Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?
Options
Comments
-
But on that basis, any creation story, now matter how absurd, is equally valid. At this point in time, most people go with the least absurd version of events we currently have at our disposal which involves the big bang theory and evolution, strange as that may seem. An almighty deity that in his wisdom gave us carbon dating would seem rather keen to deny his own existence.
If absurdity is the only criterion for judgement then yes, every creation myth or scientific theory is equally valid for consideration - and then you are at the level of picking between them to see what makes the most sense. Knowing what I know about science and how the observed world works, I cannot honestly say that constantly rolling sixes for a thousand million years in favour of positive evolution while simultaneously avoiding global extinction events is any less absurd than believing in a Creator who orchestrated and documented a coherent plan lasting from thousands of years before arriving in Galilee to the present day.
That said, believing in a Creator does not preclude accepting carbon dating as a means to calculate the age of the Earth (even though the method itself is not without assumptions). Even in a literal reading, the Bible does not give enough detail to unequivocally state an age of 6,000 years (eg. "The earth became without form" says nothing about what it may have been before). Plenty of significant scientific advancers retained and were often inspired by their religious faith, few I think found it an impedance.
And if the argument goes that believing in the existence of God belongs to a more credulous time, writings such as Psalm 14 ("The fool has said in his heart: "There is no God.") written around 539 BC would seem to suggest the debate has been around for a very long time.
So working on the theory that there is a God, the question then is why He has a strategy of limited intervention. Old and New Testament heroes who experienced miracles still suffered very human setbacks - Jacob went blind, Paul suffered with an unspecified thorn in his flesh and despite having previously raised the dead, apparently could do nothing beyond advising a glass of wine for Timothy's stomach trouble. If the Bible really had been compiled and edited to create a fictitious narrative, these accounts would seem to undermine the cause.
Seen in context, however, they make perfect sense - the core Biblical currency is faith whatever one's personal circumstances because there is a bigger plan in motion. The miracles that Paul oversaw were critically important at that time to validate a Gospel which was just beginning to acquire its own scriptures and structure. By the time of his letter to Timothy, supernatural validation was no longer so important as the message was widespread and Messianic teachings could be compared with details of Jesus' ministry. Received personally, the Holy Spirit was much more effective than the witness of miracles which had previously reinforced faith yet had failed to prevent the Israelites from going astray (eg. the Golden Calf, the Red Sea etc).
That's not to say that interventions no longer happen, just that there is no requirement for them to be public on the same scale as Biblical demonstrations because there is enough validation of the Gospel from other sources. Yes, I am aware of how suspiciously convenient this sounds
But then, to quote Luke 16: "If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." 0 -
Yet none of these miracles is verifiable or believed as accurate from a historical perspective and most other major religions have similar yet conflicting tales of miracle.
If someone claiming to be an agent of God was able to part the Red Sea simply by waving his hands around, I for one would be reconsidering my position. That said, I'm not holding my breath in anticipation
Not believed by who? By you? I believe them as do many others.
Going on your word is like asking a blind man what colour he sees when looking at a red light.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
The comments below the article are rather entertaining.
I especially liked this one"such churches, having never been part of the political or cultural power structures in the State, are generally unaffected by the scandals that have disillusioned so many."
Indeed not: their speciality tends rather to be the pastor absconding with the cash box under one arm and his secretary under the other, of which I could relate several juicy examples. But give them any secular power, such as they are now seeking in countries like Brazil, and they'd soon be as corrupt as any of the established churches: probably with brass knobs on given the generally poor backgrounds and low educational levels of their leaders. In the United States "TV evangelist" and "fraudster" are now virtually interchangeable terms. One such rejoices in the name of the Rev. Chuck Swindell, which is a name that even Graham Linehan would have hesitated to invent.
Funny how the people who say things like "X is the fastest growing" something-or-other never mention the obstinately small "market share" of X (same as the market leader Y never mentions how its share is in long-term decline with no idea how to reverse it...)Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement