The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is the only possible explanation? Really?

God did it.

OK, lets run with that. So God did it. And what difference does that make. It doesn't prove that God has done anything since, that God is even still in existence.

Maybe God's destroyed himself in order to create the universe.

That wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do ... and He is omnipotent and omniscient ... so that logically rules out that idea.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Lovely and all as that is, it means that praying to him is pointless.

Prayer builds on our personal relationship with God.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

That wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do ... and He is omnipotent and omniscient ... so that logically rules out that idea.

But creating a living organism in his likeness who disobeys him at the first opportunity is? Or that after that that organism became so entrenched in evil that the only option was to kill not only that organism but every other organism on the planet (save for two of each). Or that when even that seemed not to work, he sent his secret weapon, himself, disguised as a normal person, down to rid the world of sin, yet we see that he actually didn't change anything at all and couldn't even manage to get all those that he met to agree to follow the lord.

J C wrote: »

Prayer builds on our personal relationship with God.

With a few caveats. He 1st has to exist, which the only response to my point that he could have destroyed himself was to say it wasn't very intelligent yet you follow Jesus on the basis that he gave up his life for us.

The 2nd is he has to be listening, which based on the continued evil to visits even the most holy would leave to open to question, never mind that those that are apparently close to god through direct conversation like priests never get any signal from him that raping kids is bad.

And 3rd that, if the 1st two are indeed true, that he will choose to give you special treatment over all his other children simply because you have been lucky enough to have been taught about him.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Do you know of any complex functional specified information (CFSI) that has ever been spontaneously generated?

The fact is that wherever the origin of CFSI has been established it is always intelligently generated ... indeed the detection of CFSI is the method being used by SETI to search for extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Quote:-
"The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets."

The irony is that science has discovered unmistakable signs of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligent action right here on Earth ... in the CFSI of living organisms ... but their materialistic-only biases prevents them from accepting the evidence that their eyes are seeing.

Oh it has, has it. I must have missed that scientific study that proved that an intelligent being created life. So far, all we know is that we don't know.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Facts certainly don't scare me ... like the fact that God exists ... and can be proven to exist, from what He has created.

Romans 1:19-21 New International Version (NIV)
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Unlike some of you guys, I embrace that fact that God exists ... and I look forward to being Saved, when I have 'shuffled off this mortal coil'.

So your proof that your book is indeed factual is to give some verses from the book! Really.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, at the time was that Galileo was wrong ... and the courts of the time ruled likewise.

And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Totally irrelevant what faith they were. You might as well point out that most of them like football, or enjoy swimming. It has no bearing on the work they do.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh it has, has it. I must have missed that scientific study that proved that an intelligent being created life. So far, all we know is that we don't know.

... but here's the thing ... we do know ... but the materialistic bias currently within science ... refuses to acknowledge it ... and is in denial over it.
... but sometimes a scientist admits that there could be a 'signature' in life that proves it was intelligently designed.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

... but here's the thing ... we do know ... but the materialistic bias currently within science ... refuses to acknowledge it ... and is in denial over it.
... but sometime the mask slips ... and a scientist admits that there could be a 'signature' in life that proves it was intelligently designed.

Right, so no actual prof that god did it. Could have been anything. Could have been a god, even a god that destroyed itself (you seem to have dismissed this based on nothing at all).

So from intelligence, you have fashioned a god that worries about who you sleep with, what you think about, who you pray to and even they deem it not up to standard will send you to eternal punishment.

You got all that from the 'start of live seems terribly complicated'?

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so no actual prof that god did it. Could have been anything. Could have been a god, even a god that destroyed itself (you seem to have dismissed this based on nothing at all).

Are you accepting that there is a 'signature' of applied intelligence in living Complex Functional Specified Information?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So from intelligence, you have fashioned a god that worries about who you sleep with, what you think about, who you pray to and even they deem it not up to standard will send you to eternal punishment.

You got all that from the 'start of live seems terribly complicated'?

This is a separate isssue ... which is the kind of God we are dealing with.

J C

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally irrelevant what faith they were. You might as well point out that most of them like football, or enjoy swimming. It has no bearing on the work they do.

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... and most of that advance was achieved by scientists who were Christians.

Originally Posted by Leroy42
And who was in charge of the science at that point in time? I'll help you out, the church. As soon as Galileo refused to be quite, didn't they try him for heresy? science has advanced more in that 400 years than God has been able to achieve in the last 6000.

... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

Leroy42

J C wrote: »

Are you accepting that there is a 'signature' of applied intelligence in living Complex Functional Specified Information?

No, I am trying to follow your logic. If, if, there was intelligence (to which no one anywhere has been able to offer any proof, I even asked that you do so and you failed to provide anything) but I was making the point that that in itself does not move your position any closer to being reality.

It could just as easily be that we were the result of the god destroying itself and we are the outcome of that. You dismissed this as unintelligent, yet accept that this very same god sent himself down to be murdered for us.

J C wrote: »

This is a separate issue ... which is the kind of God we are dealing with.

I absolutely agree, which is why I do not understand why you keep trying to bring up the lack of knowledge of how life started. It is a totally separate issue to the kind of god that you believe in.

Start of life, evolution etc, they all have nothing to do with the god you pray to. Lets face it, even the catholic church believes in evolution, and you know why, because they see that it doesn't effect whether one can believe in the god they believe in.

J C wrote: »

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-


... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

You make my case. Once they broke free of the ideological doctrine of the church and were able to use their own free thinking they made far more discoveries in a much shorter space of time.

You seem to be trying to imply that their faith was the deciding factor in whether they were good or not, But the previous 1600 years would beg to differ. So what changed around the time of Galileo? Was it that they became more or less focused on what the bible was saying?

In terms of why christians make up the most practioneers, I think, again, you are making a basic mistake in assumption. It is not because they are christian, but that christians tend to be in the countries with the means and resources to focus on those areas.

Do you think that Americans are inherently better at understanding space than Irish people, or do you think that maybe its because Americans have the resources to be able to develop in that area?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Its highly relevant when you are claiming that :-


... your implication is that science has progressed because of materialism ... when the founders of modern science ... and most of its practitioners since, were Christians.

Most of them were white too, what's your point?

Leroy42

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.



So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Professor Moriarty

Safehands wrote: »

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

Timberrrrrrrr

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

Yes :pac:

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

It's a metaphor. It's not an actual event

Ok, a metaphor for what?

And which part is the metaphor? The whole book or just the bit I quoted?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just going back over Genesis, and I have a question.



So Adam and Eve take the fruit and God casts them out. But if by eating the fruit their eyes would be opened to good and evil, then it must follow that they didn't know what good and evil was prior to that.

How can God therefore blame a person for doing anything wrong when they clearly have no basis on which to judge whether of not they should do something.

They do have a basis for judging whether they should do it or not. God has already told them that they should not, and warned them that doing it will bring death.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which bits of the Bible are events and which bits are metaphors?

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

I love your posts. Very thought provoking. That last question makes my brain itch. Does a historical event have more significance than a metaphorical one? The trouble with the OT Bible is how do we know which are which? Is any of it historical?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

I love your posts. Very thought provoking. That last question makes my brain itch. Does a historical event have more significance than a metaphorical one? The trouble with the OT Bible is how do we know which are which? Is any of it historical?

The stuff in Genesis, Exodus, etc - very unlikely to be historical. Or, at least, we can never know that it is historical. The stuff from later books? Lots of that is or may be historical, or at least partly historical.

But, I come back to the question; so what? The stories in Genesis aren't included because they actually happened; who, now, would care that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt, even if that were actually true? How does the sad fate of Lot's wife affect any of us, in any degree? Stories like this are included because they were considered by those who compiled the scriptures to say something of transcendent significance about the human condition, about human relationships, about the relationship between humanity and God, etc. Obviously, for the most part, whatever these stories say, whatever they mean, doesn't really depend on whether they actually happened or not.

Which is not to say that they didn't happen. Obviously, we might be sceptical about stories that relate supernatural happenings, divine intervention, etc. But not all do. For example, you might have a story about the Hebrews fighting some other group, and the consequences of that. We can't know, at this remove, if it's actually historical, but it certainly could be. But, even if it is, it doesn't end up in the scriptures simply because it happened; it ends up because somebody thinks there are important things to be learned from it, important lessons to be drawn. And of course in order to impart those things, underline those lessons, the story might get distorted from a strictly journalistic account. Or, it might be a complete invention. Mostly, we can't know. Mostly, it doesn't matter.

The important, interesting question is rarely "did this story actually happen?" It's "why is this story here?"

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

They do have a basis for judging whether they should do it or not. God has already told them that they should not, and warned them that doing it will bring death.

But without knowing the difference between right and wrong how can they know?

Since they are living in paradise, do they even understand what death is? (even if you take the line that 'death' in the context of the story means removal from God, how can they understand the significance of that since they had never encountered it.

If a person is aware that there their actions are wrong, ie a baby hitting their brother/sister, is it right to then punish them for it? Even if you tell them not to do it, if they do not have the comprehension to understand that it is wrong then how can you judge them on it? To them the act is neither good or bad, right or wrong. It simply is.

And I don't agree that it is a metaphor. The entire basis of original sin, and thus baptism and the need to constantly ask for forgiveness, not to mention that woman have been cast of the foundation of mens temptation due to it, is based on this story.

Without it then the entire commencement of religion is without basis.

But if we run with the metaphor idea, what is the idea that it is trying to get across?

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The stuff in Genesis, Exodus, etc - very unlikely to be historical. Or, at least, we can never know that it is historical. The stuff from later books? Lots of that is historical.

But, I come back to the question; so what? The stories in Genesis aren't included because they actually happened; who, now, would care that Lot's wife was turned to a pillar of salt, even if that were actually true? How does the sad fate of Lot's wife affect any of us, in any degree? Stories like this are included because they were considered by those who compiled the scriptures to say something of transcendent significance about the human condition, about human relationships, about the relationship between humanity and God, etc. Obviously, for the most part, whatever these stories say, whatever they mean, doesn't really depend on whether they actually happened or not.

The important, interesting question is rarely "did this story actually happen?" It's "why is this story here?"

But on that basis, should we give equal weight to any story? If you do not believe that this part is true, then how can you decide when the stories stop and the real stuff begins?

Did Jesus really resurrect or is that a metaphor? And who made up these stories?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy there, since large chunks of the bible are neither events nor metaphors.

But, OK, for those texts which could be historical narrative or could be metaphorical, "is it historical or metaphorical?" is a valid question. But perhaps a prior question is "Does it matter?". Does the import or significance of the passage vary depending on whether it is historical or metaphorical?

False dichotomy? Let's see. So if you take the events and the metaphors out of the Bible then what is left?

It matters if you offer this book to people and you tell them to base their faith on it. It then matters very much whether what is being described is fact or metaphor.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But on that basis, should we give equal weight to any story? If you do not believe that this part is true, then how can you decide when the stories stop and the real stuff begins?

Why do you need to decide that? Does it matter? Why?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did Jesus really resurrect or is that a metaphor?

There you've picked one where it does matter. Or, at any rate, most of the Christian tradition insists that it matters. There are liberal and progressive Christians who see the resurrection as something that is a purely spiritual reality, but the overwhelming majority of the Christian tradition insists no, it actually happened, like it says on the tin. There really was an empty tomb. And Paul, in his own writings, concedes that, if the resurrection is not a fact, then Christianity is pointless.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And who made up these stories?

Those of them that are made up? We mostly don't know. They are the product of a culture, not the work of identifiable individuals.

But, again, does the fact that we mostly can't name the authors of these texts matter? If so, why?

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It matters if you offer this book to people and you tell them to base their faith on it. It then matters very much whether what is being described is fact or metaphor.

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

Leroy42

The fact we can't name the author does not in itself matter, although it does remove our ability to judge their context.

It matters as the bible is seen, and widely accepted, as the word of god. If it nothing but a collection of stories, made up by some random people, then it would have a serious impact on how the book itself it treated, as well as the opinions of people who claim to derive their belief's from such a book.

On your point about why it matters what parts are true or not. Take Genesis for example. If you don't believe this to be true, on what basis that you believe that God created the world? And if god didn't create the world, on what basis does one believe that he has anything to do with mankind? And if the story of Adam and Eve, and original sin, is not true, that on what basis did Jesus need to come to earth to die on our behalf?

I fail to understand how any person can cherrypick the parts of the bible to believe and what to ignore simply to suit themselves. Jesus never decreed that any part of, what we now call the OT, was incorrect. Do you not think that he was perfectly placed to explain that to everyone?

But back to my original question, which the metaphor claim has diverted. How can a god cast out Adam and Eve for doing wrong when they had no ability on which to judge the right or wrong or their actions since they had not eaten from the tree?

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

My beliefs about which parts are factual:

Genesis: no, we've discussed that before, provabley impossible to be true in so many places.

Exodus: probaby not.

What about the twelve apostles: that is the new testament and may have some basis in fact.

Jesus dying on the cross: Historically probably true.

The resurrection: The big one. I personally would suggest no.

His miracles: I would say parables which morphed into facts as time passed

Noahs ark: absolutely not true.

The virgin birth: absolutely untrue, a myth like many other religions.

Herods killing of the innocence: never happened, certainly not as told.

Are Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land? No.

If that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.
Yes and that is the tragedy of it all.