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

If the Creation myth is wrong then what is left to believe in?

12357

Comments

  • #122
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    In the kindest possible manner, I'm going to suggest you reread what PDN said. Then apply this to what you wrote. Hopefully you will then see that you aren't responding to what was written.

    Thank you for your suggestion. I would like to add that we are taught to feel guilt; we are taught what constitutes sin; along with all the other children, we are indoctrinated with the preferred local faith.

    Are you suggesting that these things have no influence on a person's religious identity? Yes or no?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Because they are two different things. Is the this not obvious?

    Feeling that one doesn't belong is the same as yearning to be where one feels one does belong. Is this not obvious?


  • #123
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Children are born, they are baptised, they are surrounded by religious iconography, they are confirmed; are you seriously suggesting that these things have no influence on a person's religious identity?.
    I never said they "have no influence". Lots of things influence everybody. But Christianity is primarily a choice that each individual makes for themselves. In this I am in full agreement with Richard Dawkins that there is no such thing as a Christian baby - only babies with Christian parents.
    Are you seriously suggesting that Judaism is not a religion? That Jews are not raised to be Jews?
    Some are, some are not. You can be an atheist Jew - just so long as your mother was Jewish.
    Yes it can. How can you seperate 'feeling like you don't belong' from 'a need to belong'?
    I think you're confusing yourself.

    As an atheist I felt I belonged to a group. I left that group, not because I felt I didn't belong, but because I realised its content was a lie.
    Why would anyone that doesn't have a need to belong go to the trouble to join or leave any club?
    For content.

    If I joined a chess club it would be in order to find opponents for a game of chess, not a need to belong.

    If I then decided chess was a stupid game I might leave the chess club.

    You see, when you try to stereotype other people's actions with pop-psychology and pat answers you are likely to miss the fact that humans are complex creatures who do things for all kinds of reasons. In viewing them as a herd you are, ironically, following a herd yourself.
    You left a denomination over a disagreement over content which is the same as saying you felt that you didn't belong to a group that holds certain views.
    Nonsense. You are now descending into semantics. I left a denomination where I very much felt I belonged because I changed my mind over a particular issue in the content of its beliefs.
    Are you now part of a group with whom you are in full agreement?
    No, I am not in full agreement with the denomination where I am now. I disagree with them on a few minor points, even though I'm part of their international leadership.

    Since every person's beliefs are individual and unique in at least some respects, I don't think a denomination exists with which I am in full agreement, and I think there's probably enough of them already without me starting one more of my own.
    That's not even faith, it's window-shopping
    It's called making a choice.

    My faith is in God, not a denomination.


  • #124
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But that's the point. You were labeled a Christian before you knew what a Christian is and it is the same with Muslims. And Jews. Religious adherents are like loyal football fans; they stand by their team through thick and thin and this behaviour emanates from a need to belong.

    You seem to actually have me sussed out.

    Let me tell you what actually happened. I can't remember a single point whereby anyone told me I was a Christian. My parents did teach me the Lord's Prayer, and when I was in school I did hear small snippets about Jesus' life. Much was left missing however. When I was in secondary school I didn't really care that much about this Jesus stuff I was told at school and due to some of the pressures of transitioning (such as bullying) I decided that it wasn't very likely that a god existed anyway. It was only out of a stage of genuine curiosity aged 17 when I read the Bible and it was only then that I really realised that seeking other human beings for affirmation (through drinking, struggling in order to conceal problems I had, pretending I was someone that I wasn't) was futile and unnecessary. In effect 4 years ago (in and around this month) I decided to follow Jesus and here I am today doing the same thing. It demonstrably changed my life as the Scriptures told me it would.

    Edit: During this time I also read sections of the Qur'an, and I also considered converting to Judaism briefly :) but alas, no I didn't there was something in Christianity that made the whole thing come together.

    The last description of my faith journey would be a "loyal football fan". Like all people I've been unloyal from the beginning. I'm thankful that my process to coming to Christ means that my faith isn't just an empty nominalism but a living conviction.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    This need to belong gives rise to morality, loyalty, protectiveness, religion and thus provides a glue for society on the one hand while seperating societies into opposing teams on the other.

    I don't feel a "need to belong". We all just do if we are willing to accept it. God has given us a way to know Him and trust Him in life.


  • #125
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    I never said they "have no influence". Lots of things influence everybody. But Christianity is primarily a choice that each individual makes for themselves. In this I am in full agreement with Richard Dawkins that there is no such thing as a Christian baby - only babies with Christian parents.

    Is that true; a baptised baby is not viewed as a Christian?

    Where do babies with Christian parents stand with regard to salvation?

    PDN wrote: »
    Some are, some are not. You can be an atheist Jew - just so long as your mother was Jewish.

    And you accuse me of descending into semantics.

    My post was concerned with religion and since I was referring to Christianity and Muslims it is unreasonable, even if it is convenient to your position, for you to assume that I was referring to the Jews in the context of nationality. So, to be clear, I'm not talking about atheist Jews, I'm talking about Jewish Jews, the Jews who practice some form of Judaism which, like Christianity, is somewhat fragmented.

    What I have said is that, in general, children are encouraged to follow the faith that is in line with their cultural identity.
    PDN wrote: »
    I think you're confusing yourself.

    I suppose we should deal with the issue of semantics.

    Would you agree that hatred toward one thing is due to the love of some other thing? That if you love something then you tend to hate that which is detrimental to the thing you love?

    Well, I thing it is fair to say that when one feels uncomfortable with a group for whatever reason, one experiences a feeling of 'not belonging' and that this implies that there is a place, notionally, where one feels confortable. When one is in a place where they feel comfortable they experience a feeling of 'belonging'; that they are in the 'right place'.

    Now, when someone feels that they 'don't belong' there is an accompanying urge to move to a place where they do 'belong'. How many times have you said, "I just want to go home"? Which is tantamount to saying, "I want to be near familiar things". How did these things become familiar? Experience.

    So we have an inate desire to be comfortable or, a need to belong. It's the same thing. When we move away from our comfort zone we feel tension. That is our brain trying to motivate us to hasten to where we 'belong', the place of least tension.

    The emergence, evolutionarily speaking, of a 'need to belong' led to the development of cohesive societies.

    Does that make sense?
    PDN wrote: »
    As an atheist I felt I belonged to a group. I left that group, not because I felt I didn't belong, but because I realised its content was a lie.

    Semantics. The reason you left may not have because you felt you didn't belong but you inately felt that you didn't belong.
    PDN wrote: »
    For content.

    Which is to say that the views espoused by a particular group conflicted with your own view (formed by experience and introspection) and felt that you didn't belong so you affiliated yourself with a group that better represented your own world view and put yourself where you feel you belong.

    Out of interest, is it theoretically possible that you could change again?
    PDN wrote: »
    If I joined a chess club it would be in order to find opponents for a game of chess, not a need to belong.

    But if the other members were people you couldn't get on with you'd find a different chess-club.

    Again, this satisfies the desire to be part of a group with whom you are comfortable.
    PDN wrote: »
    If I then decided chess was a stupid game I might leave the chess club.

    Because you would no longer belong.
    PDN wrote: »
    You see, when you try to stereotype other people's actions with pop-psychology and pat answers you are likely to miss the fact that humans are complex creatures who do things for all kinds of reasons. In viewing them as a herd you are, ironically, following a herd yourself.

    No, humans are simple creatures and those who rule us know exactly which buttons to press.

    The reason that humans are so easy to manipulate is because they have a herd mentality.

    Sure doesn't the bible refer to humanity as the flock?
    PDN wrote: »
    Nonsense. You are now descending into semantics. I left a denomination where I very much felt I belonged because I changed my mind over a particular issue in the content of its beliefs.

    And why did you change your mind? That's rhetorical of course but I bet it was because your personal history has caused you to form a view that was in conflict with your denomination.
    PDN wrote: »
    No, I am not in full agreement with the denomination where I am now. I disagree with them on a few minor points, even though I'm part of their international leadership.

    But you are committed to them?.
    PDN wrote: »
    Since every person's beliefs are individual and unique in at least some respects, I don't think a denomination exists with which I am in full agreement, and I think there's probably enough of them already without me starting one more of my own.

    I don't dispute that and I accept that making a compromise regarding denomination doesn't necessarily mean a compromise regarding faith but I do believe that you have a sense of 'belonging' to the group you are now with.
    PDN wrote: »
    It's called making a choice.

    Which is made based on experience which is influenced by culture and is a question of suitability.
    PDN wrote: »
    My faith is in God, not a denomination.

    I understand that but it is reasonable to treat 'the faith response' in humans like any other human response and examine it in a scientific context.


  • #126
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Is that true; a baptised baby is not viewed as a Christian?

    Where do babies with Christian parents stand with regard to salvation?

    In my opinion, and that of most churches (but not Roman Catholicism) baptising a baby no more makes it a Christian than painting it blue would make it a Smurf.

    Babies with Christian parents stand exactly the same as babies with non-Christian parents when it comes to salvation. Jesus accepts all infants and babies into His Kingdom. Tey are not technically "saved" since, not having sinned, they have nothing to be saved from.
    My post was concerned with religion and since I was referring to Christianity and Muslims it is unreasonable, even if it is convenient to your position, for you to assume that I was referring to the Jews in the context of nationality. So, to be clear, I'm not talking about atheist Jews, I'm talking about Jewish Jews, the Jews who practice some form of Judaism which, like Christianity, is somewhat fragmented.
    In that case you are using a definition of Jewishness different from what Jews themselves use. I have no wish to follow you into such a Humpty-Dumpty world where words have no meanings except the ones you choose to attach to them.

    I suppose we should deal with the issue of semantics.

    Would you agree that hatred toward one thing is due to the love of some other thing? That if you love something then you tend to hate that which is detrimental to the thing you love?

    Well, I thing it is fair to say that when one feels uncomfortable with a group for whatever reason, one experiences a feeling of 'not belonging' and that this implies that there is a place, notionally, where one feels confortable. When one is in a place where they feel comfortable they experience a feeling of 'belonging'; that they are in the 'right place'.

    Now, when someone feels that they 'don't belong' there is an accompanying urge to move to a place where they do 'belong'. How many times have you said, "I just want to go home"? Which is tantamount to saying, "I want to be near familiar things". How did these things become familiar? Experience.

    So we have an inate desire to be comfortable or, a need to belong. It's the same thing. When we move away from our comfort zone we feel tension. That is our brain trying to motivate us to hasten to where we 'belong', the place of least tension.

    The emergence, evolutionarily speaking, of a 'need to belong' led to the development of cohesive societies.

    Does that make sense?

    No, it doesn't make sense - not unless you're trying to squeeze everything to artificially conform with one's preconceptions.
    Semantics. The reason you left may not have because you felt you didn't belong but you inately felt that you didn't belong.
    Bullcrap. I left, despite belonging very well, because I disagreed with content.
    Out of interest, is it theoretically possible that you could change again?
    Yes. I think anyone should be open to change their mind.
    But if the other members were people you couldn't get on with you'd find a different chess-club.

    Again, this satisfies the desire to be part of a group with whom you are comfortable.

    Not at all. I find it quite interesting being with people I don't get on with and going against the flow. Comfort is vastly overrated.
    Because you would no longer belong.
    Do you see what you are doing here?

    You make a statement that people are Christians because they want to belong, not because of content. Then, when it is clearly shown that people are making choices based on content you try to evade that by arguing that content is really a form of belonging.

    Can you see why that is not intellectually honest?
    Sure doesn't the bible refer to humanity as the flock?
    Humanity? I don't think so.
    And why did you change your mind? That's rhetorical of course but I bet it was because your personal history has caused you to form a view that was in conflict with your denomination.
    Don't become a gambler. With bets like that you will lose the shirt off your back.

    I changed my mind because I read the bible objectively, rather than searching for support for my denomination's position, and I became convinced that my denomination was at variance with the teaching of the Bible.
    But you are committed to them?.
    Depends what you mean by committed. I don't expect to leave them anytime soon, but who knows? My salvation and faith is in God, not a denomination, but at present it suits me to stay.
    I understand that but it is reasonable to treat 'the faith response' in humans like any other human response and examine it in a scientific context.
    And that would be very reasonable. Why not try it instead of trying to squeeze complex human decisions into pop psychology mantras about 'belonging'?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You seem to actually have me sussed out.

    Let me tell you what actually happened. I can't remember a single point whereby anyone told me I was a Christian. My parents did teach me the Lord's Prayer, and when I was in school I did hear small snippets about Jesus' life. Much was left missing however. When I was in secondary school I didn't really care that much about this Jesus stuff I was told at school and due to some of the pressures of transitioning (such as bullying) I decided that it wasn't very likely that a god existed anyway. It was only out of a stage of genuine curiosity aged 17 when I read the Bible and it was only then that I really realised that seeking other human beings for affirmation (through drinking, struggling in order to conceal problems I had, pretending I was someone that I wasn't) was futile and unnecessary. In effect 4 years ago (in and around this month) I decided to follow Jesus and here I am today doing the same thing. It demonstrably changed my life as the Scriptures told me it would.

    Edit: During this time I also read sections of the Qur'an, and I also considered converting to Judaism briefly :) but alas, no I didn't there was something in Christianity that made the whole thing come together.

    The last description of my faith journey would be a "loyal football fan". Like all people I've been unloyal from the beginning. I'm thankful that my process to coming to Christ means that my faith isn't just an empty nominalism but a living conviction.



    I don't feel a "need to belong". We all just do if we are willing to accept it. God has given us a way to know Him and trust Him in life.

    To be honest Jackass, it sounds as if you have experienced troubled times and that is sad. Please don't think that I am trying to remove any joy from your life or to undermine your faith. I'm not. You were lost but now you are found. Or, you didn't belong but now you do. And it makes you happy. You're a square peg in a square hole but what are the round pegs to do? Are they destined for damnation because they don't 'belong' to a certain group?

    (Back to thread)

    The thing is, proof comes before faith and it seems odd that the reason that most people come to have faith is through an epiphany of some kind which is interpreted as 'proof' of God. For such people there was a requirement for 'proof' since it was only after proof that they were prepared to have faith. It seems odd then that these same people should object to a requirement of proof in others.

    Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, Mary mother of Jesus, St. Paul... all of these people had 'proof' of God upon which all of them built their faith. Now, before I join any particular club I want evidence to show that that club represents the best interests of my mortal soul. I can only do that with enquiry and by reading their 'manifesto'. I'm sure that God would want us to take care of our souls and to be circumspect about whom we allow to 'babysit' them, if you will.

    All that I am saying is that it is reasonable for an intelligent human being to pause and think before before committing to a cause and that to analyse the 'human faith response' scientifically is a legitimate route to God.

    When the various denominational ships leave the port with their cargoes of souls, I want to be absolutely sure that mine is on the right one.


  • #128
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    Babies with Christian parents stand exactly the same as babies with non-Christian parents when it comes to salvation. Jesus accepts all infants and babies into His Kingdom. Tey are not technically "saved" since, not having sinned, they have nothing to be saved from.

    And Christian parents encourage their children to adopt Christianity; they lead by example so it might be 'bad' Christianity but they are certainly not encouraging Islam.
    PDN wrote: »
    In that case you are using a definition of Jewishness different from what Jews themselves use. I have no wish to follow you into such a Humpty-Dumpty world where words have no meanings except the ones you choose to attach to them.


    Jew (joomacr.gif)
    n. 1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture.
    2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism.
    3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

    I used the word in the first context; why did you choose a different one?

    Deuteronomy 7 seems to suggest that God defines Jews as those chosen ones who bow to His supremacy.

    Ju·da·ism (joomacr.gifprime.gifdemacr.gif-ibreve.gifzlprime.gifschwa.gifm)
    n. 1. The monotheistic religion of the Jews, tracing its origins to Abraham and having its spiritual and ethical principles embodied chiefly in the Hebrew Scriptures and the Talmud.
    2. Conformity to the traditional ceremonies and rites of the Jewish religion.
    3. The cultural, religious, and social practices and beliefs of the Jews.
    4. The Jews considered as a people or community.



    Not a single contextual reference to ethnicity.

    So your accusation is specious.
    PDN wrote: »
    Yes. I think anyone should be open to change their mind.

    So not faith in the sense of unshakable belief?
    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all. I find it quite interesting being with people I don't get on with and going against the flow. Comfort is vastly overrated.

    Comfort is a highly sought commodity for most people though. And when they can't get comfort they turn to hope.

    Would you have a game of chess with me?
    PDN wrote: »
    You make a statement that people are Christians because they want to belong, not because of content. Then, when it is clearly shown that people are making choices based on content you try to evade that by arguing that content is really a form of belonging.

    Can you see why that is not intellectually honest?

    Not true, you're trying to misrepresent me; I said you choose denomination on the basis of how it fits you rather than how you fit it. That is about fitting in; belonging.
    PDN wrote: »
    I changed my mind because I read the bible objectively, rather than searching for support for my denomination's position, and I became convinced that my denomination was at variance with the teaching of the Bible.

    And yet you will not speak objectively about it.
    PDN wrote: »
    Depends what you mean by committed. I don't expect to leave them anytime soon, but who knows? My salvation and faith is in God, not a denomination, but at present it suits me to stay.

    1.
    to give in trust or charge; consign.
    2. to consign for preservation: to commit ideas to writing; to commit a poem to memory.

    3. to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.): Asked if he was a candidate, he refused to commit himself.

    4. to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge: to commit oneself to a promise; to be committed to a course of action.

    5. to entrust, especially for safekeeping; commend: to commit one's soul to god.

    6. to do; perform; perpetrate: to commit murder; to commit an error.

    7. to consign to custody: to commit a delinquent to a reformatory.

    8. to place in a mental institution or hospital by or as if by legal authority: He was committed on the certificate of two psychiatrists.

    9. to deliver for treatment, disposal, etc.; relegate: to commit a manuscript to the flames.

    10. to send into a battle: The commander has committed all his troops to the front lines.

    11. Parliamentary Procedure . to refer (a bill or the like) to a committee for consideration.

    –verb (used without object) 12. to pledge or engage oneself: an athlete who commits to the highest standards.



    Pick one.
    PDN wrote: »
    And that would be very reasonable. Why not try it instead of trying to squeeze complex human decisions into pop psychology mantras about 'belonging'?

    Actually I'mtrying to be part of a discussion upon which there is no reason not to come to some sort of consensus.

    There are some points on some of my other posts that you haven't expressed a view on where I would have expected you to challenge me. Where you haven't, can I take it as tacit agreement? For instance, would you agree that day six of creation must have been considerably longer than twenty-four hours?


  • #129
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    To be honest Jackass, it sounds as if you have experienced troubled times and that is sad.

    We all have been through tough times. Some more than others. I don't make more of my life than anyone else's just to clarify.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Please don't think that I am trying to remove any joy from your life or to undermine your faith. I'm not. You were lost but now you are found. Or, you didn't belong but now you do. And it makes you happy. You're a square peg in a square hole but what are the round pegs to do? Are they destined for damnation because they don't 'belong' to a certain group?

    I wouldn't call it happiness. I would call it fulfilment a concept which goes far beyond happiness. Happiness comes and goes, fulfilment is something altogether different. Too many people hinge on the concept of happiness in faith, but we as human beings go through up and down. The real mark of faith is how we endure difficulties as they face us with the guidance and hope of God? Or do we abandon Him when things get difficult?
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    The thing is, proof comes before faith and it seems odd that the reason that most people come to have faith is through an epiphany of some kind which is interpreted as 'proof' of God. For such people there was a requirement for 'proof' since it was only after proof that they were prepared to have faith. It seems odd then that these same people should object to a requirement of proof in others.

    I don't claim to have proof. I do claim to have good evidence and reason to believe. The latter is different to the former.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Moses, Abraham, David, Solomon, Mary mother of Jesus, St. Paul... all of these people had 'proof' of God upon which all of them built their faith. Now, before I join any particular club I want evidence to show that that club represents the best interests of my mortal soul. I can only do that with enquiry and by reading their 'manifesto'. I'm sure that God would want us to take care of our souls and to be circumspect about whom we allow to 'babysit' them, if you will.

    Actually, the modern atheist would dispute every single account. All of these are hinged on personal experience. Indeed my faith is hinged on personal experience in a similar way. It is interesting how you would see this as proof.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    All that I am saying is that it is reasonable for an intelligent human being to pause and think before before committing to a cause and that to analyse the 'human faith response' scientifically is a legitimate route to God.

    I don't know if you are holding a similar definition / view of faith as I would use. If we can't agree on this we may be arguing past eachother.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    When the various denominational ships leave the port with their cargoes of souls, I want to be absolutely sure that mine is on the right one.

    Interesting you bring this up. Personally I am influenced by a large number of denominations by virtue of having a large variety of Christian friends. Most of us would consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ even if we don't go to the same churches. Most of us can still understand what the Christian faith means in spite of this. Most of us seem to aspire and aim towards similar goals in respect of knowing God more. Most of us would be about 90+% similar in respect to what we believe about Christianity. What a feat eh?


  • #130
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it happiness. I would call it fulfilment a concept which goes far beyond happiness. Happiness comes and goes, fulfilment is something altogether different. Too many people hinge on the concept of happiness in faith, but we as human beings go through up and down. The real mark of faith is how we endure difficulties as they face us with the guidance and hope of God? Or do we abandon Him when things get difficult?

    Some people interpret 'things getting difficult' as punishment from God and change church.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't claim to have proof. I do claim to have good evidence and reason to believe. The latter is different to the former.

    I'm using proof in the sense that if you watch me eat an apple then you personally have proof that I ate an apple. You may not be able to prove it (I could deny it) but you would 'know' I ate the apple.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually, the modern atheist would dispute every single account. All of these are hinged on personal experience. Indeed my faith is hinged on personal experience in a similar way. It is interesting how you would see this as proof.

    You take my point though?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't know if you are holding a similar definition / view of faith as I would use. If we can't agree on this we may be arguing past eachother.

    True, that's why it's important to define such concepts. I'm afraid I often think of 'faith' as a synonym for closed-mindedness. But this isn't about faith, it's about the veracity of an account of history which underpins systems of religions that involve the souls of more than half of the world's population.

    That is something worth discussing, no?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Interesting you bring this up. Personally I am influenced by a large number of denominations by virtue of having a large variety of Christian friends. Most of us would consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ even if we don't go to the same churches. Most of us can still understand what the Christian faith means in spite of this. Most of us seem to aspire and aim towards similar goals in respect of knowing God more. Most of us would be about 90+% similar in respect to what we believe about Christianity. What a feat eh?

    Look how many people drink coke or eat big macs; is that a good thing? Numbers have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with winning. What is the worst thing that can happen if you're wrong and what is the worst thing that could happen if I'm wrong?


  • #131
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Some people interpret 'things getting difficult' as punishment from God and change church.

    I think God tests us in many cases in order to grow. I also feel that this isn't true in all cases. I do believe that God has tested me continually for the better. I also believe that in some cases God can punish us:
    Hebrews 12:7-11 wrote:
    Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined—and everyone undergoes discipline—then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I'm using proof in the sense that if you watch me eat an apple then you personally have proof that I ate an apple. You may not be able to prove it (I could deny it) but you would 'know' I ate the apple.

    You mean that God would be undeniable?
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    You take my point though?

    I take your point, but I don't see why any atheist would argue it. It would mean that claims of divine experience would be treated as proof. They can only really be on a personal level due to the fact that they are undemonstrable to others. Yet the personal experience of God has moved people to do courageous things which they probably wouldn't have done otherwise.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    True, that's why it's important to define such concepts. I'm afraid I often think of 'faith' as a synonym for closed-mindedness. But this isn't about faith, it's about the veracity of an account of history which underpins systems of religions that involve the souls of more than half of the world's population.

    That is something worth discussing, no?

    It is, but I'm not sure if it could not be said of many atheists also.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Look how many people drink coke or eat big macs; is that a good thing? Numbers have nothing to do with truth and everything to do with winning. What is the worst thing that can happen if you're wrong and what is the worst thing that could happen if I'm wrong?

    The question seems to beg Pascal's Wager which I think is a very poor argument. It would depend in what way I am wrong. If you are right, and I am wrong, all that means for me is that I will rot in the ground just like you will.

    I don't see it as a question of being "right" or "wrong". I see it as accepting that God's will is right and that He is true. Claiming to be right or wrong is more centred on personal egos.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You mean that God would be undeniable?

    Yes, to the one who sees.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I take your point, but I don't see why any atheist would argue it. It would mean that claims of divine experience would be treated as proof. They can only really be on a personal level due to the fact that they are undemonstrable to others. Yet the personal experience of God has moved people to do courageous things which they probably wouldn't have done otherwise.

    True but I'm still using proof in the personal sense.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It is, but I'm not sure if it could not be said of many atheists also.

    But would atheists be refused entry to heaven on the basis of the route they took to get there?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The question seems to beg Pascal's Wager which I think is a very poor argument. It would depend in what way I am wrong. If you are right, and I am wrong, all that means for me is that I will rot in the ground just like you will.

    LOL. That's not what I meant though. I'm not strictly speaking an atheist; I don't deny the existence of God. If I'm wrong I can go to heaven (Surely my life's work would count for something?) and if I'm right, I can go to heaven. Would it harm God's plan if we were able to take a peek at the map to see the course that has been plotted for the ship of Christian souls?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see it as a question of being "right" or "wrong". I see it as accepting that God's will is right and that He is true. Claiming to be right or wrong is more centred on personal egos.

    What if there were a number of Gods in competition? What would happen to choice and faith then?

    As far as I understand it, there is nowhere in the Bible that states that Jehovah is the only God and there are plenty of examples, in the words of God himself in Genesis, that indicate there are other Gods in that 'realm'.

    It's a legitimate question; why would the Christian God want to keep His creation from the other Gods? What is the nature of that schism?

    Remember, He tried to hide 'good and evil' from man and now we recognise it for what it is and He sent us away. Why? And what is hidden? And why is it hidden?

    Like I said, if I'm to sign up to a cause then I want to be sure that I'm fighting on the side of righteousness.


  • #133
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    There are some points on some of my other posts that you haven't expressed a view on where I would have expected you to challenge me. Where you haven't, can I take it as tacit agreement?

    No, you can't. If I responded to everything I disagreed with then I wouldn't have a life outside of boards.ie
    For instance, would you agree that day six of creation must have been considerably longer than twenty-four hours?
    Not necessarily. There may not have been a "day six".

    Also, time is relative. 24 hours to whom? To someone on earth ( even though no-one was on earth yet)? To an Eternal Being who can travel faster than light?


  • #134
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But would atheists be refused entry to heaven on the basis of the route they took to get there?

    If you refuse God's offer of salvation, that's it. There is no hopping the fence as Jesus puts it.
    John 10:1 wrote:
    “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.
    John 10:7-9a wrote:
    Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved

    From a Christian POV there doesn't seem to be another gate apart from through Christ.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    LOL. That's not what I meant though. I'm not strictly speaking an atheist; I don't deny the existence of God. If I'm wrong I can go to heaven (Surely my life's work would count for something?) and if I'm right, I can go to heaven. Would it harm God's plan if we were able to take a peek at the map to see the course that has been plotted for the ship of Christian souls?

    People might think they are good, but this is only by their own standard. God's standard being entirely different. For example if I was to be before God and to be judged by each one of the Ten Commandments the results would be pretty dire. Going through a few of them for example.

    Do not misuse the name of the Lord your God
    - I've clearly blasphemed. Therefore I'm a blasphemer.

    You shall not murder -
    Jesus said that by anger we commit murder against our brother or sister in our hearts. I've done this, therefore I'm a murderer.

    You shall not commit adultery -
    Jesus said that by looking on a woman lustfully I have committed adultery with her in my heart. I've done this therefore I'm an adulterer.

    You shall not steal -
    It doesn't matter how insignificant it is. I've done this, and therefore I'm a thief.

    You shall not bear false witness -
    In common terms, lying. I've done this, so I'm a liar.

    So to sum up just a look at these commandments. By this definition I'm an adulterer, a murderer, a liar, and a thief. Does this sound like I've failed to reach God's standard or not, and if this is true do I truly deserve to be punished? - The answer as far as I can see it is very clearly yes just on these few commandments. Thankfully, because Jesus has stood in my place and fulfilled the law on my behalf I don't have to be punished. Naturally I'm extremely thankful for this, and thankful for the opportunity to enter into a new relationship with God by His extraordinary forgiveness.

    It is by God's standard and by God's grace through Jesus dying on the cross that we can receive eternal life, not through our own works. Indeed our good works according to Ephesians:
    Ephesians 2:8-10 wrote:
    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    What if there were a number of Gods in competition? What would happen to choice and faith then?

    Precisely my problem with Pascal's Wager. My faith isn't just based on a punt in the dark, it is based through investigation. I am willing to consider other modes of thought, but they would have to reach a mighty standard to be anything in comparison with Christianity. Including atheism as a philosophical standpoint in that.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    As far as I understand it, there is nowhere in the Bible that states that Jehovah is the only God and there are plenty of examples, in the words of God himself in Genesis, that indicate there are other Gods in that 'realm'.

    Really? Hm.
    Isaiah 45:5 wrote:
    I am the Lord, and there is no other,

    besides me there is no God;
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    It's a legitimate question; why would the Christian God want to keep His creation from the other Gods? What is the nature of that schism?

    See above.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Remember, He tried to hide 'good and evil' from man and now we recognise it for what it is and He sent us away. Why? And what is hidden? And why is it hidden?

    I suspect because God knew it would be best if we trusted in Him as our source for determining what is good from what is evil rather than doing this without Him.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Like I said, if I'm to sign up to a cause then I want to be sure that I'm fighting on the side of righteousness.

    What is right and what is wrong in the absence of God? As far as I would see it, it has very shaky (relative) foundations indeed.


  • #135
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    PDN wrote: »
    No, you can't. If I responded to everything I disagreed with then I wouldn't have a life outside of boards.ie

    Right so.
    PDN wrote: »
    Not necessarily. There may not have been a "day six".

    Also, time is relative. 24 hours to whom? To someone on earth ( even though no-one was on earth yet)? To an Eternal Being who can travel faster than light?

    To whomever was supposed to read the book of Genesis.


  • #136
    patrickk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭patrickk


    I suggest everyone has a look at this guys videos and read the signs of the times we live in now .William Tapley has some very good insights into the bible and reveals the wisdom and hidden perfection in the bible.After all it is the Word of God,we are all, of our Creator all of mankind ,planets as well as everything in the universe! eom.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/thirdeaglebooks#p/u/6/LZdzBwe7WvM


  • #137
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Absolute nonsense.


  • #138
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    patrickk wrote: »
    I suggest everyone has a look at this guys videos and read the signs of the times we live in now .William Tapley has some very good insights into the bible and reveals the wisdom and hidden perfection in the bible.After all it is the Word of God,we are all, of our Creator all of mankind ,planets as well as everything in the universe! eom.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/thirdeaglebooks#p/u/6/LZdzBwe7WvM

    Seriously Patrickk, people like that guy are 10 a penny. If you really are taking him seriously, maybe you could start a thread to examine his claims with the regular posters here. Getting sucked into these kind of cultish figures can be damaging, so maybe we can examine his credentials. See if the Holy Spirit is truly working through him etc.


  • #139
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    patrickk wrote: »
    I suggest everyone has a look at this guys videos and read the signs of the times we live in now .William Tapley has some very good insights into the bible and reveals the wisdom and hidden perfection in the bible.After all it is the Word of God,we are all, of our Creator all of mankind ,planets as well as everything in the universe! eom.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/thirdeaglebooks#p/u/6/LZdzBwe7WvM

    He had me up to the 'Third Eagle of the Apocolypse', which was about 1 second in :pac:

    I wonder what his excuse will be when Obama isn't the last president of the USA. He is making the fatal mistake of religious prophecy, he is being way to specific. He needs much more general claims that can be interpreted in different ways so that when he inevitably turns out to be wrong he can just claim it as a misinterpretation.

    Sure look at Christianity, which originally was an end times movement, its managed to last 2,000 years thinking that the end times are just around the corner :)


  • #140
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    He had me up to the 'Third Eagle of the Apocolypse', which was about 1 second in :pac:

    Cathcy though, ye gotta give em that.:)


  • #141
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Cathcy though, ye gotta give em that.:)

    Is it a Biblical reference? Who were the 1st and 2nd Eagles? If you are going to invent a title for yourself you might as well make the best one

    Homer: What really matters is my title. I think I'll make myself... vice president. No, wait! Junior vice president! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Is it a Biblical reference? Who were the 1st and 2nd Eagles? If you are going to invent a title for yourself you might as well make the best one

    Can't say I recall the 'eagles of the apocalypse', but there is much symbolic language in Revelation. I would be 99% sure that its not a biblical reference. Sounds like a heavy metal band tbh.
    Homer: What really matters is my title. I think I'll make myself... vice president. No, wait! Junior vice president! :pac:

    :)


  • #143
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you refuse God's offer of salvation, that's it. There is no hopping the fence as Jesus puts it.

    Originally Posted by John 10:1
    “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber.

    Originally Posted by John 10:7-9a
    Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved

    From a Christian POV there doesn't seem to be another gate apart from through Christ.

    Matthew 16.27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

    James 2.17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    People might think they are good, but this is only by their own standard. God's standard being entirely different. For example if I was to be before God and to be judged by each one of the Ten Commandments the results would be pretty dire. Going through a few of them for example..

    Do not misuse the name of the Lord your God
    - I've clearly blasphemed. Therefore I'm a blasphemer.

    You shall not murder -
    Jesus said that by anger we commit murder against our brother or sister in our hearts. I've done this, therefore I'm a murderer.

    You shall not commit adultery -
    Jesus said that by looking on a woman lustfully I have committed adultery with her in my heart. I've done this therefore I'm an adulterer.

    You shall not steal -
    It doesn't matter how insignificant it is. I've done this, and therefore I'm a thief.

    You shall not bear false witness -
    In common terms, lying. I've done this, so I'm a liar.

    So to sum up just a look at these commandments. By this definition I'm an adulterer, a murderer, a liar, and a thief. Does this sound like I've failed to reach God's standard or not, and if this is true do I truly deserve to be punished? - The answer as far as I can see it is very clearly yes just on these few commandments. Thankfully, because Jesus has stood in my place and fulfilled the law on my behalf I don't have to be punished. Naturally I'm extremely thankful for this, and thankful for the opportunity to enter into a new relationship with God by His extraordinary forgiveness.

    It is by God's standard and by God's grace through Jesus dying on the cross that we can receive eternal life, not through our own works. Indeed our good works according to Ephesians:

    Originally Posted by Ephesians 2:8-10
    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.


    Faith without works is dead:

    James 2.24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    How does one choose which passages of the Bible are relevant?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Precisely my problem with Pascal's Wager. My faith isn't just based on a punt in the dark, it is based through investigation. I am willing to consider other modes of thought, but they would have to reach a mighty standard to be anything in comparison with Christianity. Including atheism as a philosophical standpoint in that.




    Jakkass wrote: »
    Really? Hm.

    Genesis 1.26 Then God said, “Let us make man [8] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    Genesis 3.22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.

    Exodus 20.3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    Exodus 23.13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

    Exodus 23.33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee.

    Deuteronomy 6.14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;

    Deuteronomy 10.17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

    Deuteronomy 12.20 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.

    Deuteronomy 31.16 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

    Joshua 22.22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)

    Joshua 24.14 Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD.

    1 Corinthians 8.5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

    Yes, really.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I suspect because God knew it would be best if we trusted in Him as our source for determining what is good from what is evil rather than doing this without Him.

    I think there was more to it than that:

    Genesis 3.22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    Suppose Adam had eaten from the tree of life, what then?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What is right and what is wrong in the absence of God? As far as I would see it, it has very shaky (relative) foundations indeed.

    But God doesn't define right and wrong, men do. Indeed God condones the slaughter of many peoples by the Israelites while at the same time demanding that thou shalt not kill.

    And God is not above telling the odd lie either:

    Genesis 2.17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    But Adam didn't die the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    Adam's sin was to nearly become a God which begs the question; is it sinful to be a God?


  • #144
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Matthew 16.27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

    James 2.17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
    18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

    Faith without works is dead:

    James 2.24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

    Cheers. This is true. If you do not have works, you don't have faith. Works if you look at my quote from Ephesians are actually themselves God-ordained. If we don't have works, we never really had faith. They go hand in hand. This is why Jesus said "By their fruits you will know them" in Matthew chapter 7. We are not justified by works, but if we do not have them it isn't a genuine faith that we are living out.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    How does one choose which passages of the Bible are relevant?

    Well, one must determine the contradiction first if one is to allege such.

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Yes, really.

    You claimed:
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    As far as I understand it, there is nowhere in the Bible that states that Jehovah is the only God and there are plenty of examples, in the words of God himself in Genesis, that indicate there are other Gods in that 'realm'.

    I've shown to you that there is. Its rather simple when one refers to 'gods' one is referring to the concept of God. If I speak about the 'gods' in the Greek panthenon I can do so without subscribing to the Greek concept of God. Indeed if you talk about God, you can do so without subscribing to the Judeo-Christian concept of God. It isn't all that difficult?
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I think there was more to it than that:

    Genesis 3.22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

    23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

    Suppose Adam had eaten from the tree of life, what then?

    I think Genesis 3:22 answers your question.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But God doesn't define right and wrong, men do. Indeed God condones the slaughter of many peoples by the Israelites while at the same time demanding that thou shalt not kill.

    I believe He does. If we define what is right and wrong, why should I believe that you have moral authority over me when you claim that I am wrong? Indeed, if someone enjoys fieldshooting people on a Sunday afternoon who am I to tell him that this is objectively wrong? Isn't this just my opinion?

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And God is not above telling the odd lie either:

    Genesis 2.17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    From Clarke's commentary on the Bible. Makes a lot of sense:
    Thou shalt surely die - מות תמות moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die.
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Adam's sin was to nearly become a God which begs the question; is it sinful to be a God?

    We already have a God who cares for us. Why would we want to be a god ourselves, we would probably do a very shoddy job of it?


  • #145
    murphthesmurf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭murphthesmurf


    I haven't read all the posts here as too many. A lot of people have an inbuilt need to believe, no matter what the evidence.
    Anyone with any real intelegence, not just people who try their very best to sound it, would look at the evidence for and against and come up with their own verdict on this subject. If you were a judge in court you would do this. In the case of evolution the evidence for far outweighs the evidence against, so any judge or jury would have to rule in favour of it.
    The question really is, that as evolution is true, this casts a huge doubt on the rest of the bible. It doesn't disprove that god exists, but it casts reasonable doubt.
    So for a religious person, to accept evolution as a fact, means casting doubt on everything else they have believed in. For most this is too much, and so they will just find ways to discard evolution. They will try to pick holes such as the wording of things, and using the word fact, and the meanings of words in the dictionary. None of these are real arguments or any kind of evidence against. The bible itself could not be used as any kind of evidence as it is entirely based on hearsay.
    Evolution does not say that there is no God. It explains how life came to be what it is today, not how it 1st arrived. The only kind of religion it indisputably
    Dis-proves is the creationists who believe the Earth is only 6000yrs old. Which frankly, is absurd.
    Many people fear evolution, and all it implies, as it casts doubt on the foundations which they have based their life on.
    By the way. I believe this is def the right forum for this to be in as it gets plenty answers from the religious side, in the a@a it wouldn't.


  • #146
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    murphthesmurf wrote: »
    I haven't read all the posts here as too many. A lot of people have an inbuilt need to believe, no matter what the evidence.
    Anyone with any real intelegence, not just people who try their very best to sound it, would look at the evidence for and against and come up with their own verdict on this subject. If you were a judge in court you would do this. In the case of evolution the evidence for far outweighs the evidence against, so any judge or jury would have to rule in favour of it.
    The question really is, that as evolution is true, this casts a huge doubt on the rest of the bible. It doesn't disprove that god exists, but it casts reasonable doubt.
    So for a religious person, to accept evolution as a fact, means casting doubt on everything else they have believed in. For most this is too much, and so they will just find ways to discard evolution. They will try to pick holes such as the wording of things, and using the word fact, and the meanings of words in the dictionary. None of these are real arguments or any kind of evidence against. The bible itself could not be used as any kind of evidence as it is entirely based on hearsay.
    Evolution does not say that there is no God. It explains how life came to be what it is today, not how it 1st arrived. The only kind of religion it indisputably
    Dis-proves is the creationists who believe the Earth is only 6000yrs old. Which frankly, is absurd.
    Many people fear evolution, and all it implies, as it casts doubt on the foundations which they have based their life on.
    By the way. I believe this is def the right forum for this to be in as it gets plenty answers from the religious side, in the a@a it wouldn't.

    Perhaps you should read the thread. Many Christians (and you'll see a few of the posting here) accept evolution. IF you want to argue with YEC then try the B,C&P thread. Seems as we are so concerned with evidence, what evidence do you have that the Bible is "entirely based on hearsay".


  • #147
    murphthesmurf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 737 ✭✭✭murphthesmurf


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Perhaps you should read the thread. Many Christians (and you'll see a few of the posting here) accept evolution. IF you want to argue with YEC then try the B,C&P thread. Seems as we are so concerned with evidence, what evidence do you have that the Bible is "entirely based on hearsay".
    I read a lot of the posts, but admittedly not all, these threads can get quite long.
    The bible was written by people who 'heard' and 'seen' things. There for its hear-say. Jesus never wrote a single line, unless you believe the conspiracy theories that the vatacan has it. Its all based on the word of individuals, all of whom died 2000 yrs ago. We are told that Jesus said this and that, and did this and that. Thats what the whole of the bible is made of. So what would you call it?
    Jesus, being the son of God, would have known all this. He would've known that we had evolved (unless God kept it a secret from him). Both Jesus and God would've known that their story would be incredibly difficult for many to believe, and that only people who would believe such things easily would believe their story. Yet all they left the World with was the writings and stories of others, who supposedly witnessed it happening.
    Jesus rose again, yet chose to show no one other than the people who were going to write the bible. The only shread of proof he had to offer the world was his resurrection, and he chose to only reveal himself to a couple of people who already believed him. This is going off subject slightly, but just proving my point that the bible IS only hear-say. For all intent and purpose, it is a story like many other stories. Whether you believe or not, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is just a book telling a story.


  • #148
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    murphthesmurf wrote: »
    I read a lot of the posts, but admittedly not all, these threads can get quite long.
    The bible was written by people who 'heard' and 'seen' things. There for its hear-say. Jesus never wrote a single line, unless you believe the conspiracy theories that the vatacan has it. Its all based on the word of individuals, all of whom died 2000 yrs ago. We are told that Jesus said this and that, and did this and that. Thats what the whole of the bible is made of. So what would you call it?
    Jesus, being the son of God, would have known all this. He would've known that we had evolved (unless God kept it a secret from him). Both Jesus and God would've known that their story would be incredibly difficult for many to believe, and that only people who would believe such things easily would believe their story. Yet all they left the World with was the writings and stories of others, who supposedly witnessed it happening.
    Jesus rose again, yet chose to show no one other than the people who were going to write the bible. The only shread of proof he had to offer the world was his resurrection, and he chose to only reveal himself to a couple of people who already believed him. This is going off subject slightly, but just proving my point that the bible IS only hear-say. For all intent and purpose, it is a story like many other stories. Whether you believe or not, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is just a book telling a story.

    Maybe you should try to find out what Christians actually believe before commenting on those beliefs?

    Christians do not believe that Jesus would have known about evolution etc. They believe that, as part of the Incarnation, he voluntarily limited his divine characteristics such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

    Also, He did not limit His appearences after the resurrection to those who would write the Bible. According to 1 Corinthians Chapter 15 he appeared to over 500 people at once - of which at least 497 never wrote any of the books in the Bible.


  • #149
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    The bible was written by people who 'heard' and 'seen' things. There for its hear-say. Jesus never wrote a single line, unless you believe the conspiracy theories that the vatacan has it.

    I'm not sure what conspiracy theories you are talking about. If you are being consistent then you must apply the "hearsay" charge to much of of history and judge it damnable. You wont do that, of course. Funny that you are happy to dismiss the NT but see no problem with using it (inaccurately as it happens) to refute Christianity. Do you not see a problem with your approach?
    So what would you call it?

    I would personally call the NT a mixture of history and biography. It was quite unique in antiquity is a number of ways. For example, it wasn't automatically scathing of the lower classes.

    If you want to challenge the historical Jesus, the historical Paul or the notion that at least some of the Gospels are eye-witness accounts then that is just fine. Start a new thread.

    However, you should be aware that there are countless well researched works and articles that deal with the historicity of the NT. The vast majority of scholars (not all of whom are believers, btw) would not simply dismiss the NT as hearsay. I'm sorry to say it, murph, but only somebody largely ignorant of history and the work of historians would think that it is ever that easy.
    Jesus, being the son of God, would have known all this. He would've known that we had evolved (unless God kept it a secret from him). Both Jesus and God would've known that their story would be incredibly difficult for many to believe, and that only people who would believe such things easily would believe their story. Yet all they left the World with was the writings and stories of others, who supposedly witnessed it happening.

    Well, it is theologically debatable if Jesus was omniscient or not. But I think you have completely missed the point about Genesis - at least the point that people who believe it compatible with evolution are making. If Genesis isn't a scientific account then your are arguing against yourself. If you want to argue that a proper exegetical interpretation of Genesis is not compatible with evolution you should take it to the B,C and P thread.
    Jesus rose again, yet chose to show no one other than the people who were going to write the bible. The only shread of proof he had to offer the world was his resurrection, and he chose to only reveal himself to a couple of people who already believed him.

    If you are going to argue against the reliability of the NT based upon the NT you should at least get the basic facts straight. The NT reports that Jesus appeared to quite a few more than the "couple" of people you mention.
    This is going off subject slightly, but just proving my point that the bible IS only hear-say. For all intent and purpose, it is a story like many other stories. Whether you believe or not, when it comes down to the nitty gritty, it is just a book telling a story.

    You are proving nothing. Instead, you are making assertions and repeating yourself.


  • #150
    StudentDad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,525 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Books such as Bible were nothing more than an attempt by early societies to explain what they didn't know ... God of the Gaps ... Now that science and technology has advanced to the point where we can see the world around us more clearly and the gaps are being filled in and cherished 'beliefs' are being challenged the comfort blanket of 'belief' is under threat.

    For me this boils down to good old freedom of thought and expression.
    If religious people woke up in the morning and said, 'right enough of this god nonsense.' What would happen? Religious bodies the world over would lose their grip on the minds of their 'flock.' Can't have that!

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Books such as Bible were nothing more than an attempt by early societies to explain what they didn't know ... God of the Gaps ... Now that science and technology has advanced to the point where we can see the world around us more clearly and the gaps are being filled in and cherished 'beliefs' are being challenged the comfort blanket of 'belief' is under threat.

    For me this boils down to good old freedom of thought and expression.
    If religious people woke up in the morning and said, 'right enough of this god nonsense.' What would happen? Religious bodies the world over would lose their grip on the minds of their 'flock.' Can't have that!

    SD

    1. What are you basing your assessment of the Bible on?
    2. What are you basing your exclusivist notion of science & technology on?
    3. What makes you think that faith is based on gaps? I don't see the Bible attempting to be a science book, why do you?
    4. What makes you think that belief necessarily involves "authorities"?


Advertisement