The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Safehands wrote: »

Yes indeed, never knock a real miracle, if it ever happens.

The beneficiaries of miracles never knock them, that is true.

However, your logical fallacy of using miraculous events that have never happened doesn't disprove documented events that have.

To clarify: miracles aren't phenomena that break the laws of nature (for example, reversing time); rather, they have their cause outside of nature.

Leroy42 - sorry for the delay in responding; work, down with the flu etc., and only when I recovered I found all the homework you left for me to do too!
Thanks for your considered response. I will do the best I can to respond in kind.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Eirwatcher, you seem to want to have both sides of the argument.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so you'd need to elaborate before I'd be able to give a sufficient response to it.
I would just say that if you mean I'm not giving due consideration to your side of the discussion, and to what you say, I assure you that is not so. I'm paying very close attention to it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You say that prayer is about listening, yet God does not answer in ways that we can hear.

When did I say God does not answer in ways that we can hear? I did not.
You misunderstood what I said, at best.
Phrased in the way you did, it falsely attributes to me words that can be taken as support of a very different position (and that position is becoming very clear to me now).

(by the way, I am presuming we're not talking about listening/hearing in the auditory sense of the word, as in hearing voices. For that reason, I've always thought "experience" is a more apt word in regard to prayer)

What I did say before, I will repeat. God may not answer or act in ways we can immediately experience or understand. The example I chose was a way (I thought easier) to illustrate the general point: we could ask for something that we, alone, presume to be the best good, but we do not see all time and all ends - we can not - where God would.

If He were to give us, without fail, exactly what we ask of Him, even if He saw that it would not be for our good (as we believe it would be), or that it would be to the detriment of many other people instead, or that it would preclude the possibility of some greater good that He could see for us and/or many others in the future, then under those circumstances, would you really want Him to grant it?
Would that not, in fact, be irresponsible ... or even evil ... that he did?

Though it may dismay us, it does sometimes, unavoidably, require faith and trust in Him in prayer for that very reason.

I refer you to the words of Jesus relevant to this: "What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

Everything you've discussed about prayer has been around petition prayer. I would just like to point out again that there is much more to prayer life than just petitioning God, not least of which are the spiritual graces and peace that many practitioners of frequent prayer experience. Such experiences can comfort greatly when we are wrestling around those wants we place before God, and, in times when we are not asking him for things, they can elevate our awareness beyond our immediate concerns. There's also the
charitable uses of prayer in praying for others, whether known by us directly or not. And finally, just sitting, contemplating, experiencing the presence of God in the moment and everything around, can bring benefits we could not even have thought to ask Him for.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I know, you are going to say that we must open our hearts to hear the message, so essentially you are telling us it our our fault.

Well, if you knew what I'm going to say, and what I am telling you, then you render any response I may make redundant before I even make it. In such a case, I'd have to question, does it really matter to you what I would, or do, say?

However, giving benefit of the doubt, I'll continue, under the assumption that you do want to hear and consider my actual response:
Even without being entirely sure what you mean by "it" that is our fault (that we don't hear, or that He doesn't answer), nevertheless I can say fault implies an expectation that what was asked for should have been granted. My previous paragraph explains (I hope clearly) to you that it is indeed faulty reasoning to expect that God should grant everything we ask.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems strange that the God that made us interacts with us in a way most of us don't understand. We ask him to help us yet we are supposed to take anything as a sign of his input, even if that means we actually end up with the opposite of what we wanted. We pray that our sick child will get better, when they don't and die we are told God has a greater plan for them.

I would go further and say *none of us* could fully understand God's interactions with us, not even some of us. We, in our limited nature, can not fully comprehend God.

But .. don't forget .. in compassion for that situation, He assumed our limited human nature. In Jesus, he gives us God, as human, interacting with the human.

And .. to bring that bear on the perceived injustice you raise of unanswered prayer, Jesus gives us assistance with that too. In one of the few revelations about Jesus's own interior prayer life (the other notable instance being the Our Father), in Gethsemane when he knew he would soon be captured and lead to his death, he asked his Father not to let it happen.

We know he didn't get the change of events he asked for.

As difficult as it is to understood how God does not answer our petitions - how could God not answer God's own prayer!?

Again, Jesus shows us the way. He shows us how to prayer. There was more to his prayer than just the failed supplication:
"Father, *if You are willing*, remove this cup from Me; *yet not My will, but Yours be done.*"

He acknowledges God the Father's will as being superior to His, and asks that the outcome
(even though he asks for a specific outcome, a turn of events), be according to that superior will. That implies a significant degree of trust.

He didn't get the turn of event he asked for ... but ... he did get what he truly *wanted*.

Leroy42 wrote: »

My point was that prayer was not praying to God, as God had never shown any inclination to respond (and that might very well be the 'right' thing to do). But if you accept that God does not respond to prayers, and that in essence they are prayers to yourself then by extension praying to God is pointless, rather we need to take more time to think and contemplate rather than pray to a deity that is not interested.

There's a lot we agree on in what you say there, as I covered in one of my previous posts.
The major difference (as explained above) is that I do not accept that God does not respond to prayers. He does so, albeit experiential, private, and possibly even displaced in time as those responses could be.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You say that miracles are everywhere, yet they have been shown by science to be not miracles at all and 'simply' man’s ability to work out the problem and find a solution. If you deem them miracles, do you also deem the miracles of the bible to be such? How does that make Jesus any better than the current doctors and why are we not building society around the teachings of Einstein etc.?
You say that miracles happen today, but which miracles? Are you sure that even if we don't understand them today that they will forever remain a mystery, or like in many cases after science gets involved it comes up with an reason and the 'miracle' simply becomes a wonder. We used to wonder how the tides worked, how the sun rose each day, how the flowers 'knew' to bloom each year. THe miracle of childbirth, people getting cured of disease etc. Yet in all these cases we now know why it happened, and it is never without cause, never an external 'force' interfering.

Ok. There's a lot of ways in which people conflate the word miracle with different meanings, which is what I was trying to illustrate in my previous post, but in so doing may have inadvertently added to the confusion over the word miracle.

The Church defines a miracle as a sign or wonder, such as a healing or the control of nature, which can *only* be attributed to divine power.

The more trite usage of miracle we hear, as in "miracle of modern science", it is not the same thing as miracle as defined by church, because they can be attributed (in part, or whole) to mans' intervention.

The miracle of childbirth, a sunset, etc. is a more general sense, often used by those who consider the mechanism (for want of a better word) of nature, and the existence of our universe in the very moment as coming from a divine power.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You put in the assertion that through God, man has the ability to find the answers

A more accurate reflection of my true position would be to say that because of God man has the ability to seek answers.

Leroy42 wrote: »

yet it seems somewhat cruel that God would allow all previous generations to suffer from disease and hunger just so man can gain knowledge, knowledge God could easily have given him from the start.

We have grown in knowledge of the natural order 'from the start'. What I think you are actually saying here, with respect, is that he could have given was all knowledge *at* the start? Man's core nature, at the start, in your scenario, would presumably still be left unchanged? Frankly, I could see all sorts of outcomes from such an absurd scenario, that would not exclude the possibility of illness and hunger occurring.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The faith of science, as you try to call it, is not the same as faith in religion.

Agreed, they certainly are not.
However, again, you are attributing to me something I did not actually say. I did not, or would not, try to call anything "faith of science". The term I used was "men of faith in science alone" - to elaborate, and clarify, my actual meaning - men (people) who hold a faith that science alone does, or will, lead to ultimate Truth (i.e. provide all answers).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Faith of religion is based on nothing.

Not so. Faith of religion (for Christianity at least, which is the only one I feel vaguely qualified to speak for) is based on Divine Revelation, which is - primarily - the Word of God, the Gospel. Is your position then that the Gospel is nothing, i.e. no basis for faith?

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is mainly based on mankind’s nature to want to be led, scared that we are alone, and ultimately scared that life itself is nothing more than a simple accident and means nothing.

From the direction you are now taking I can see you are bringing in the popular, familiar, maxims of atheism.
Perhaps you're more versed in, or even more interested in them, than in the equivalents in theology?

I could just as easily and quite validly state, as you did, the corollary claim that absence of faith is based on mankind’s nature of unwillingness to be guided, scared not to be left to himself, and ultimately scared that life itself is more than a simple accident and has a purpose.

Is that statement false and only yours true?

So I hope you can see those particular claims would just lead us round in circles.

Do you begin to see that reason used alone, in discussions about matters of faith, reaches limits?

Leroy42 wrote: »

'Faith' of science, a misnomer

Indeed, as I agreed with above.

Leroy42 wrote: »

is based on evidence. Some of that evidence is physical some of it is theoritical, but even that is based on the known, an extrapolation of what is currently understand to try to work out those areas we don't fully understand. And even then, the theory is tested. Einstein's theories are not accepted because Einstein said them. Gravity is not accepted because it was was written years ago. Evolution is not accepted simply because.

?

Yeah, you're not really making sense to me there.
Gravity was always accepted; it was always observed. We might not have always had a name for it though ...

Leroy42 wrote: »

All these theories are continually put to the test and found again and again to be correct.

If you're going to use scientific theory to discuss (or even try to debunk) faith, then you should make sure you understand it entirely first, so you will at least know where you might be exposed. In the scientific method, as I was taught it, as additional scientific evidence is gathered, a previously accepted scientific theory may be modified to include the new empirical findings, or even rejected altogether if is does not fit with new empirical findings at all.

Do we know what new empirical findings mankind will make in the future and, by extension, what theories "continually correct" will change or be replaced in future?

Leroy42 wrote: »

For almost everything that we were told is 'the mystery of God' science has found a reason, if not the complete answer.

There is a difference between reason (why something is) and cause (what made something happen).
Science has found some causes (i.e. what made some things happen), with a notable exception of the prime cause - what made our universe explode
into existence in the first place. There are scientific theories for that one, but no empirical findings to support them.
It is philosophy and religion that provide reasons.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Only the week even more evidence was reported showing that the earth is probably made of two separate planets.
Again, why would God create a universe in 6 days, rest for the 7th and then wait billions of years for two objects to smash together?

The 7 days mentioned in Genesis is not a historical narrative; it is interpreted allegorically.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are taking one example and trying to portray this as somehow God's payback.
Yet there are many more examples of people without that were as good if not better. So what was the point of the
blindness, the poverty? What was the point of making all those babies around the world born with down syndrome, blindness etc.,
those babies that die young merely lived their lives like everyone else but with the added complications of their condition.
If you are going to use Bocelli or Stevie Wonder or people like as a case for God, then you need to reason why so many millions
or others suffer for seemingly little reward.

Well my example of Bocelli was in relation to *perceived natural evil* (blindness), but you say I "need to reason"(?) why many
people experience suffering. Natural evil and suffering are two different things. If you what you want is a general answer
as to why God permits suffering - I have given you an answer to such a question before. I won't quote it all (it'll lengthen and already long post), but you can read it again (showpost.php?p=98348070&postcount=4727), just over half way down, if you want to.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am not attributing evils to god, and ignoring the good. I am saying that neither of them has any relation to God.

Ah. Neither. Any relation. Now I'm beginning to see.
So are you saying you see God as having no evil nor good in Him at all, just .. what ... ? ambivalent? Or simply not there at all?

Do you believe God exists?

The impression I am getting from your posts is that either you actually don't, or that you do believe He exists, but don't want to (anymore).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Religion seems to want to attribution every good (the earth, humanity, the universe, stars, food, good health etc.) to God,
but everything bad is simply man’s inherent sinfulness or the mystery of God that we simply don't understand.
Funny that we seem to be able to understand the good he does.

Not only that, but the Christian faith *does* attribute all good things as having their source in God, not just want to.
We are able to understand the good he does because we were "made in his image" (Gn:1).

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you take the position that wars, famine disease etc. are man's own doing then by extension you have to accept that the
good things that happen are also due to mankind? Where does God fit in to that picture?

I don't take the position that disease is man's own doing (unless a deliberate contamination or something).
All wars, yes, are entirely of man's own actions. But are they all of man's own doing? Our evil actions arise not without a degree
of external temptation.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You mention miracles that happen, not due to science but Divine petition, and mention one baby.
Even if we accept that God intervened to perform that miracle, the question is why? Why that baby?

Well, to start with, somebody prayed for intercession and a miracle in that case.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why not the countless other babies that are forced to suffer terrible disease and birth defects.

Did all their countless parents pray for intercession, for a miracle? I doubt all do.
But some probably do. So why did some of those result in a miracle and others who prayed for it not?
I have already answered that - I refer you back to the earlier answer on why God may not give us what we ask for in prayers.

You are asking some of the same questions over again, phrased sightly differently each time, but the essentially the same questions.
I fear we are going round in circles.
Perhaps you want me to give different answers? Unfortunately, my answers are the only ones I have to give you.
So if you want different (perhaps better) answers, you should seek them elsewhere.

Leroy42 wrote: »

If I'm the parent of a sick baby, praying every night for help and I hear that God has indeed performed a miracle,
but just not to my baby or for me, what I am supposed to think? That its ok for my baby to suffer as God is mysterious?

This discussion has fallen into using very tragic events as generalizations for an argument. I haven't personally experienced such
tragedy. Leroy42 perhaps you have, and that is why you raise it? Even if not, I'm conscious there may be people
reading all this for whom such an event is a personal reality, and I don't want to continue with a discussion like that which
would read as unfeeling and hurtful to those who do go though it.

There was such a couple on TV this weekend. Only someone who's gone through the suffering truly knows how to help others facing the same
suffering. I'd ask any of you, who are inclined, to pop a donation to aoibheannspinktie.ie

Leroy42 wrote: »

That maybe I didn't pray hard enough? Maybe I don't go to church often enough, or give enough to the church?

To that, I can only say, if you think the amount of euros you put in the plate was not enough to buy a response from God (do you?)
then you hardly know the Christian God at all.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God says he loves all his children, but especially Jose it seems!

I don't follow that. Why does it seem He loves Jose more than some others?

He loves everyone, equally. It is we who frequently don't.





So, I've tried to answer a lot of your questions (some more than once) over the course of the discussion,
and hopefully not all to your dissatisfication.

I hope the discussion has been of any use to you in your 'questioning all of this' (as you once said).

You have certainly been persistent in questioning me; I trust you are just as consistent in questioning yourself.



Good luck to you.

indioblack wrote: »

If he believed God existed he would surely also accept all the attributes applied to God by the Christian faith - so why would he not want to believe?
Unless he thought those attributes, the classical description of the Christian God, did not apply.
In the Christian tradition, God is the originator of everything. For Christians it can be no other way.
Therefore, all that follows - directly and indirectly- has a link, no matter how tenuous, with God.
The hypothetical blind child from earlier in this thread may serve a purpose living a sightless life - as long as it's understood that this child was born as it was within a framework of existence created by the Christian God.

Yes, I agree. That's my view too. But we can't deny (especially from evidence of recent discussions) that the presence of suffering in the world is a stumbling block for many in their understanding of God, and in some cases a singular reason for denouncing Him.

Don't have time to go into it in detail here, but I'd recommend "The Problem of Pain" by CS Lewis for anyone interested in the Christian perspective on it.

The Chieftain wrote: »

If you write something, then don't you know what it means? That the Bible was written by and for the Church, under Divine guidance, is a fact. The Church has authoritatively interpreted its own Holy Scripture and you say that is just "opinion". Well, that is obviously nonsense.

It is just an opinion and you stating that something is fact does not make it so. It is simply your opinion which you are entitled to. My opinion differs from yours. Am I correct? Are you? Who knows. We can all have opinions on this topic but just because something is written down does not in itself make it fact.

The Chieftain wrote: »

If you write something, you obviously have knowledge of it, whether what you wrote be fact or not. That is so simple a notion that disputing it is obviously self-defeating.

It could be argued that that is incorrect because of "divine guidance" but I am not going to bother.

My post was in relation to "That the Bible was written by and for the Church, under Divine guidance, is a fact." Stating that it is fact does not make it fact. you also stated that the church has "authoritatively interpreted its own Holy Scripture". The key word here is "interpreted". The church has explained it as they see fit. It does not make it fact.

The Chieftain wrote: »

Taking issue with historical facts is not usually considered a way to win arguments.

What historical fact have I taken issue with?
That the Bible was written by and for the Church, under Divine guidance? That is not a fact. It was written, yes. Under divine guidance? That is not a fact.
That the church has authoritatively interpreted its own Holy Scripture? I am not arguing with that. That it's interpretation is fact? I would have to argue with that.

The Chieftain wrote: »

Just a minute ago you said you were not going to bother with "divine guidance". Now it does bother you. We clearly can't believe what you say.

In any case, you left out the a key point from your list. Sorry, fail.

If you follow the posts, you stated:


If you write something, you obviously have knowledge of it, whether what you wrote be fact or not. That is so simple a notion that disputing it is obviously self-defeating.

I responded:

It could be argued that that is incorrect because of "divine guidance" but I am not going to bother.

The simple point being that it could be argued that because of "divine guidance" (if it actually exists) the author may not have been aware of what was been written. I was not going to bother arguing this point but now I have to as you have given it the wrong context.

In my last post, the point I was making was that the bible was written, yes but not under divine guidance. I hope you get the distinction.

Please enlighten me. What key point did I leave out? What is "my list"?

The Chieftain wrote: »

The reversal is there for all to see. May I suggest you turn to Jesus for enlightenment?

It appears to me that you do not have the ability to follow simple logic or possibly, you refuse to do so.