right and wrong in the bible

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I didn't understand you correctly then, and that's that.

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?

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.

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.

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.