen brain. Christ did not mislead people, He used figurative language because it was something they could grasp, much in the way that the Bible anthropomophizes God because humans can understand it--divine baby talk, it is called.
06-05-2007, 10:52 PM
linz

I didn't understand you correctly then, and that's that.
06-06-2007, 01:42 AM
NikolaiI

Descartes, I believe, had some interesting theological ideas about the human form, human imperfection and perfection. As far as fallen brain is concerned, that doesn't quite make sense to me. I'd sooner believe that while some of us has issues, perfection is quite attainable. It's not that hard to be at one with Christ. If you pray sincerely, you'll be rewarded with meditative peace of mind, and that is what being "high on Jesus" means. I believe Descartes basically said that we can be perfect, or are perfect, because we were created in the form of Christ. I don't think we have fallen brains, I think they're perfectly fine. I won't say divine, but is human not divine?
06-06-2007, 12:51 PM
weepingforloman

Humanity, while the closest created being to God, is still not divine. The issue of human perfection is a major difference between Buddhism/Hinduism and the Semitic faiths. I side with the Judaic beliefs.
06-06-2007, 10:28 PM
NikolaiI

True, but there is still infinite possibility (see eternal recurrence) for goodness, and humanity can be very glorious. Pascal said: to make light of morality, that is true morality, to make light of genius, that is true genius. Maybe then to make light of divinity, that is true divinity.
06-07-2007, 10:39 AM
weepingforloman

True, true, I do not deny that there have been great things done-- but I believe that every instance of good action is an instance of God working directly through a human being. I believe that someone (can't remember who) said, "We are higher and holier, and lower and fouler than we imagine." What we are intended to be, what we will be, is wonderful beyond our comprehension. What we are now is corrupt beyond our knowing. By sinning, we, who are made in the image of God, "fearfully and wonderfully made," are essentially spitting in the face of the Most Beautiful.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 PM.