| Author |
Message |
    
chris murphy
New member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 2
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 08:19 am: | |
This is my second post and please excuse me for posting it twice. I can't seem to figure out what happened to my first one. Anyway, my question is Did God create everything? If so, he created evil, correct? |
jasonjvalentine
Member
Username: jasonjvalentine
Post Number: 70
Registered: 08-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 09:52 am: | |
correct |
Ryan Archer
New member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: 
Votes: 3 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:42 pm: | |
That is actually incorrect - your wording of your question is damning and false. God did not create evil, He allowed for the possibility of evil. To blame the existence of evil on God is a cop-out, it's up to us to make the right decisions and choose God. God does not force us to do anything, He did not choose what you had for breakfast today, how fast you walked to your car, or how treated the people you encountered today - all of those things you chose to do in the way you did them on your own. You must a choice if there is to be such a thing as love - it cannot be forced or it is less than love. If we did not know what the opposite of goodness, gentleness, kindness, justice, truth, love, peace, joy, hope, and so on, we could never truly know what any of those things really are. Hence, the possibility for the opposite of them must exist. And again, it is up to us to make the right choices.
As Cliff says in one of his discussion threads, blaming evil deeds on God is a cop-out - it is human irresponsibility: if someone is starving in Somalia, you have the means to help them, yet you do not. You cannot blame God, there is more than enough food to go around for the whole (yet the distribution is so limited). If someone decides to beat up your friend and steal their things, God did not make them do that, they CHOSE to do that. Everyone has been given a free will to do as they please. Some people have seared their consciences so that doing evil is not that bad to them so they persist in doing it.
The bottom line is that human evil is a direct result of human choice and God is completely fault-free because He gave us free will and we do as we choose. But Jesus Christ can set anyone free from their nature and this world and give them true peace, such as they have never experienced or even dreamt of - I know for I have experienced it personally having been an atheist until I was 22. Praise God! |
John Dill
Junior Member
Username: rainbow_walking
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: 
Votes: 5 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 05:07 am: | |
You couldn't be futher from the truth Ryan. Not only did god create evil, (if there is a god), but he introduced it to mankind by setting Adam up in the garden. Not only that but his methodology of making his existence known to man is both irresponsible and prejudicial. If he can personally communicate his existence and will to some men, the way he allegedly did with the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles...then he can and should do so with all men, in every generation and everywhere. Instead we have mutiple gods and thousands of religios cults, many that have committed horrendous acts of violence and shed oceans of blood in the name of one god or another....especially the Judeo/christian/muslim god. Not only has your god created evil but has caused it and committed evil on many occasions. He also admits to creating evil in the bible. I suggest you try to learn a little history and read your bible a little more thoroughly before responding with these lame cu-and-paste responses that are lies. |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 5 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 11:05 am: | |
RW-you said
"If he can personally communicate his existence and will to some men, the way he allegedly did with the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles...then he can and should do so with all men"
DG - This is a rationalization of the truth...ie. I will believe in God when He speaks directly to me, like the patriarchs, prophets and apostles...because God has not manifested Himself in physical form and slapped you upside the head, does not make Him less real. For instance, I have a cousin that lives 3000 miles away, but I know he is real, although I have never met him. See, it isn't that the truth is not facing you directly in the face it is that you desire to not know the truth, a exercise of free will that God allows to happen, although He desires that all should know and receive Him. If creation, conscience and Christ have not screamed of God, then what would? Do you believe you have a heart that is open to the knowledge of God? Are you willing to submit and humble yourself if there is a God? Again, you may be looking at this all wrong. It isn't that God hasn't made Himself known, it is that you truly in your heart do not want to know Him.
And just a follow up to some of your other remarks...I agree there has been oceans of blood spilled in the name of God...but who says that this man made religion that has spilled the blood is not in and of itself to blame. Was it truly a revelation of God for the crusades...I think not. And just by crossing the lines of different religions you can see how they are man made...not in true relation to God's Spirit but a man made answer to an age old Spiritual question.
I would love to see the verses, along with your interpretation where God creates evil, in either the OT or the NT. And lets keep all of our post above ridicule for that does no one any good, especially the one that post it. |
Eileen McGowan
New member
Username: emcgwn
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 8 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 03:46 am: | |
John Dill writes:
> You couldn't be futher from the truth Ryan. Not only did god create evil, (if there is a god), but he introduced it to mankind by setting Adam up in the garden.
-------
If I was mute and never spoke a lie to anyone, would that make me honest?
If I spend my life locked up in a tower so I had no human contact, no ability to harm anyone, would that make me kind?
How does one show one’s virtue in an environment where I have no choice but to do the right thing?
God gave Adam and Eve the opportunity to prove their devotion to Him by giving them the opportunity to disobey Him. He wanted to be loved by Adam and Eve and love can not exist in an environment where not loving is impossible. Freedom of choice is inherent in the definition of love.
John Dill writes:
>Not only that but his methodology of making his existence known to man is both irresponsible and prejudicial. If he can personally communicate his existence and will to some men, the way he >allegedly did with the Patriarchs, prophets and apostles...then he can and should do so with all men, in every generation and everywhere.
God reveals Himself to an extent to everyone, through His creation and through the witness of our own conscience. (Romans 1:20) But we need to seek Him if we want to know Him more intimately. We are as close to God as we choose to be.
James 4:8
Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.
Ex 20:18-19
Now all the people witnessed the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off. 19 Then they said to Moses, "You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die."
NKJV
The verse above illustrates how the Israelites did not want God to speak to them personally. They were afraid of what it would cost them. Not everyone wants to hear from God, not even Christians because it comes with a cost and a responsibility to do what He says.
Matt 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.
NKJV
When you get a pure heart and you still can’t hear from God, then maybe you have a right to complain.
John Dill writes:
>Instead we have mutiple gods and thousands of religios cults, many that have committed horrendous acts of violence and shed oceans of >blood in the name of one god or another....especially the Judeo/christian/muslim god.
And it’s certainly obvious to everyone how atheism has helped the world thrive. Where are the great atheist leaders spearing heading great humanitarian causes? Are they all out helping feed and clothe the poor? Are they nursing the sick and dying in India? Have they given all their money away to the homeless people?
I don’t see any atheists doing anything good for the world, so why would I want to be an atheist?
Furthermore, if atheism is true, why are you spending your time participating in these debates? Why not just eat, drink and be merry?
I guess you think you’re going to make the world a better place by stomping out Christianity, but why bother trying if everyone ends up dead without any ability to reflect on whether or not the world was good or bad, or even exists.
|
Ryan Archer
New member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 04:02 am: | |
You know John, I will tell you, I vouch for the things these people have spoken in defense of God. They are all accurate and if you are intellectually honest, there is really nothing you can say to prove anything otherwise. God always has been, is now, and will always be real.
Tell me, can you scientifically prove that you and your mom have a relationship? Or that you feel love for her? The answer is of course not, but just because you cannot prove it or even explain it does not take away from it being absolutely real.
Do you really think that God would have designed the Bible so that only the very brightest and deepest minds could ever fathom what He is saying? If so, the Bible would be about INFINITY pages long because God would have to explain down the smallest detail how everything works and so forth - and why would that necessarily be good for us? God loves ALL His children, so of course He would never do anything like that - He would have it be written so that everyone could understand His message of love. When Moses was with the Israelites on the eve of their moving into the Promised Land, did he explain to them HOW God was going to get them past all those giants? No, he told them WHO God is and that he is for them (this is where Genesis 1 comes in) because He wants them to be His people, His example to the world, because that was the only way they would press on - they needed confidence in God, not a bunch of plans.
He created us with a need inside to know Him. Now, of course, we can get through life without Him, but it's really no life at all (I lived 22 years without Him and have now had Him in my life for 3 years and I would say to you and I am really only 3 years old now) - He designed us to LIVE WITH HIM and know Him.
Consider this: did you ever get anything you really desired from your parents when you were young without ever speaking to them or letting them know what it was you wanted? In the same way, how can you expect to know God if you won't ask for Him to let you know Him? Stop trying to force God to reveal Himself to you in the exact way you want Him to and look for Him to come as who He is, in the way He wants you to know Him, and then you will see Him, for it will be then that you are truly desiring to see and know Him. How much more will it take until you are desperate for Him to come into your life? Because until that time, I can all but guarantee you won't see Him, because God is like a river - He flows down the path of least resistance. May you know Jesus brother, amen. |
Ryan Archer
New member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2004 - 04:09 am: | |
By the way, I also HIGHLY suggest that EVERYONE on here check out the 2002 movie JOSHUA. It stars F.Murray Abraham, Tony Goldwyn, Kurt Fuller, and Giancarlo Giannini. I guarantee you that you have never seen a more remarkable movie. You can get it anywhere; like Blockbuster or Hollywood Video.
Just watch it, it is the most wonderful movie and really makes you think and long for God.
May Jesus bless you all. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 228
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 11:35 pm: | |
"Tell me, can you scientifically prove that you and your mom have a relationship? Or that you feel love for her? The answer is of course not, but just because you cannot prove it or even explain it does not take away from it being absolutely real."
No, science cannot answer everything, nor should it be used to do so. But when claims of "absolute truth" are made, reasonable people tend to require reliable methods for evaluating such claims. The scientific method has been proven reliable as a means to understanding the truth about our natural world. Logic is similarly applied to many assertions.
Religious claims are not subject to any kind of independent, objective methodology for testing its accuracy. None - it just doesn't exist. Christians themselves vary widely on fundimental issues, including the method of salvation.
As such, it is most reasonable to put matters pertaining to the supernatural in a different category than those assigned to our natural universe. To attempt to argue matters of the supernature logically is simply impossible, by definition of what supernatural means.
Your concept of God may internally make perfect sense to you, and many others may share your views. This in itself is evidence of nothing beyond a lot of people believing the same thing. But that shouldn't matter. Your personal religious experience is as valid as anyone else's, and I respect it. |
Ryan Archer
New member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 03:27 am: | |
Timothy, you said that "Christians themselves vary widely on fundamental issues, including the method of salvation." You assert that as if Christians (as followers of Christ) themselves are the authority of what is and what is not, as opposed to God Himself. God wrote the Bible through human hands, for He has sovereignly chosen this. Everything He does, He uses us, because He has sovereignly decided to do so, to get us into relationship with Him. That's what it's all about, not who believes what...
You cannot ridicule the Bible by observing what people have done in the name of God and in the name of Jesus, for these are people doing these things, not God Himself. We all have free will to do as we please. If your son beat up someone else's kid, would you be held accountable for that, or would your son? Same with God.
As for what is truth, there is one definitive truth: God. He is not defined by what people think of Him or what He must be like, He is what and who He is, very simply - that cannot be up for interpretation. That is like someone trying to say the sky is not blue just because they don't want it to be, or that the sun does not give off heat, or me saying you don't exist - because I've never seen you. All of things are ridiculous. As God is, there cannot be multiple truths about who He is, there is only truth, just like there is only one truth about who you are. There is no interpretation - you are who you are and no one can say any differently, ever. Same with God. He is who He is. End of story.
As for the supernatural, what could make 12 men risk certain death to say they have seen Jesus ressurected? What could make a woman with cancer suddenly not have cancer, what could make someone who was an atheist suddenly a passionate and staunch supporter of Christ's existence forever? Only an encounter with God Himself. Your reference to saying that you cannot measure God by logic is exactly right. The supernatural is very real, however, as I said in an earlier post, God is like a river, He flows down the path of least resistance. He opposes the arrogant and proud. He says that unless you let go of what you think you know and see things as a child would, you will never see the Kingdom of God (Jesus, His miracles, and so forth). You'll never know anyway until you are desperate to know and give yourself over to this so-called foolishness; becoming as a child. When you do, and you sincerely WANT and desire to find Jesus Christ, He will come to you - for He says that all who seek Him with all their heart, mind, and soul will find Him. That's a promise worth looking into to - He fulfilled with me; I was an antagonistic atheist until I was 22 and then God, in His mercy, came to me one night when I finally made the decision to look for Him. I cannot imagine life otherwise now - it has never been better. Christ is everything you've been looking for and so what are you waiting for? God bless you and I hope you could rent the movie Joshua, from 2002. You won't be sorry. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 229
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: 
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:03 pm: | |
"You assert that as if Christians (as followers of Christ) themselves are the authority of what is and what is not, as opposed to God Himself. God wrote the Bible through human hands, for He has sovereignly chosen this."
Some parts of the bible, are directly handed down by god, but most are not. Church leaders later decide which writings are divinely inspired, and which are not. It took centuries after Jesus for the Christian canon to be finalized, remember. Furthermore, Christians vary on the inerrancy of the bible issue as well. Your premise is just that, yours. It isn't THE premise.
"You cannot ridicule the Bible by observing what people have done in the name of God and in the name of Jesus, for these are people doing these things, not God Himself."
I don't ridicule the bible or those who choose use it as their spiritual guide. My point is that the bible is interpreted many different ways by intellegent, informed and sincere people. This is evidence that he bible isn't so easily pegged as meaning "X" and only "X" but certainly not "Y", for example. It is also evidence that there are multiple legitimate interpretations of it.
"As for what is truth, there is one definitive truth: God. He is not defined by what people think of Him or what He must be like, He is what and who He is, very simply - that cannot be up for interpretation." That may be true, but neither you, nor anyone else have come up with an independent, objective and tested methodology for establishing what that one "truth" is.
"As God is, there cannot be multiple truths about who He is, there is only truth, just like there is only one truth about who you are. There is no interpretation - you are who you are and no one can say any differently, ever. Same with God. He is who He is. End of story."
Not quite. By claiming God can only be "X" and therefore cannot be "Y" is applying a logical contruct to a supernatural entity purportedly beyond our comprehention. Such rules of logic cannot be applied to the supernatural. PERIOD. They cannot. The mystery of the trinity is a prime example. It cannot be resolved, explained or comprehended by argument, by logic, or any by any other means. So, it is accepted on faith alone.
The infinite and omnipotent nature of God allows for many truths about God to be just that, true. Just because you or I cannot explain how such can be true doesn't mean it is so, any more than the trinity itself.
"As for the supernatural, what could make 12 men risk certain death to say they have seen Jesus ressurected? What could make a woman with cancer suddenly not have cancer, what could make someone who was an atheist suddenly a passionate and staunch supporter of Christ's existence forever?"
What could make a staunch Christian become an atheist? Why do Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans with cancer also similarly heal without explanation? Why have so many Buddhists been willing to die for what they believe in?
All your examples are examples of very strong believes, but that doesn't make it right. Every example you mention is demonstrated in non-Christians as well. Does this necessarily validate their beliefs also? I think it might.
"You'll never know anyway until you are desperate to know and give yourself over to this so-called foolishness; becoming as a child. When you do, and you sincerely WANT and desire to find Jesus Christ, He will come to you - for He says that all who seek Him with all their heart, mind, and soul will find Him. That's a promise worth looking into to - He fulfilled with me; I was an antagonistic atheist until I was 22 and then God, in His mercy, came to me one night when I finally made the decision to look for Him."
I'm not antagonistic towards Christianity at all. My opposition to exclusivism when it comes to matters of spirituality is consistent accross all faiths and beliefs. I believe Christianity is a beautiful religion, and there is much to be gained by it, just as there is much to be gained by other faiths and beliefs.
If you claim it is about God and not what others say God is, and I told you my perspective was God-given, what would your response be? Would you claim I was wrong? How would you test that and prove your position? I think we both agree it's all about God, but have different ideas about what God is. My point is that because there exists no objective methodology (nor can exist) for establishing whose claims about God are the most accurate, and because there is such wide variance in the world about spirituality and God, that that is compelling evidence spirituality is not an objective matter at all, but a deeply personal and subject one.
"Christ is everything you've been looking for and so what are you waiting for?"
I never abandoned Jesus or rejected him, just added him to a more inclusive spirituality that recognizes truth for its own sake, rather than a dogmatic and exclusivist approach. Many of the teachings attributed to Jesus are the best the world has ever known. I'm certainly not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I think others shouldn't be either. I don't doubt your sincerety, just as I don't doubt the sincerety of the devote Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and Buddhists I know. And for me, being honest with God and His will does not allow be to be dismissive of such sincerely held beliefs. That includes you. My hope for you is that you might see the inherent truth in such a position.
Peace.
|
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2004 - 10:33 pm: | |
Tim, you said "I never abandoned Jesus or rejected him"
Well who do you say that Jesus is? |
Ryan Archer
New member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 5
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 02:57 am: | |
Tim, I could sit here and do a cut-and-paste refutation that would be 62 nautical miles long, but I'm not going to. I'd rather major in the majors...because no one ever came to believe in Him through intellectual means (and I believe you may actually already operate in that, what with your saying that logic and reason do not apply when discussing the existence of God and who Jesus is).
Mr.Geisler piques my interest with that question and I would love to hear you talk about who you say Jesus is too.
Anyway, just a couple things really; number one is simply this: Christianity is not about a bunch of rules and how well you observe them - it's about God who came in the guise of a man to set things right and get us all into deep, intimate relationship with Him. Have you ever felt a peace that is beyond any earthly feeling you could ever hope to experience or produce, that you could swear you are already in Heaven, as you bask in His presence and weep in His arms? Have you ever spoken to God and actually clearly heard something spoken back to you? Have you ever received a clear answer back to a question you just asked Him that solves a problem or issue you had? Have you ever felt a love so pure and rich it cannot be defined or duplicated by anything of this world? Have you personally ever healed someone in the name of Jesus Christ that was slated to die? Or spoken in the language of God? Received a vision just after you asked a question and it answered your question? I can say that all of these have happened in my life since I accepted Christ into my heart and pursued a real relationship with Him. I know God is Jesus and that He is real just as I know you exist. I would not say I belong to any institution per se, but I am merely a follower of Christ and what He says (I am well aware of the selections and piecings together of the Bible - remember that just as everything else is faith with God, so it is that God totally orchestrated the formation of the Bible - otherwise you could just say, well, the Israelites defeated Jericho by themselves, those walls were just poorly made and God had nothing to do with it, or that all those people that Jesus healed were just spontaneously made well with no explanation and they did it themselves and God was not involved with that either, etc). I have put it to the test, in faith not presumption, and seen Him deliver.
As far as what you say of other people who are following other things (especially the Buddhist people since they don't believe in any god so how could they believe in healings...?), how do you really know what they are doing if they are, in fact, doing any of the things they are doing? What price are they paying internally? Look through the Bible and you will see that God has not limited miracles to Himself - He has given the angels (and consequently the fallen ones) the ability to some miracles as well. So to hear about other people who are following other things besides God is not a surprise to me at all.
I do know however, there is no price on any of God's miracles, it is all on His grace. The best miracle to see anyway is a changed life, a transformed person in their heart. We're all brothers and sisters of the same God, we just grew up in different neighborhoods.
Lastly, your question about what could make a staunch Christian stop believing...my answer is that they never actually KNEW Christ, they were just following Him, kind of like Judas Iscariot -he was even with Jesus for His earthly ministry and still betrayed Him, not believing he was the Son of God in person. Remember the parable of the different seeds? Rocky soil will cause those seeds to wilt and die and when the sun comes up...
Well, now I am just rambling, so I'll cease that and go to bed. May God bless you and show you what you truly desire.
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 230
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:19 pm: | |
"Tim, you said "I never abandoned Jesus or rejected him"
Well who do you say that Jesus is?"
Jesus wrote nothing himself, and the technology of his time did not permit any objective recording of his words (i.e. video or audio tape). Thus, we must rely on the followers of the christian movement for who Jesus was, what he did and what he said.
That said, the principles of love, forgiveness, compassion, charity and self sacrafice are powerful and good, and exemplified through the story of Jesus. I recognize this. That I may find the supernatural claims in the Gospels to be extremely unlikely does not take away the value of those universal principles of good and right - at least not in my way of thinking. I understand others see it differently.
Hope that answers your question. -t |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 231
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 09:32 pm: | |
Ryan,
Respectfully, I cut and paste my answers to others' points to be organized. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to know what one is responding to. I have no doubt you could respond to my details, and I understand your desire to "major in the major" points. But as they say...the devil is in the details - so to speak. Generalities are wonderful, but true analysis requires breaking it down to the details.
To generally answer your generalities...What if I told you I sincerely experienced everything you described as experiences of the truth of god, but at the end of day, God told me christianity was not the only true and correct faith? What would you use to test the validity of my divine experience? At the end of the day, you are relying on your personal experience and revelation and a particular interpretation of a certain text (the Bible). Again, others rely on the same personal experience and Bible, yet still come to different conclusions. You claim that your concept of god is as real to you as any human being you encounter in life. However, that similarity is only evident in you and those who share your religious views. People of all faiths recognize President Bush exists as a real live person, for example, but not so with supernatural beings. Clearly, you must recognize a qualitative difference between the natural and the supernatural.
Remember this too...I respect your religious belief as being a reality to you as real as the physical world. However, I would be dishonest not to recognize the same phenomena in others with different spiritual faiths. And last time I checked - nobody's God wants dishonesty.
Peace - t |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Tim,
I think that our fundamental difference doesn't lie in the reality of Jesus or even His radical teachings...it comes in the belief of the Bible. Do you believe that the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe it to be divine or human in nature? It is this fundamental question that must be asked and anwered before we can compare different religions. Because if none or all religious books are the same then why not cut and paste out the parts that seem right. For instance, we all desire God's love, mercy and grace but to be balanced biblically we must also recognize God as being the final Judge, as God as being a Discipliner, and as God as even being Jealous.
When we take the parts of the Gospels and the Bible without taking them in full we become unbalanced like mixing all the ingredients of a cake without baking it...Batter Goo Christianity.
When we can recognize the Bible as being divine then we can let each and every verse speak to us...If not it is just a good book with some good lessons, but not from God! |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 234
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 02:16 am: | |
Dave,
I appreciate your "all or nothing" type of approach to the bible, however I find it to be fundamentally flawed. Everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe and how they want to believe it. The evidence of this is the vast variation of sects within Christianity itself, from Catholics, to certain evangelicals, to Mormons, to Seventh Day Adventists, to Christian Scientists, to GBR Baptists, to Lutherans, to Charismatics. Some people even point to some of these sects as not even being Christian at all, which is incredibly telling of the point I am trying to convey.
Nobody takes every word of the Bible to be the literal truth, but rather a mix of historical fact and allegory. The differences comes in what portions are which.
I, personally, tend to place higher scrutiny on supernatural claims than those claims based on verifiable, natural phenomena and events. This is true regardless of the source of the claim, the religious origin of the claim, or whatever. While I recognize some sophisticated arguments in support of the supernatural claims in the Gospels, for instance, I find them to be less probable than natural explanations.
I find no evidence that the New Testiment of the Bible, for example, is either infallible or divinely inspired. Even the texts themselves do not make such a claim, if you read them. Nor has the canonization process creating the Christian bible as we know it ever claimed to be divinely inspired.
So to answer your question, I believe the bible to be a mixture of many things, including historical fact among them. But that is not taking parts of the bible and rejecting others. Rather, it is taking the whole bible in proper context, in my view.
I understand your opinion may very well be different, and I don't wish to take that away from you. But please understand that my view is sincere, honest and informed, as I assume yours is. This, again, being powerful evidence that matters of faith are qualitatively different than matters of the physical world we share.
peace, - t
|
jasonjvalentine
Advanced Member
Username: jasonjvalentine
Post Number: 390
Registered: 08-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 09:30 am: | |
When facing absolutes with different perspectives.
The absolute never changes.
Regardless of your flawed perspective of relying on varying perspectives.
The fact is fact does not very.
And don't pawn that fact down by abusing the word "spiritual" in regard to spiritual issues, and that somehow your law of them being unverifiable. Because the fact is every physical thing you have discerned by way of science and come to know and rely on practical results are only known to you by way of your spirit within a physical body.
IE the law remains the same in regards to what is verses what people do and do not know.
And or come to know.
We chose within an already etermined truth or lie. determining NOTHING.
You have chosen wrong becuase Jesus is Lord and your only sollution. And you reject that truth, and foolishly disclame the actual fundementals surrounding that fact to you inperfect self. In a way you could come to know if you were willing.
Begining with God I am wrong you are not.
You will face the consequences of your decision regarding this issue of Jesus. And face them as God has decided where they will bring you. And I will face mine. |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
I can't believe this as an arguement:
Jesus wrote nothing himself, and the technology of his time did not permit any objective recording of his words (i.e. video or audio tape). Thus, we must rely on the followers of the christian movement for who Jesus was, what he did and what he said.
Does that mean you don't believe anthing said before the time of videocameras and tape recorders??
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 8
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Timothy also said:
What if I told you I sincerely experienced everything you described as experiences of the truth of god, but at the end of day, God told me christianity was not the only true and correct faith? What would you use to test the validity of my divine experience? At the end of the day, you are relying on your personal experience and revelation and a particular interpretation of a certain text (the Bible).
But what about prophecy??
kaze
|
chris murphy
New member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 4
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
"You have chosen wrong becuase Jesus is Lord and your only sollution".
there are a lot of people out there who are damned if this in fact true. That's not the loving God I've come to know. We are all God's children. Jews, Gentiles, Buddhists, Muslims,etc... |
chris murphy
New member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 5
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!)
Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:42 pm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is actually incorrect - your wording of your question is damning and false. God did not create evil, He allowed for the possibility of evil.
Then who created it? If God didn't create it then wouldn't our choices of free will be choose the "right" thing or the "right" thing? |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:39 am: | |
I appreciate your handling of our differences. But there is a flaw...it is not a difference of opinion but a difference of facts.
There were two men on a 500' bridge and the one turns to the other and says "I just don't believe in gravity, no, I want to fly and because I don't believe in gravity and believe that I can fly like the birds it will be so"
The other man exclaims "wait! I will show you both objective proof and subjective proof" and as the second man shows that when he jumps gravity brings him back down He then pulls out his middle school science book and shows the facts of gravity. The first man now has a choice.
What will he do? Will he believe in his own beliefs? Will he step off the bridge and fly like a bird? Or will he look a the middle school book, like a child for the first time and discover the truth in the book, then see if gravity is really true by a tiny jump in the air?
Either way it is not the choice of the second man, no he is there to help guide the first on the decision...But if the first man JUMPS then certain death is before him. |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 6
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Or will he look a the middle school book, like a child for the first time and discover the truth in the book, then see if gravity is really true by a tiny jump in the air?
I don't know who you were responding to and get your point to a degree but the middle school text book analogy is not that strong. In our lifetime there have been many times that things we learned in middle school (we called it jr high back in my day) were incorrect. And yes, we all know about gravity but we haven't given up studying it to understand it more and more. |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Chris...please read all the post, I was actually responding to Tim and I should have made that known.
Did you learn in jr. high about gravity? Did you believe what you learned not only by the evidence but by application? Then excellent...keep studying and understanding more about the truth that is gravity. Thank you for proving my point about the Word of God...I agree we should keep studying and trying to understand it more fully.
|
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 7
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Jumping off a bridge isn't the only application or evidence that proves gravity. |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
I agree...just as there is an infinite amount of information for evidence of Jesus as the Christ and the Bible as the infallible Word of God. Such as manuscript evidence, Archeological evidence, prophecy and statistical evidence. Any and all of which would take more than a lifetime to exaust. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 235
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 01:36 am: | |
"I can't believe this as an arguement:
Jesus wrote nothing himself, and the technology of his time did not permit any objective recording of his words (i.e. video or audio tape). Thus, we must rely on the followers of the christian movement for who Jesus was, what he did and what he said.
Does that mean you don't believe anthing said before the time of videocameras and tape recorders??"
Context, context, context. That is what I am saying. I was very clear that the bible is full of historical fact, if you read my post. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 236
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 01:36 am: | |
"But what about prophecy??"
What about it? |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 237
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 01:42 am: | |
"I appreciate your handling of our differences. But there is a flaw...it is not a difference of opinion but a difference of facts.
There were two men on a 500' bridge and the one turns to the other and says "I just don't believe in gravity, no, I want to fly and because I don't believe in gravity and believe that I can fly like the birds it will be so"
The other man exclaims "wait! I will show you both objective proof and subjective proof" and as the second man shows that when he jumps gravity brings him back down He then pulls out his middle school science book and shows the facts of gravity. The first man now has a choice.
What will he do? Will he believe in his own beliefs? Will he step off the bridge and fly like a bird? Or will he look a the middle school book, like a child for the first time and discover the truth in the book, then see if gravity is really true by a tiny jump in the air?
Either way it is not the choice of the second man, no he is there to help guide the first on the decision...But if the first man JUMPS then certain death is before him."
I'm very glad you used gravity as an example of objective truth. Unlike spiritual truth, people of all religious beliefs - or none at all - ALL agree and observe that gravity exists, its fundamental principles, and is always behaving the same at all times and for all people.
Claims about God are anything but this reliable and consistent. The fact that there are so many different claims about the absolute truth about God, Gods, or no God at all is compelling evidence that claims about god simply do not fall into the same category as things like gravity. I'm sure you can see this.
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 238
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 01:47 am: | |
"Did you learn in jr. high about gravity? Did you believe what you learned not only by the evidence but by application? Then excellent...keep studying and understanding more about the truth that is gravity. Thank you for proving my point about the Word of God...I agree we should keep studying and trying to understand it more fully."
Dave, you assume I haven't ready or studied the bible ONLY because I have come to different conclusions about it than you...that if I just studied hard enough and was honest about my study that I would have no choice but to see things YOUR way.
The EVIDENCE shows you are mistaken. There are countless numbers of sincere people who know the bible as good or better than you, yet still don't see it your way. THAT is my point, and why your analogy to gravity is fundamentally flawed. It's like comparing apples to Shakspeare - it just doesn't make sense. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 239
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 02:16 am: | |
I'll take these one at a time...
"I agree...just as there is an infinite amount of information for evidence of Jesus as the Christ and the Bible as the infallible Word of God."
The story of Noah has been proven false (there is no evidence of a world-wide flood - but just the opposite). The fact that the universe is not 13,000 years old has been proven false (the distance of stars alone is proof). The story of the Tower of Babel has been proven false (other distinct civilizations already existed at the time). Jesus did not come from seed of David (Jewish tradition at the time traced this heritage through the father. Joseph was not Jesus' father, and adoption would not suffice to be considered of the "seed" of that family line. Being of the seed required biological decent, which didn't happen according to the texts themselves.) These are just a few examples that prove the Bible is NOT infallible.
"Such as manuscript evidence"
Evidence of what? The oldest known manuscript of the Gospels is a fragment of John the dates back to the early 2nd Century, about a 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus. The earliest manuscripts are not consistent. Mark, believed to be the oldest of them ends at the empty tomb and a boy saying jesus as risen and will meet his disciples in Galilee as planned. Later written versions of Mark add the actual encounters with Jesus. Mark and Luke are copies and embellishments of Mark. John is a different story, admittedly, but also written after the other three. Furthermore, most scholars do not accept the notion that Mark, John, Luke and Matt were in fact the actual authors of these works, but rather these important names were attributed to the works as was common practice of the day ot lend the work greater credibility. That is not to necessarily discount the accuracy of claims made in the canonized gospels, but a factor to consider. Finally, there are no claims within the gospels themselves that they were divinely inspired. Rather, they make claims of personally witnessing the events and careful investigation - not infallibility. That is a theological construct. The earlier writings by Paul, for example, are more compelling, especially with regard to the resurrection, but far from being as convincing as some would assert, IMO. Furthermore, there is no claim by Paul that any of his letters were divinely inspired and infallible either.
"Archeological evidence"
There is not one schred of archeological evidnence that supports a single supernatual claim in the Gospel or the bible as a whole. Factual accuracy as to natural people, places and phenomena provide no substantiation for claim of the supernatural written in the same passage. That logic would force one to accept the truth of alien abductions because all the people, places and surrounding circumstances could be verified. See what I mean?
"prophecy and statistical evidence"
What are the odds that Jesus would fulfill all the prophecies of the messiah, right? As an observant Jew, and the answer is simple, Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of the messiah at all, thus the quesiton is mute. Or, the answer is 100%, when claims of fullfillment are made after the fact by interested parties.
"Any and all of which would take more than a lifetime to exaust."
Clearly, I disagree. I understand you're invested in the bible being interpreted a certain way. That's fine, and you're entitled to that. I also understand that there are compelling arguments in support for many of your positions. But please understand that people can have reasonable differences to your take on the Bible and God, that cannot be simply dismissed because they do not share your spiritual views. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 240
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 02:19 am: | |
Just a clarification since I cannot edit my posts. I am not Jewish, but trying to express another's point of view.
sorry for any confusion. |
Ryan Archer
Junior Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 6
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:34 am: | |
Timothy Timothy Timothy. What on Earth are you saying? Your claims are incredulous! Just answer me this one question: WERE YOU THERE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS YOU SAY? The answer to this question is obviously no. For you to make absurd claims like the Gospels are all copies of each other and so forth is staggeringly amazing: HOW CAN YOU PROVE ANY OF THAT? You cannot.
You are trying to claim that the earliest known copy of John is from 100 years after the crucifixion; I don't know where you got any of your information, but I would strongly urge you to look at the unbiased facts, the earliest known copy of Mark is dated to btw 55-65 AD and for Luke it is around 60 AD, Matthew is btw 60-65 AD and John is from btw 85-90 AD. AND, JUST BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FOUND AN EARLIER COPY OF ANY OF THESE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THEY DON'T EXIST OR WERE NOT WRITTEN!
AND AGAIN, did you witness the redactions of the Gospels? Obviously not, so you cannot assert they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE. To believe otherwise would take a lot more faith...
Have you ever seen one trillion dollars? Obviously not, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or because I have never seen you, does that mean you don't exist? These are very ridiculous things to say.
For you to say all those things you said about the Gospels and their credibility takes infinitely more faith to believe in than believing they are true. Infinitely more...
There are so many reasons why the Gospels would have been written years later. Do you really think they were saying to themselves, gee, Timothy Campen is really going to need some exacting evidence from us in about 1,965 years...we better write all this down now! Absolutely not! DUDE, read the Gospels, read the letters from Paul, from Peter, from John, each and every one of them explicitly demonstrates they sincerely believed Christ's return was right around the corner. Why would they waste their time writing all this stuff down when they so many better things to do, like telling everyone else and getting people into the Kingdom and into relationship with Christ, not to mention performing miracles. At some future point, evidently, the Spirit of God impassioned them to write down everything they had witnessed and everything that would be relevant, and another reason for this would be that many of the eye witnesses who had SEEN Christ risen were dying off, and the disciples were getting older. It's that simple.
As for the alien abductions stuff, that's pretty weak - there is no evidence other than people's words...with God, the evidence is IN YOUR FACE: people with ailments of all kinds suddenly healed, people with problems internally suddenly without those problems, people who led a certain kind of life suddenly transformed and their life is now marked with the characteristics of Christ, not to mention the peace that only He can give to you...need I go on?
As for you incredulously claiming Jesus is not the Messiah - "as an observant Jew" you can make this decision, right? ONE QUESTION: WERE YOU THERE?! Obviously not, so you observed NOTHING. You cannot say things happened the way you are trying get them across - YOU WERE NOT THERE...PROVE OTHERWISE. The proof you are looking for you will not find - for He will not provide you with any, just as He did not provide the Pharisees with a sign when they asked for it so they could believe in Him...because He knows no matter what He does of that nature, it won't be good enough, only someone who has already become set on not believing would demand that. There is OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE though, that Jesus is who He says He is, and He does state He is the Messiah multiple times throughout the Gospels.
Now, as for your, again, amazing assumptions and accusations: as far as Noah goes, I do not know where you think you are getting your material...There is massive evidence for the flood.
For the universe being "13,000 years old" - Who are you to define what 1 day is to God? It could a trillion years, or one second. Peter even muses that one day is like a 1,000 years to God. When you're dealing with God, the rules don't apply man, remember? He is beyond our understanding, and so is what He created. The universe did not have to have evolved, He could have created it just as it is in the twinkling of an eye; the ultimate creation, of an infinite imagintion and heart.
AGAIN, for the Tower of BABEL: WERE YOU THERE?! Come on now...you cannot say such things...Who proved it false? By what means? Were THEY there? YOU DON'T KNOW what you are saying. If I spent one day with you and recorded everything you did and then 50 years went by and I died and then someone else reads what I wrote and thinks it sounds ridiculous, and because I did not videorecord it, they claim it is false, and because what happened did not happen to them, they cannot conceive of it and so it must be a false accounting...Come on...That's ridiculous and everyone knows it
Lastly on this same note, BOTH JOSEPH AND MARY WERE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF DAVID's FAMILY. It is verifiable. Jesus could not be born of the seed of man - because the nature of sin is in man, so the only way God could break the power of sin was through Himself, because He is sin-free (obviously), THAT is why Jesus came from Heaven in the disguise of a man, and allowed Himself to die a criminal's death, beacuse He was the only One who could do it. And yes, as both Mary and Joseph were descendants of David, they fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus, the Messiah, would be BORN TO THEM, thus, Jesus IS from the House of David.
THE BIBLE IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD. If science disagrees with it, science is wrong. And please always remember that BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE - YOU, or anyone else for that matter, CANNOT SAY ANY OR NONE OF IT HAPPENED.
By the way, if you don't believe any of this anyway, why are you wasting your time writing all this stuff - why do you dedicate large portions of your life to trying to discredit the Bible? If you really believe in what you are saying, then none of this should bother you and you could make better use of your time...the very fact that you have a such deep-seated opposition to all of this would suggest that there is a struggle of faith within you and you will not admit it to anyone, there is still a ray of light inside you, the world has not driven it from you fully...I do agree with Mr.David Geisler, Jesus Christ is really who He said and says He is. He is the Son of God, the Darling of Heaven, and He is deeply devoted to getting you realize who He is so He can be in your life....Don't forget that while you have a mind, you also have a heart - You were created with intent of having you use both, not only your mind. Remember that. To experience Jesus you must open your heart, which is something I doubt you've ever allowed yourself to do; most people are very afraid of that, and afraid of what it will mean. I can attest to this man, God loves you so much you have no idea how strong that love is - don't put yourself outside His reach - GIVE HIM A CHANCE - open your heart and put your faith in Christ. If what you have been saying all along is really true, then you have nothing to lose at all, and until you've done that, you cannot say that you have really put Jesus to the test and that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt...until you do, there will always be that what if, and you have everything to gain from that what if. It is my sincere prayer that you pursue that - I guarantee you if seek to know Him like that, in other words, you are sincere in trying to find Him, YOU WILL.
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 9
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 09:38 am: | |
Timothy,
All the stuff you are doing has been prophesied:
Check out 2 Peter 3 which talks about scoffers in the last days that deny the flood and the involvement of God in preserving His creation.
You seem to think evidence goes in the face of the idea of a worldwide flood, but I don't hear you mentioning evidence on the other side and refuting it. That tells me either you don't care or haven't bothered to look at the other side. There are many esteemed scientists who disagree with you, which you should answer if you want any confidence in your conclusion.
And what about that ark they found in the mountains anyway??
kaze
|
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 8
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
BOTH JOSEPH AND MARY WERE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF DAVID's FAMILY. It is verifiable.
How?
while I'm at it, aren't there different versions of the bible? I am not as scholared as many of you so I'm not trying to be a wise guy.
As far as these arguments go a fundamentalist should not be arguing w/ a scholar and viceversa.
What about that ark they found in the mountains? Please don't tell us that your faith is based on that.
There's a book out there I believe it's called "your God is too small". people should read it for some perspective. |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 10
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 03:38 pm: | |
oh yeah,
I wanted to say this morning but I forgot, that every ancient civilization has some story of the flood.
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 241
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 02:31 am: | |
"WERE YOU THERE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS YOU SAY? The answer to this question is obviously no. For you to make absurd claims like the Gospels are all copies of each other and so forth is staggeringly amazing: HOW CAN YOU PROVE ANY OF THAT? You cannot."
Nor were YOU there. Most biblical scholars recognize Luke and Matt plagerized Mark. Do some research.
"You are trying to claim that the earliest known copy of John is from 100 years after the crucifixion; I don't know where you got any of your information, but I would strongly urge you to look at the unbiased facts, the earliest known copy of Mark is dated to btw 55-65 AD and for Luke it is around 60 AD, Matthew is btw 60-65 AD and John is from btw 85-90 AD. AND, JUST BECAUSE NO ONE HAS FOUND AN EARLIER COPY OF ANY OF THESE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THEY DON'T EXIST OR WERE NOT WRITTEN!"
No, No, No, you are wrong. The oldest known gospel manuscript is a fragment of John known as Papyrus 52 and dated to around 125 C.E. This is oldest physical writing of the Gospels we know of. Other fragments are not as old, but are believed to have been based on older writings based on various techniques and clues. The age of P67 being written around 66 C.E. (see Thiede's work) is disputed and not even accepted by all Christians.
"AND AGAIN, did you witness the redactions of the Gospels? Obviously not, so you cannot assert they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE."
Again, neither were you. Maybe I missed those parts of the Gospels where the Authors identified themselves. Could you please refer me to the verses that establish WHO the original authors of the Gospels were? Thanks.
"read the Gospels, read the letters from Paul, from Peter, from John, each and every one of them explicitly demonstrates they sincerely believed Christ's return was right around the corner"
That's absolutely correct, especially when Jesus said he would return in "this generation." Turns out that didn't happen, and not because "generation" was a metaphor for something else. But I'm getting sidetracked. Your point again?
"For the universe being "13,000 years old" - Who are you to define what 1 day is to God? It could a trillion years"
Ah yes, another reinterpretation of the bible because science proves tracing the generations in the bible to establish the age of the universe could not possibly have happened. Even if your revisionist biblical interpretation were credible, just tracing the generations of humanity only gets you back about 13,000 years, which has been proven to be inaccurate. Unless you interpret Noah's 900 years on earth as being really 9,000, and so on.
"As for the alien abductions stuff, that's pretty weak - there is no evidence other than people's words...with God, the evidence is IN YOUR FACE: people with ailments of all kinds suddenly healed, people with problems internally suddenly without those problems, people who led a certain kind of life suddenly transformed and their life is now marked with the characteristics of Christ, not to mention the peace that only He can give to you...need I go on?"
Not true. It is documented people have obtained 2nd degree sunburns in the middle of the night from "UFO's," or recieve inexplicable injuries from abductions. Also, the Gospels are only people's words of what happened. There is no independent corroboration of any of the supernatural events it depicts. You point to unexplained healings and great devotion. Those phenomena exists just as much outside of Christianity. So either religion isn't the cause, or you have to give Buddha, Allah, and the Goddess credit for the same phenomena you ascribe to Jesus.
"AGAIN, for the Tower of BABEL: WERE YOU THERE?! Come on now...you cannot say such things...Who proved it false? By what means?"
Were YOU there? The story of Babel was to explain how the world got people spread throughout it, how the worlds' different languages came about, and even the different races. Clearly if it were the cause of the dispersment of the world's populations, the Incas, Chinese, Eskimos, Africans, Aboriginal Australians were all share this common story as to their origin. Futhermore, people were all ready all over the planet with their own races and languages before the Tower of Babel story. Sorry, but the evidence just isn't there.
"THE BIBLE IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD. If science disagrees with it, science is wrong. And please always remember that BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT THERE - YOU, or anyone else for that matter, CANNOT SAY ANY OR NONE OF IT HAPPENED."
Clearly you do not understand science or the scientific method. Although the methodology you so quickly dismiss seems to be working fine enough for you to use the computer you type on for your posts. Or works well enough to save your life in the hospital. Or works well enough to send people into space and safely return them to earth. OR, or, or, or. Funny how that works, isn't it?
If you start with the belief of the Bible infallibility, then only accept that evidence which supports that notion, fine. But that is not intellectual honesty, and even Cliffe will be the first to tell you that.
"By the way, if you don't believe any of this anyway, why are you wasting your time writing all this stuff - why do you dedicate large portions of your life to trying to discredit the Bible?"
I'm presenting a different point of view with reasoned and supported back up for them. Please do not confuse my disagreement with you about the bible as meaning I am trying to discredit the bible. Your interpretation of the Bible is not THE interpretation of the bible, even if many people aggree with you. Many who know as much or more about the bible, many of whom are Christians, disagree with some or most of your views of it. And simply claiming it's not one's own interpretation, but God's word is just projecting one's own views as being God's. Take some ownership in what you say. You may be quite accurate in your interpretations, but they are still YOURS.
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 242
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 02:37 am: | |
"BOTH JOSEPH AND MARY WERE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF DAVID's FAMILY. It is verifiable.
How?
while I'm at it, aren't there different versions of the bible? I am not as scholared as many of you so I'm not trying to be a wise guy."
Luke and Matt both have different geneologies through Joseph. Neither are Mary's ancestry.
"As far as these arguments go a fundamentalist should not be arguing w/ a scholar and viceversa."
Some Fundamentalists are scholars and know their stuff. I don't care what a person's religious views are as long as their positions are reasonable, supported, and intellectually honest.
"What about that ark they found in the mountains? Please don't tell us that your faith is based on that."
No ark has ever been found on Mt. Ararat or any other mountain. Futhermore, the size that a boat would have to be to house two of every non-water-based species on earth is staggering, and likely couldn't even be done today. Of course, one could claim anything is possible with God's help. But the bible doesn't claim God helped build the ark, just told him what size to build it.
"There's a book out there I believe it's called "your God is too small". people should read it for some perspective."
Thanks, I'll look into it. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 243
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 02:46 am: | |
"Timothy,
All the stuff you are doing has been prophesied:
Check out 2 Peter 3 which talks about scoffers in the last days that deny the flood and the involvement of God in preserving His creation.
You seem to think evidence goes in the face of the idea of a worldwide flood, but I don't hear you mentioning evidence on the other side and refuting it. That tells me either you don't care or haven't bothered to look at the other side. There are many esteemed scientists who disagree with you, which you should answer if you want any confidence in your conclusion.
And what about that ark they found in the mountains anyway??"
Mary, that is not a prophesy to say others will doubt what a holy person is teaching. Virtually all religious texts make similar claims, including the Koran. Does that mean Muslims have it all right?
As for Noah's flood, there are NO credible scientists that can offer proof of a world wide flood and an ark that contained two of every species. None. Claims of sedimentary layers being deposited instantly rather than over many millions of years is totally disproven by several methodologies, including fossils and radioactive testing. And that is about the best shot they had. I have studied their claims, and they simply do not hold up.
And as I posted above, no ark has ever been located on any mountain. If I am mistaken, please point to me to your source.
thanks ,-t |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 244
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 02:53 am: | |
"oh yeah,
I wanted to say this morning but I forgot, that every ancient civilization has some story of the flood."
Not entirely true. Though many do have flood mythodogies, as many as 500 different stories inall. Some (like the Sumerian) even predate the story of Noah and was quite possibly the basis for the story of Noah's Ark.
While this is a fascinating occurance, the fact remains that physical evidence of a world wide flood does not exist, and that all the evidence, geological, biological, archeological and historical, totally contradict such an event. |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 9
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
Some Fundamentalists are scholars and know their stuff. I don't care what a person's religious views are as long as their positions are reasonable, supported, and intellectually honest.
you're right Tim but it really seems like an uphill battle.
I love your posts, by the way. An objective view on a lot of these matters is what turns me on to God even more and makes me want to pick up the bible and read it more. The mysteries of God and ALL his teachings is what brings a lot of us closer to him. Not an absolute infallable view on the writings of one great book. |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 10
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:13 am: | |
"BOTH JOSEPH AND MARY WERE DIRECT DESCENDANTS OF DAVID's FAMILY. It is verifiable.
How?
while I'm at it, aren't there different versions of the bible? I am not as scholared as many of you so I'm not trying to be a wise guy."
Luke and Matt both have different geneologies through Joseph. Neither are Mary's ancestry.
I should have written more clearly: How is it verifiable? |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Benjamin Franklin, always the experimenter, once did a test with the Bible. Once when he was in the French Court, Franklin heard some French aristocrats putting down the Bible, so here is what he did. Franklin wrote out the story of Ruth in his own handwriting, changing all the names to French ones. Then he read the story to the aristocrats. The asked him "But where did you find this gem of literature, Monsieur Franklin?" Franklin answered, "It comes from that book you so despise, la sainte [Holy] Bible!". (Taken from the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.287-288.)
If God were to reveal Himself to people, how would He do it? He would not need to wait until the people entered a scientific age, for the truths about himself, and what they should do would be for all times. He might give some prophecies of the future, have His special messengers do some miracles, and teach us the highest ethical standards. If such a book existed, would you want to read it? Such a book exists, and it is the Bible.
One would think God would know how to succeed, such that the book would not be lost but be widely published. There are not many widely published religious books that claim to be from God: the only ones with any following besides the Bible are the Quran, the Vedas, Mahabharata including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Tritipaka. We would invite you to compare the teachings of the Bible with these at any time.
For example, The Quran in Sura 4:34 says that if a wife continues to not listen to her husband, the husband is to "beat" or "scourge" his wife. The Arabic word here does not mean tap lightly; it is the same word used to beat a violent criminal or a camel. If a wife is good, but a husband is remiss, the Quran never says the wife is to either beat her husband or find her father, brother, or another man to beat her husband. Sura 18:85-86 states that a man followed the setting sun and found that it went down into the waters of a muddy spring. Now we know the sun does not go down into a muddy spring.
"My sons kill their enemies and my daughter is an empress, and I am completely victorious. My voice is supreme in my husband’s ears. The oblation that Indra made and so became glorious and supreme, this is what I have made for you O gods. I have truly become truly without rival wives. Without rival wives, killer of rival wives, victorious and pre-eminent, I have grabbed for myself the attraction of the other women as if it were the wealth of flighty women." Rig Veda 10.159.3-5. The basis for the caste system that keeps people of lower castes (generally darker complexion) from higher positions is also from the Rig Veda 10.90.11-12 p.31.
Like the Rig Veda, the Bhagavad Gita also supports the caste system of segregation in India. "O son of Prtha [Arjuna], those who take shelter in Me [Krsna], though they be of lower birth -- women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers]--can attain the supreme destination. How much more this is so of the righteous brahmanas, the devotees and the saintly kings. Therefore, having come to this temporary, miserable world, engage in loving service to me." Bhagavad Gita 9.32-33 p.497-498.
The Katha Upanishad p.19 tells us something of the nature of the Hindu "God" Brahman: "To him [Brahman] the Brahmins and Kshatriyas are but food, and death itself the condiment [that is, spice]." The Upanishads teach that the goal of man is to lose all love, concern, and individuality as they are reabsorbed into the cosmic flame. Well, at least Christianity and Hinduism agree on a cosmic flame part.
The Tritipaka might have "cooler" teachings, but Buddhism also teaches that all life is suffering and that people should escape to a place where there is no love or hate, joy or sadness, and no individuality.
So before saying the Bible is just like any other book, read 1 Corinthians 13, the Sermon on the Mount, and especially the last week of Jesus in the gospels, and see.
taken from inerrancy.org |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:49 am: | |
Our relationship with God is supposed to be personal. Christ was very personal to the apostle Paul. - so personal, that Paul risked his life, traveling throughout the Mediterranean world, to tell everyone he could about having a personal relationship with God! There is also evidence that the apostle Andrew went to modern-day Russia, Matthew went to Ethiopia, and the apostle Thomas probably went as far as India. However, instead of worshipping God in your own way (like Cain tried to do), why not try to worship God in His way. After all, the worship is for Him and not yourself, right?
Thank you - www.inerrancy.org |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 11
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 01:05 pm: | |
Dave
I am not a biblical scholar but there are some messages in the old testament that can be interpreted as brutal, no? Eye for an eye? |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 06:23 pm: | |
I agree, the Bible is told like it is. When you examine the passages in context (hermeneutics) you can more fully understand what and why it would be so.
As for the passage about an eye for an eye...should not the punishment fit the crime. For instance, if someone is to steal your car radio, should we kill that person or should the punishment fit the crime...thus an eye for an eye.
Chris, continue on your journey to learn the truth that God has revealed to us in the Bible. Make sure that your heart is truly seeking God, He will show up. With all this intellectual wrestling taking place on this site...you still have a heart, and sometimes when the mind is confused the heart will lead you to the truth. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life...He is not there to show you the way...He is the way, He is the truth...it is up to you to view Him either a liar, a lunatic or The Lord. May God be with you...Dave |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 245
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:22 pm: | |
I always get a kick when people use America's founders for support of specific religious principles. With regard to Franklin in particular, you might find it interesting that he was certainly a Deist, but not a Christian.
Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790 (B 12:185-6):
You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think his system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequences, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure.
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 246
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 08:25 pm: | |
"However, instead of worshipping God in your own way (like Cain tried to do), why not try to worship God in His way. After all, the worship is for Him and not yourself, right?"
My point is that despite the claim of worshiping God in God's way, all people really worship in their own way. The evidence of this is the great diversity of worship by those who all claim to be doing it God's way. So, either we are all wrong or all right, most likely. |
Ryan Archer
Junior Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 7
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
Actually Timothy, worship is not confined to a single thing when it comes to The Bible. God is very clear that even things like tithing are considered worshipping Him.
Dancing, singing, shouting, writing, being disciplined (for His sake), are all forms of worship - and He does not state anywhere that there is a particular way to do any of those things. Worshipping God in His way means giving Him GLORY, the glory He is due for creating everything, for the sheer awesomeness of who He is. The worship is taking place in your heart, not in your mouth, not in your feet, not in your pocketbook, for it all about grace when it comes to Him. He wants to see His children take their eyes off of themselves and cast them on Him, to forget themselves for a minute and get on track with what really matters - God and His will and His plans. There is a spiritual dynamic that is taking place between you and God when you SINCERELY worship. If you've never done that, then naturally you would have no idea what I'm talking about...but that doesn't mean it is not happening.
Of course we all worship Him differently, because we are all completely unique, like grains of sand...but there is still only one way to worship: recognizing Him as the number one thing in the universe and forgetting about yourself. It is submitting to His Kingship and authority. It is loving Him. That is all His way of worshipping, but we all have a uniqueness in the style and manner in which we perform it.
Hope that clears it up. As an example - everyone on a baseball team hits the ball as a batter, but they don't all do it the same way - everyone has a different style, but yet they are all still batting.
God bless you. |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Tim,
You missed my point about Franklin completely, it is not a question of his beliefs, it is a question of how others receive the Bible...
How can you follow the teachings of Jesus and think that they are some of the best ever written if Jesus was a madman or a liar. He said that He was and is "I AM", that was the charge leveled against Him in which He was crucified...Again it show another example of cutting and pasting the bible to your delight. The Bible says:
Pro 3:5 Trust in The Lord with all your heart, And don't lean on your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge him, And he will direct your paths.
God Bless
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 247
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 04:12 pm: | |
"That is all His way of worshipping, but we all have a uniqueness in the style and manner in which we perform it.
Hope that clears it up. As an example - everyone on a baseball team hits the ball as a batter, but they don't all do it the same way - everyone has a different style, but yet they are all still batting.
God bless you."
Ryan, I was referring more to the theology and beliefs that are the basis of the worship than the actual mechanics of worship. Sorry for any confusion. |
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 248
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 04:27 pm: | |
"How can you follow the teachings of Jesus and think that they are some of the best ever written if Jesus was a madman or a liar. He said that He was and is "I AM", that was the charge leveled against Him in which He was crucified...Again it show another example of cutting and pasting the bible to your delight."
The old C.S. Lewis argument of "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" is initially appealing, but in itself presents a logical falacy if you understand critical thinking. It is a form of false dichotemy - actually it is a false trichotemy. It presents "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" as the only three options, when the in reality, far more options exist. And this is exactly what Franklin was saying (as did Jefferson, Adams, and others of that day.) Specifically, people like Franklin and Jefferson specifically stated that the MORALITY of Jesus thru his teachings was the best the world have ever seen, but that those teachings had been corrupted by those who wrote about him (i.e. the Gospels, et al.). Thus, one needed to sift through the Gospels to understand which parts were authentic and real, and which were embellishments. I happen to agree with Franklin's and Jefferson's view on this. (It's also importatant to undestand their position as Deists and on the concept of Natural Law.)
This position also points out the logical falacy of the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument, you see. Those aren't the only options for anyone who takes a reasoned examination of the texts. Those who start with the premise of divine inspiration and infalliblity certainly see this as a valid argument, but that is a foundation based on faith, not reason. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, so long as it is recognized for what it is.
- peace |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:30 pm: | |
So your position is that you are the ultimate judge of what is right or wrong via "sifting through the Gospels"...thus this would be a valid arguement if Tim never made mistakes or you had a divine nature and could discern the what is and isn't reality and fact.
And if I am correct then it would be your position that the morality of Jesus was correctly laid out but not other parts...then what need would we have of the Gospels...I can probably make up a good enough story of a moral person which could be totally false.
"This position also points out the logical falacy of the "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument, you see. Those aren't the only options for anyone who takes a reasoned examination of the texts."
Is this statement to say that anyone who believes in the infallibilty of scripture would then not have taken a reasoned examination of the texts?
It seems to me that you have taken the time to look through and reason the text with colored glasses coming from the premise that you are the ultimate judge of fact or fiction and that truth is only relative to what you believe to be true...thus there are no absolute truths. And furthermore if this is true then why not just believe what makes you feel good when you need to feel good or why worry about a moral code via the life of Jesus when we each have our own truth. It just doesn't make sense...
- there will be no peace until the King returns |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:39 pm: | |
Here is a good place to start looking for the other side of many of these debates in science:
www.irc.org
Then, look under "impact articles". If you are serious about hunting down the truth for yourself...
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 09:51 pm: | |
Also, check out "research"... (same website).
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 10:13 pm: | |
I's so sorry. The website is not irc but icr:
www.icr.org
And check out an interesting article under "research" about evidence for the flood-creation model in findings of carbon-14 in fossil material. This means such material cannot be more than 250,000 years old (upper limit).
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 14
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 21, 2004 - 11:50 pm: | |
Ok, one more reference site and then I'll be quiet! This is for people who would rather listen to a scientist discuss findings for/against creation and evolution. Remember, if you want the truth in science you have to look at both (all) sides.
www.peaceway.org
and scroll down to video/audio library...
Peace!
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Intermediate Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 250
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:15 pm: | |
"So your position is that you are the ultimate judge of what is right or wrong via "sifting through the Gospels"...thus this would be a valid arguement if Tim never made mistakes or you had a divine nature and could discern the what is and isn't reality and fact."
This is a straw man argument, another logical falacy. I never once claimed I had a better interpretation of the Bible than you or anyone else. A quick look at the posts above will show you that. Thus, you are responding to an argument you created.
However, I will respond to the issue you present. As I stated above, the evidence supports the position that we ALL pick and choice what we want to believe, despite some claims to the contrary. This includes biblical interpretation. Futhermore, the historocity of the bible is not beyond reasonable dispute by any stretch, expecially regarding supernatural claims. Finally, the example I provided was proof that Franklin believed parts of the bible (Gospels) contained valuable truths about morality, but that the story of Jesus had been corrupted by the authors of the Gospels. That was Franklin's position, and the position shared by many of America's founders at the time, not mine. Franklin's and Jefferson's point was that one needed to use their mind and reason to figure out which parts were authentic, and which were embellishments. I don't find this to be an unreasonable position at all. That's my point. It's not about ME, it's about the process of determining the truth.
"And if I am correct then it would be your position that the morality of Jesus was correctly laid out but not other parts...then what need would we have of the Gospels...I can probably make up a good enough story of a moral person which could be totally false."
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jesus. Furthermore, the truth of a claim is determined by the claim itself, not by who makes the claim. Doing the latter is another logical falacy, ad hominim.
"(Tim - "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" argument.)
Is this statement to say that anyone who believes in the infallibilty of scripture would then not have taken a reasoned examination of the texts?"
I'm not saying that at all. However, I am saying that those who claim infallibility have a higher burden of proof than those who claim otherwise, simply because we know of no other example of infallibility when it comes to a literary recounting of past events. Finally, such infallibility is a concept rooted more in faith, than in reason and evidence, as the "evidence" in support of infallibity first depends on a particular faith. That is true with many Christian's take on the Gosepels, or many Muslim's take on the Koran. It's a common theme.
"It seems to me that you have taken the time to look through and reason the text with colored glasses coming from the premise that you are the ultimate judge of fact or fiction and that truth is only relative to what you believe to be true...thus there are no absolute truths. And furthermore if this is true then why not just believe what makes you feel good when you need to feel good or why worry about a moral code via the life of Jesus when we each have our own truth. It just doesn't make sense..."
I am no more the ultimate judge of the bible than you are. And I recognize my analysis is colored by my world views, true. The difference between us is that you don't seem to recognize you ALSO view the bible through your own colored lenses just as much, but rather say you view the bible through God's lenses. If that were really true, then we would expect much greater agreement on biblical interpretation of the bible among all those who claim to view it through God's lenses rather than their own. Undeniably this is not the case. Thus, either a very small group of Christians are right at the expense of all others who differ, or we all view the bible through our own lenses. I find the latter to be infinitely more reasonable and probable.
Second, I never said I didn't believe in absolute morality. I do. I simply find its source in a different place than you. Please don't make assumptions about other people without being more informed. In doing so, you leap into a strawman argument that was never posed.
The truth of love, forgivenes, charity and compassion are truef or their own sake. If you learned today, with complete certainty, that their was no God whatsoever, would you pick up the nearest hatchet and start hacking your family into little pieces because the was suddenly no "absolute morality?" Somehow, I seriously doubt it. Good and bad must have some independent validity outside of God's fiat, otherwise, those terms would be meaningless. Furthermore, independent validity is required to test claims made about God. If I said "God did X, and that was a good thing," how would I test the accuracy of whether doing "X" is in fact a good thing. If I go back to God as the source of that answer, then I'm trapped in a circular argument with the only way out being "Because God said it was good." But such a response is a determination of morality by fiat, with has as much credibility as picking it out of thin air.
However, if we recognize the effecacy of love, forgiveness, compassion and charity on an societal, community and personal level, we begin to understand the inherent goodness of these qualities. When we help those in need, we will be helped when we are in need. Part of the analysis is intellectual, part of it is emotional, part of it is even biological. I'm not saying I have all the answers by any stretch, or that I am responding to a point you specifically made. Just that this whole issue of morality is a lot more complicated than just "God said so," for a multitude of reasons.
Keep this in mind, just because I don't agree with YOU on what YOU consider to be an absolute truth does not mean I don't believe in any absolute truths, or that I disagree with God. It only means I disagree with YOU. There is a difference.
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 251
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:26 pm: | |
"Here is a good place to start looking for the other side of many of these debates in science:
www.irc.org"
Mary, I am very familiar with IRC, and people like Duane Gish and Henry Morris. In fact, their HQ is in my town. I've read their books. The legitimate scientific community disregards their work not because of some nefarious conspiracy to conceal the truth, but because this organization does not practice science. Some of their criticism of certain scientific hypotheses are well placed. But any person who understands the issues and science knows that questions about a particular hypothesis or theory about evolution is in no way evidence in support of a creationist model. It's not one or the other - another false dichotemy. What these people do not understand is that creationism must stand on its own to be legitimate, not just an attack on evolution. And the evidence for creationism is lacking to say the least, even with ideas like "irreducible complexity" which appear initially alluring.
Biological evolution is a fact, not even a theory. The theories are on HOW it happens, not on whether it happens. Micro- and Macro-evolution have been observed in nature and in the lab many, many times. Microbiology and DNA analysis have only confirmed the reality of the transmutation of species. This is why there is no debate on the occurance of biological evolution within the legitimate scientific community.
But this is really an aside. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 252
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:28 pm: | |
Mary,
the "other side" for ICR can be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
It's a very informative resource that directly address claims made by people like Morris, Gish, and Behe. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 253
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 01:30 pm: | |
Also,
For a good discussion, try
www.Christianforums.com
The most informed person I've ever encountered on the subject of biological evolution can be found there. His screen name is Lucaspa, and he's a devote Christian. Check out his stuff in the evolution/creation sub-forums.
-tim |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 03:22 pm: | |
Just as an aside, I do not place my faith in science, and my faith in Christ and the gospel does not depend on current findings. But I do believe we are to prove all things and honestly contend for the faith, if only for the benefit of others. As a new Christian, all of this is totally new to me. I never much cared for these issues in the past, so be patient as I try to "catch up" with y'all!
That said...
Timothy,
All due respect... You are stretching things a bit to say ICR scientists claim as ultimate proof for their theories any disconfirming evidence for evolution. It would be closer to the truth to say such disconfirming evidence is presented as "supporting" evidence for alternative claims. That is totally consistent with scientific method, and how all science progresses. I don't agree with your claim that biological evolution is a "fact". There is plenty of contradictory evidence as well as disputes as to the "evidence" for cross-species mutation that supposedly exists, which to date has not been conclusively settled. I'll try to look for some of this when I get a moment, even from evolutionists themselves... (Even Darwin himself).
Neat that you reside in the same town as ICR headquarters. Just to share, I happen to live in the same town as Dr. Girouard. I've even attended the small chapel home to his friends.
God Bless!
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 16
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:18 pm: | |
Maybe, I can talk more directly to where you are coming from. I'm guessing that you are taking your lead from Miller's FINDING DARWIN'S GOD. If so, I would urge you to look more closely at his use of "supporting evidence" of evolution. For example, he uses examples of micro-evolution to support the existence of macro-evolutionary changes. Of course you can see how this might pose a problem for his conclusion. In attacking Behe's idea of irreducable complexity he points to cases, supposedly totally from nature, of the emergence of such systems, but if you follow up on these cited findings you will find that these cases required a great amount of intervention in the lab, and actually provide contradictory evidence for evolution.
As to the problem of "false dichotomy" between evolution and creationism, perhaps you get this arguement from Miller as well. He seems to be arguing that you can have both evolution and God, but all that would mean is that if evolution is supported you can still believe in God. That doesn't mean contradictory evidence of evolution does not lend support to the competition, that being intelligent design. To me it wouldn't really make sense to say God did it on purpose by letting it occur by accident?? I don't get your false dichotomy argument I guess.
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 17
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 05:26 pm: | |
One more thing... that is a correction to something above. I said of every ancient civilization we have evidence of some flood story. I meant to say every MAJOR ancient civilization. (Sorry about that)
kaze
|
Ryan Archer
Junior Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 8
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 10:41 pm: | |
"Biological evolution is a fact, not even a theory. The theories are on HOW it happens, not on whether it happens. Micro- and Macro-evolution have been observed in nature and in the lab many, many times. Microbiology and DNA analysis have only confirmed the reality of the transmutation of species. This is why there is no debate on the occurance of biological evolution within the legitimate scientific community."
Timothy, evolution as the origin of life is not a fact, not in the least, it IS a theory. Just as science is (it keeps changing every few years - if it were truth, it would never change). There is no evidence, other than "educated guesses" about fossils, to suggest that a monkey can, or ever has, become an ape. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE. No one has ever witnessed one animal suddenly transforming into another, even slowly over time. No one has ever seen a wolverine spontaneously become a bird of some type...
As for fossils, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN WHAT THEY REALLY WERE, THEY ARE ONLY GUESSING AND SPECULATING. They have no proof to support their claims, only guesses about what these fossils once were. Just because something had a skeletal structure like ours does not suddenly mean they WERE us. And again, SINCE NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN IN ANY CASE OR CIRCUMSTANCE OTHERWISE, NO ONE CAN SAY EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
DNA being similiar is a cop-out. That's like saying every webpage on the internet came out of the same webpage because they are all in HTML-format...but yet none of them come from each other, they are all unique, but they still have the same basic building block. FOR LIFE TO EXIST ON THIS PLANET AS IT HAS BEEN CREATED, IT NEEDS A CERTAIN BASIC MAKEUP, THUS LIFE OF EVERY KIND ON THIS PLANET SHARES SOME THINGS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO LIVE HERE. That's pretty simple and it takes mountains more faith to believe contrary...
The only thing Darwin saw was beak distortion and feather colorations within the same type of bird...but no bird ever became another animal, or any nonsense like that.
The whole definition of evolution is that something "evolves" into something better; survival of the fittest...which means that the weaker species that just evolved into something else should just die off...but why are there still monkeys and birds and hippos around when we are supposed to be the top of the foodchain and the most well-evolved beings on the planes - nothing else should even exist.
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 12:51 am: | |
Interestingly, Descartes systematic doubt, a re-invention of skepticism that was aimed at reconciling it with his Christian faith, was the basis for today's scientific method.
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 254
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 01:36 am: | |
"All due respect... You are stretching things a bit to say ICR scientists claim as ultimate proof for their theories any disconfirming evidence for evolution. It would be closer to the truth to say such disconfirming evidence is presented as "supporting" evidence for alternative claims. That is totally consistent with scientific method, and how all science progresses. I don't agree with your claim that biological evolution is a "fact". There is plenty of contradictory evidence as well as disputes as to the "evidence" for cross-species mutation that supposedly exists, which to date has not been conclusively settled. I'll try to look for some of this when I get a moment, even from evolutionists themselves... (Even Darwin himself)."
I understand your point, but the ICR folks spend far more time trying to disprove evolution than prove creationism. Falsifying a theory is part of the scientific method, but it must be done legitimately. Like I said. Some of their arguments are well placed. But all the debate is on the mechanisms of evolution, not whether it really happened or not.
And with all due respect, biological evolution is a fact. Evolution means speciation. Most devote creationists deny macro-evolution (speciation) dispite the fact that it occurs. Here are a few instances of documented speciation I got from a Christian:
Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.
Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.
New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.
Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...l/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
http://www.christianforums.com/t79954&highlight=speciation
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 255
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 01:47 am: | |
"Maybe, I can talk more directly to where you are coming from. I'm guessing that you are taking your lead from Miller's FINDING DARWIN'S GOD. If so, I would urge you to look more closely at his use of "supporting evidence" of evolution. For example, he uses examples of micro-evolution to support the existence of macro-evolutionary changes. Of course you can see how this might pose a problem for his conclusion. In attacking Behe's idea of irreducable complexity he points to cases, supposedly totally from nature, of the emergence of such systems, but if you follow up on these cited findings you will find that these cases required a great amount of intervention in the lab, and actually provide contradictory evidence for evolution.
As to the problem of "false dichotomy" between evolution and creationism, perhaps you get this arguement from Miller as well. He seems to be arguing that you can have both evolution and God, but all that would mean is that if evolution is supported you can still believe in God. That doesn't mean contradictory evidence of evolution does not lend support to the competition, that being intelligent design. To me it wouldn't really make sense to say God did it on purpose by letting it occur by accident?? I don't get your false dichotomy argument I guess."
Mary, I'm sorry but I am honestly not familiar with "Miller." Although I have studied Behe's work.
The point about the false dichotemy is that the only two choices are not limited to just evolution or creationism (as expressed in the bible, specifically.) There are other possibilities, such as alien intervention, or any of the word's other religious beliefs for the origin of biological diversity, etc. Falsifying evolution doesn't make ICR's biblical claim for biological diversity any more probable. Their ideas must stand on their own, and so far, they do not. I'm discounting the possiblity that they may be vindicated one day in some respect, but the fact that they deny macro-evolution occurs, when it has been documented, is mystifying. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 256
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:06 am: | |
"Timothy, evolution as the origin of life is not a fact, not in the least, it IS a theory. Just as science is (it keeps changing every few years - if it were truth, it would never change). There is no evidence, other than "educated guesses" about fossils, to suggest that a monkey can, or ever has, become an ape. SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE. No one has ever witnessed one animal suddenly transforming into another, even slowly over time."
Ryan, then please explain to me how that all the documentation of speciation I listed above was just made up by reputable scientists.
No one has ever seen a wolverine spontaneously become a bird of some type...
As for fossils, NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN WHAT THEY REALLY WERE, THEY ARE ONLY GUESSING AND SPECULATING."
No legitimate scientist has ever claimed any mammal, especially a wolverine, was the ancestor of a bird. As for fossils, there is some guessing, thats true. But it's not a complete shot in the dark. Dinosaurs really did exist, and it wasn't at the same time humans lived on this planet, not by a long shot. Neanderthals really did exist, and their DNA shows they were not humans like us - very similar - but not homosapien-sapiens.
"They have no proof to support their claims, only guesses about what these fossils once were. Just because something had a skeletal structure like ours does not suddenly mean they WERE us. And again, SINCE NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN IN ANY CASE OR CIRCUMSTANCE OTHERWISE, NO ONE CAN SAY EVOLUTION IS TRUE."
Speciation is a documented FACT. There are hundreds of examples of it. Real life examples in birds around the antartic, or frogs along the eastern seaboard. It's truely fascinating. Not only can one say evolution is true, it is a proven fact that it occurs today and has been occuring as long as life has existed on this planet. The analysis of evolution is not based solely on fossils, not by a long shot.
"DNA being similiar is a cop-out. That's like saying every webpage on the internet came out of the same webpage because they are all in HTML-format...but yet none of them come from each other, they are all unique, but they still have the same basic building block. FOR LIFE TO EXIST ON THIS PLANET AS IT HAS BEEN CREATED, IT NEEDS A CERTAIN BASIC MAKEUP, THUS LIFE OF EVERY KIND ON THIS PLANET SHARES SOME THINGS WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO LIVE HERE."
If DNA is enough to convict or acquit someone of a death penalty offense, you don't think it is reliable science? By examining the DNA in a species over time, evolution is observed on the micro level, and even explain when two species branched off from a common ancestor. It's sophistocated stuff.
"That's pretty simple and it takes mountains more faith to believe contrary...
The only thing Darwin saw was beak distortion and feather colorations within the same type of bird...but no bird ever became another animal, or any nonsense like that. The whole definition of evolution is that something "evolves" into something better; survival of the fittest...which means that the weaker species that just evolved into something else should just die off...but why are there still monkeys and birds and hippos around when we are supposed to be the top of the foodchain and the most well-evolved beings on the planes - nothing else should even exist."
98 percent of all species that ever existed ARE extinct, which proves the point you ask to be proven. Most genetic mutations don't work, and are harmful. Those poplulations better adapted to their environment do survive better. Monkeys, birds and hippos all exist because they are so well adapted to their environment as it exists. Sadly, we humans are far and away the biggest threat to these animals, especially the monkeys and hippos, who are endangered. Your characterization of evolution is not accurate, not even by Darwin's standards. But more importantly, Darwin wasn't right about a lot of stuff, although the core point of his theory of how evolution occurs remains the best. Darwin did not invent the idea of biological evolution, he just came up with the best method for HOW it happens, despite having no knowledge of genetics.
And before you become so dismissive of science, keep in mind how well it works when you type on your computer to respond to this post, or as another rover lands on Mars to find signs of life, or when you need life-saving intervention in the emergency room. It's the same methodology that allows for the successes in these areas that forms the basis for our understanding of biological diversity on this planet. |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 12
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:08 am: | |
"Timothy, evolution as the origin of life is not a fact".
Ryan
unless i missed it, Tim did not say evolution is the origin of life. He said evolution is a fact. |
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 13
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
"Of course we all worship Him differently, because we are all completely unique, like grains of sand...but there is still only one way to worship: recognizing Him as the number one thing in the universe and forgetting about yourself. It is submitting to His Kingship and authority. It is loving Him. That is all His way of worshipping, but we all have a uniqueness in the style and manner in which we perform it"
If there's only one way to worship, is it your contention that all who don't worship your way are damned? If so, I'm glad the God I worship is a vast and loving God.
|
chris murphy
Junior Member
Username: chuck_jones
Post Number: 14
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
As for the passage about an eye for an eye...should not the punishment fit the crime.
No. It shouldn't and that's what Jesus taught us. I'm not a scholar but i know this much. He taught us that many of the things that people believed as the word of God were wrong. People who interpreted eye for an eye (and that was used as an example), think that I should have the thief's car radio. All of us on this site are smart enough to know that's ridiculous but it happened thousands of years ago and still does today. My point is not to discuss "eye for an eye". It is discuss the interpretation of the word(s). None of us has it right. If we did, we wouldn't be on this website or this world for that matter. |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 02:15 pm: | |
"No. It shouldn't and that's what Jesus taught us. I'm not a scholar but i know this much. He taught us that many of the things that people believed as the word of God were wrong. People who interpreted eye for an eye (and that was used as an example), think that I should have the thief's car radio. All of us on this site are smart enough to know that's ridiculous but it happened thousands of years ago and still does today. My point is not to discuss "eye for an eye". It is discuss the interpretation of the word(s). None of us has it right. If we did, we wouldn't be on this website or this world for that matter."
What are you trying to say? Is it that Gods word cannot be interpreted? Is it that I interpreted the "eye for an eye" incorrectly? Is it that Jesus taught differently? Again, what are you trying to ask or say so that I can comment on such? |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 23, 2004 - 10:04 pm: | |
Timothy,
Why have observable evolutionary changes been either horizontal and so trivial (micro-evolution) or downward towards deterioration and extinction?
This is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy, one of the most universal and best proved laws of nature, applying in biological and geological as well as physical and chemical, in fact all systems with no exceptions.
Observable mutations, in accordance with this principle, have been DISorganizing mechanisms.
Natural selection could only leave extinct disorganizing mutations, but cannot generate order.
In theory, it is barely conceivable organizing evolution could occur in an OPEN system, but this goes in the face of the tendency of all systems to distegrate over time, and one major reason why there is no real proof of evolution.
(There are a lot of articles in your post, and if you want to keep this debate alive I would suggest focusing a little more on one or two findings or some set of findings....)
As to the issue of "false dichotomy", since when was alien intervention presented as a major competing hypothesis in any major journal at any time???
(and by the way, am I doing okay for a total "non-expert"??)
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 257
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 02:11 am: | |
["Timothy, evolution as the origin of life is not a fact".
Ryan
unless i missed it, Tim did not say evolution is the origin of life. He said evolution is a fact.]
Chris, thank you. Yes, I said evolution explains the biological diversity of life on earth, which is a different issue than how life started on this planet. That area of study is called abiogenesis, and is also quite fascinating. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 258
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 02:22 am: | |
"Why have observable evolutionary changes been either horizontal and so trivial (micro-evolution) or downward towards deterioration and extinction?"
They haven't. These examples of speciation are not micro-evolution, but MACRO-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to biological changes and differences within a species, while macro-evolution refers to speciation. This is not minor or trivial by any stretch, and was roundly rejected by creationists until the evidence was so plain that it could no longer be denied. And these speciations are not "downward" at all, but examples of adaptation.
But if you're referring to "observing" a land mammel become a species of whale, for example, such obviously dramatic changes take as much as millions of years to occur. This is where paleontology, geology, biology, microbiology, and genetics all come together to help us understand this complex puzzel. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 259
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2004 - 02:44 am: | |
[This is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics, the law of increasing entropy, one of the most universal and best proved laws of nature, applying in biological and geological as well as physical and chemical, in fact all systems with no exceptions.]
Mary, this is a common misunderstanding of the 2nd Law, that increased complexity cannot occur without some intellegent being putting it together. But here's an example that invokes less emotion than evolution. Think about all the elements on earth, and even those that make up our own bodies. Most of the Universe is hydrogen, with helium coming in second. The more complext atoms in the universe come from exploding stars, where the forces in that process actually created the heavier elements. These tests have even been done on earth to prove this theory. We know exploding stars create more complex atoms than existed in the star before the explosion or implosion, and that the laws of physics allow this to occur without relying on any supernatural or intellegent forces, or violating the 2nd law. The formation of galaxies is another example. These are clusters of stars and planets that form a very clear organization from relative chaos absolutely naturually - and the Hubble telescope has shown examples of this.
Futhermore, all astronomers understand that the 2nd law refers to a closed system, and the overall entropy of the universe. The earth has a constant source of NEW energy from the sun, thus the earth is NOT a closed system. Pockets of increased complexity are expected in a system the size of the universe, but in a few more billion years, make no mistake, the sun will burn out, as will all stars, and the universe will be a very, very cold place. At least that's how the theory goes.
"Observable mutations, in accordance with this principle, have been DISorganizing mechanisms."
That is absolutely untrue. The fossil record, DNA analysis, and those observable speciations are proof this is an incorrect statement.
"Natural selection could only leave extinct disorganizing mutations, but cannot generate order."
Says who? The evidence says otherwise, as has been observed in nature.
"In theory, it is barely conceivable organizing evolution could occur in an OPEN system, but this goes in the face of the tendency of all systems to distegrate over time, and one major reason why there is no real proof of evolution. "
In time all life on earth will die out, and eventually be reduced to cold, simple matter. But our existence is but a fraction of the universe's. And the observed speciations I listed ARE proof of real, macro-evolution. DNA analysis provides greater proof. Evolution is not a shot in the dark. Believe it or not, it is understood better than gravity.
"(There are a lot of articles in your post, and if you want to keep this debate alive I would suggest focusing a little more on one or two findings or some set of findings....)"
Yes, I undersand that. But my point was to show there are a ton of documented examples of observed macro-evolution. If I posted one or two examples, it would have been too tempting to be dismissive of the evidence. Having all those examples is impossible to dismiss, which was my point. I'll keep it short from now on.
"(and by the way, am I doing okay for a total "non-expert"??)"
You totally ROCK! Your points are exactly the kind that should be raised. And the same points and questions should be raised with any assertion, including creationism. Try asking the same questions of creationist hypothesis, such as, what aspect of special creation are testible, observable, repeatable and falsifiable? It has been my experience that none of these qualities apply to the creationist model, but clearly do to evolution or any other legitimate science. If I am mistaken, please point out why. Since you're the expert and all. ;)
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 01:06 am: | |
Timothy,
In rejecting the applicability of the second law of thermodynamics in an "open-system" in order to allow for evolution (with respect to incoming energy from the sun), you are accepting Norman Johnson's claim of this supposed "flaw" in the application of this law (appearing in Scientific American, 2000, in response to Dembski's INTELLIGENT DESIGN). But apparently, specific conditions need to be met in an open system for this to occur, and evolution does not meet them. Entropy has been known to increase only in open systems with a guiding program of some kind and an energy conversion mechanism(s), but evolution has neither of these. Further, how would the sun's heat translate into greater complexity? The most basic equation of thermodynamics states the opposite effect of introduction of heat into an open system, namely an increase, not a decrease in entropy.
With regards to the fossil record, firstly, the fact that there are so many fossils period is evidence of a major flood event. Fossils, contrary to what we've been taught in school, do not form over a long period of time but a very short period of rapid burial. Otherwise the material would decay. Further, the existence of carbon 14 mentioned above (but not commented upon yet), attests to their young as opposed to old age, another blow to evolution, which again, requires alot of time. More in line with your list of examples, there has actually been such a problem in finding clear-cut transitional forms which would support evolution, that this has become a major reason for evolutionists turning to other forms of "evidence". Any examples you may have on your list are not clear-cut, but surrounded by controversy and debate. In any case, this shift in focus is being misrepresented as a situation of "covering all bases", and having evidence from a variety of methods, while in reality it has been a response to repeated failure to support a popular theory.
DNA evidence... wow. The mere existence of DNA attests to design. Any idea that life could evolve by chance confronts the problem of proteins and nucleic acids arising one without the other. Even evolutionist devotee, and leader in his field, Leslie Orgel, cannot avoid this problem (see Scientific American 1994). The process of evolution isn't even reachable in this way. What has been found offers evidence for intelligent design. Similarities in DNA is not necessarily evidence of evolution. I can go into some of this later if you want.
More later!
(By the way, this stuff is really complicated, isn't it??)
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 262
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 - 03:35 am: | |
Mary,
I was unable to locate the article you referenced in Scientific American. A link would be helpful if you have it. I'm curious why you didn't respond to increased complexity in atoms or galaxies as a result of purely natural forces, which should not happen if all things degrade in entropy.
Also, your application of the 2nd Law of THERMODYNAMICS is spread too broadly. The 2nd law, as the name directly states, deal with energy, not with all things in the universe, including chemistry and physical structures, and proven in my examples of heavy atoms, the combining of atoms into molecules (complexity we ses with all the time from simpler structures) and galaxy structures. Also, the sun, and gravity and heat from within the planet help facilitate chemical reactions on this planet, which is the basis of everything we're talking about.
As to the flood, if that was the cause for all the fossils we have, then we'd have to make some predictions. Namely, the fossils would be all mixed up. But this is exactly what we do NOT find. An examination of plant fossils alone falsify this hypothesis, as distint species of plants are found in particular strata, but not in any others. That shouldn't happen. Second, we should find modern animal and plant fossils with dinososaur and plant fossils from the jurasic era, for example. Again, this never happens. No elephants, hippos, horses, bats, rats, rabbits, or humans fossils have ever been located in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. NOT ONE. This contradicts the prediction we'd have to make with a flood scenario.
The carbon-14 stuff is a heck of a lot more complicated than this forum can permit. I believe it's reliability only goes back to about 50k or 60k years, rather than 250k years, because by 60k years, the half life has been depleted beyond accurate measure. Furthermore, there is no Carbon-14 dating for any dinosaur fossils, which shows they are at least older than 60k years. Using the bible as a guide, adn simple counting the generations and ages listed in the bible, but the Flood at no more than 10,000 years ago (and really closer to 6,000 years ago), and the age of the earth at no more than 20,000 (and actually closer to 13,000 years ago). Even carbon-14, which you seem to rely on, gives dates older than the flood. Futher, if the flood were responsible for all these fossils, the carbon-14 dating of all these fossils should put them at exactly the same age, which is absolutely not the case.
DNA....abiogensis is a very difficult issue. But even protocells have been shown to develope under purely natural conditions - and no intellegent design. And no abiogensis scientist claims an whole cell sprung up out of the goo 2 billion years ago. But amino acids do form naturally (in violation of 2nd law?) which has been observed. Now this issue is a very difficult one and we may never fully answer it, but at least the theories can be tested in the lab, repeated by others, predictions made as to what should happen, etc. Can any of this be done with the creationist model? No, which is why it is not science. Futhermore, examining the transposons in the junk portion of DNA helps us to understand when one species split from another.
And a note, abiogenesis and evolution are two very different issues.
yes - very complicated. |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:19 am: | |
Timothy,
With regards to 2LOT, while refering specifically to heat transfer, it has been applicable in chemical and biological processes as well.
Take the chemical process of crystallization of a snowflake. While at first glance it seems to represent a good example of a violation of 2LOT, note how the process can be expected to occur at specific times under specific conditions. Rather than representing a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, it is the result of a specific design involved in the material. Interestingly, there is a heat transfer involved in the process (heat is diffused) and so 2LOT is not violated.
Now take the biological process of, say, a seed growing into a tree. Design is already present in the form of DNA from the beginning along with whatever jumpstarts its process of growth, and from there it is simply a matter of following instructions.
This is in contrast to the idea of a random ordering from a non-ordered condition.
Evolution does not meet any such conditions, as mentioned above.
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:33 am: | |
My point about C14 was not with regards to accurate timing of some event, but at least there is a limit to how long C14 could possibly last, which according to the experts is 250,000 years, an UPPER limit. Clearly, we know the accuracy of this method of dating becomes more unreliable as the supposed dates increase. But the very existence of C14 among these fossils is an interesting finding that suggests they must be younger than at least 250,000 years.
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 23
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:41 am: | |
Why don't we find modern animal and human fossils near plant and dinasaur fossils of the jurassic period?
First of all, there is our difference as to how fossils are formed in the first place. We cannot expect fossils to just occur because of death but some catacalysmic event.
Over 95% of all fossils are marine. There are very, very few fossils of land animals. Of those land animal fossils, an incredibly tiny proportion are of hominids of any classification. So we don't have very much to go on here, and there may be hominid fossils we simply haven't found yet in other strata. But, and most important, fossilization requires very specific circumstances.
Something must be covered completely and drained off in time for the cementing of the remains and subsequent fossilization to occur. One could doubt that the flood fossilized anything other than marine organisms. Everything else would have been drowned and rotted and/or scavenged. That would account for why there are so few human fossils from the flood.
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 263
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
"Take the chemical process of crystallization of a snowflake. While at first glance it seems to represent a good example of a violation of 2LOT, note how the process can be expected to occur at specific times under specific conditions. Rather than representing a random ordering of a material from a non-ordered state, it is the result of a specific design involved in the material. Interestingly, there is a heat transfer involved in the process (heat is diffused) and so 2LOT is not violated. "
And that is EXACTLY the same principle that applies to other chemical reactions, including biological evolution. I applaud you for pointed that out.
As for DNA, evolution does NOT deal with where DNA came from, that is a totally different area of science. It deals with the change in DNA in a population over time, resulting in new species. We must be careful not to confuse the two.
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 264
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
The fact that C-14 is not found in dinosaur fossils, or most fossils for that matter, shows these life forms to be older than the bible allows. And the fact that we don't have a huge amount of fossils with the same c-14 dating is overwhelming evidence Noah's flood never happened. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 265
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 26, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | |
"Why don't we find modern animal and human fossils near plant and dinasaur fossils of the jurassic period?
First of all, there is our difference as to how fossils are formed in the first place. We cannot expect fossils to just occur because of death but some catacalysmic event."
What is the prediction of fossilization from a cataclysmic event? That prediction is that all the various life forms which existed at that time would be represented in the same strata. However, this did not occur. The strata show an increase in biological complexity over time, which a world-wide flood cannot account for.
"Over 95% of all fossils are marine. There are very, very few fossils of land animals. Of those land animal fossils, an incredibly tiny proportion are of hominids of any classification. So we don't have very much to go on here, and there may be hominid fossils we simply haven't found yet in other strata. But, and most important, fossilization requires very specific circumstances."
What does hominid fossils have to do with the overall argument? But, interestingly, we do see a change in hominid structures over time.
"Something must be covered completely and drained off in time for the cementing of the remains and subsequent fossilization to occur. One could doubt that the flood fossilized anything other than marine organisms. Everything else would have been drowned and rotted and/or scavenged. That would account for why there are so few human fossils from the flood."
There aren't any human fossils from the flood, number one. But, more importantly, rather than trying to find excuses for the flood, try making scientific predictions of what we'd expect to find if such a flood occured, then see if the evidence supports that.
We know for a fact that over the past few million years, hominid species existed that were not apes or monkeys, and were not human. They were something else, and there were a variety of them - ranging for nothing like us to increasingly like us. One can claim that they were not our ancestors, and that's fine, but they did exist, they weren't the same as any species we know of today, and their isn't some huge error or conspiracy with the analysis of these fossils.
But again, we find moden human remains and fossils only along with modern plants and animals. There have been no exceptions to this, None. While land-based organisms make up the minority of fossils, we do have a very healthy collection of them, and we don't find any modern mammals in the same strata as dinosaurs. NOT ONE. Let's get away from humans for a moment and look at that fact. Again, make a prediction of what would result from a world-wide flood, and ask whether this evidence is consistent with such a flood. I son't see how, but I'm open to any reasonable explanation. |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 28, 2004 - 05:58 pm: | |
Timothy,
Ok, let's think about what might happen if there were a flood. Would we expect one strata from this one event? And would it be before the flood or after? I don't know, but another issue to consider are particular ecosystems. It's a huge assumption to assume firstly that for each "event" there would be one strata, but also to assume that all types of organisms would be affected in the same way at the same time.
With regards to C-14, unknown to many, since radiocarbon dating began, trace amounts of C-14 found in "ancient" material, like oil and natural gas, were ignored, assumed to be the result of contamination (?). But the more recent accelerator mass spectrometer method (AMS), sensitive enough to detect very small levels of C14 not due to contamination, reveals a remainder in fossils from EVERY PERIOD (including the Jurrasic period) of the ENTIRE PHANEROZOIC RECORD! In effect, the "C14-dead" have found new life! Further, this new evidence suggests an end for the idea of uniformitarianism, as they found huge differences in the amount of C14 in organisms of the same physical sample.
There is a huge gap in the radiocarbon dates on record as well. I can't remember which "time period" (oh well, I'll have to look that one up again), which is also evidence of a catacalysmic event of epic proportion.
My brain is full! I'm done for now...
But let me just give you something to consider, as you chart your next move. Founder of NASA in Houston, professed agnostic said something like this: After all this time and struggle of those who put all their faith in using reason to prove there is no God reach the zenith of the mountain, they discover something sad and strange... a band of theologians that have been their for centuries, to greet them!
Good luck on your journey!
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 267
Registered: 09-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, February 29, 2004 - 12:56 am: | |
Mary, just to set the record strait, I never said I was an atheist.
I would appreciate it if you could point me toward the your mass spectrometor source. I assume you got it from a respected university. If you could point me to that university's website on the matter, I would like to look it up. AS for a gap in radiocarbon dates goes... I don't understand how that is evidence of a bunch of animals all dying at the same time. You'd expect just the opposite to occure.
Finally, as for strata...a flood could produce more than one strata. More specifically, volcanic erruptions have produced multiple layers in a very, very short period of time. But in these examples, we do not find the type of differences in biological complexity from strata to strata that we do in those strata formed over much longer periods of time, as determined by a number of methods.
I guess I'm looking for a definitive prediction we'd expect from Noah's flood-type event that we can test. If you have one, I'd enjoy hearing it. |
Ryan Archer
Junior Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2004
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 03:21 am: | |
Hey Timothy, and Mary, and whoever else may be paying attention, I hope you are well. All this talk of flooding and remains and the debate over evolution and C-14 and DNA is all fine and well, BUT, I have something I would like to say.
Timothy, if we can prove to you everything you're looking for with that flood scenario, what is that going to do for you other than provide you with intellectual stimulus? The whole point and aim of these discussion boards is faith, faith in Jesus Christ - is He who He says He is...that is what draws us all here...some of us certainly giving testimony that most definitely He IS the Son of God, and others claiming He is not. My point is not of derision or to be critical of postings; my point is that these discussions, as they have been of late, will never terminate and will result in myriad, cryptic, and somewhat useless (as probably no one really knows about or is concerned with all this stuff) fractalizations of text.
The real heart of this discussion board is reality of the Son of God, Jesus Christ and how people know Him.
I know I sit here night after night, seeing these messages pile up after my original post like 2 months ago, and wondering recently, what is being done here? Is anything FRUITFUL happening? And again, I don't chastise anyone, but no one ever intellectually came to faith, because it's not an intellectual issue - it's an issue of your heart, of your spirit. I only say all this to hopefully spark some productive discussions about real issues and the deep questions which cover the very real needs we have in our hearts and spirits which we constantly ignore and rationalize away and are afraid or embarrassed to talk about. Let's get more real here. Seriously, God knows our hearts and what we are really thinking, it's no use writing under a mask then. So let's talk about the real stuff.
May Jesus bless you all.
~Ryan |
Dave Geisler
Junior Member
Username: daveg
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2003
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:47 am: | |
Ryan,
I couldn't agree more...As we attempt to have more in our arsenal of either why or why not The God of the Bible is real and relative, we miss the personal point of Christ and take focus off what really matters. The fact of the matter, is that most of us are just quoting information from other sources and for every point there has been an equal counter point, for any issue. Why do we not want to look at what is real and what is tangible within ourselves, it is a heart issue. God has left us with so much proof of Him, but it still is a heart issue. God, in His infinite wisdom, decided it was a faith relationship not sight and thus each and every person will make a decision about His Son.
I am truly burdened for the lost. As I go throughout the day meeting people, discussing real life issues, and listening to their heart, there is nothing more real to them then what is in their heart. What is truth? no the question should be, Who is Truth? He is the One that wants to know you personally, He is the One that gave it all up so we can each one day have it all. Talk to God (pray) and allow Him to talk to you (The Bible) with an open and humble heart, and you will know the Truth. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 270
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
"...what is that going to do for you other than provide you with intellectual stimulus?"
Ryan, truth is truth. Belief that the story of Noah is true as it is written in the bible, when it has been proven false many times over, is evidence of holding something to be true in spite of all the evidence. I recognize, however, that assertions about our natural world, as in the case of the story of Noah which can be verified or falsified, are entirely different from matters of faith, which are really not subject to any objective methodologies for determining the reliability of such claims. They are apples and oranges - that's true.
But if one makes an assertion based on a certain source, that turns out to be contrary to the evidence, it is not unreasonable to be skeptical of other claims of truth based on that same source. However, I must agree that this sub-thread has grown tired, and I shall drop it immediately.
As for "I only say all this to hopefully spark some productive discussions about real issues and the deep questions which cover the very real needs we have in our hearts and spirits which we constantly ignore and rationalize away and are afraid or embarrassed to talk about." goes....dig in.
I think your personal faith in Jesus is a wonderful thing. That is part of your spiritual experience, which is similarly shared by others. I respect that. It is as real to you as the computer you type on. I understand that. It is something that is deep inside your heart, and isn't subject to any kind of objective testing methodology - because that's not the kind of thing it is. It is deeply personal at its core.
Now if we can just get others to recognize the nature of spirituality, rather than pointing fingers and proclaiming everyone else is necessarily wrong, we will be doing God's work, indeed.
peace, - t |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 271
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 12:34 pm: | |
Hey, maybe it would be better to start a new thread in the general posting area, than in this location. - Unless we deal directly with one of Cliffe's assertions above, which is how all this first started. |
Mary Dill
Junior Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:17 pm: | |
Timothy,
For my source on the C-14 research that involved AMS I again direct you to the website for ICR, which is www.icr.org and you can look under "research" and scroll down a bit to the article with "C14" in its title. I'm guessing the technology was used at the Los Alimos National Laboratory in New Mexico, because that is where the cheif researcher is employed. The others are at ICR. I can't tell you where else the technology has been used around the nation, but only that from this paper a couple of references suggest where it was used elsewhere, but you'd have to look up these journals to find out what University they were at. I don't know a good search engine with online journals for appropriate dates, this isn't my field, but if I had a little more time I probably could find one (I use JSTOR).
Ok, so How might a gap in radiocarbon dates support a flood theory?? Simple... it might be difficult for fossils, which are caused by erosion, to form ANYWHERE so long as the earth is totally covered with water. Another development is the Cambrian explosion of fossils, which is not good for evolution, which assumes much time... But these are not mentioned in this paper (I don't think). But interestingly, what is mentioned is that because most organic samples had the same C14/C ratio its plausible that the organisms could have been alive at the same time.
As for justification for the idea that differing strata from the same event would increase in complexity as you go up the layers, even though they were supposedly alive at the same time, is easily explained by the ecosystem idea. Note how more complex organisms tend to live lower than more complex organisms, and how also the latter may be more able to avoid the effects of a flood for a longer period of time.
Finally, I do NOT have a prediction of expected findings, because I am not a researcher in this area. But I'd be happy to look for such a thing in the future... (Try skimming the C14 article and tell me if you think there are no testable hypotheses....)
Peace, and perfect love!
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, March 02, 2004 - 07:19 pm: | |
On Cosmology, which I know almost nothing of, I found out some neat things... Namely, how the Big Bang Theory was an idea of a priest, based on empirical data, and which was a departure from the then current Kantian idea that the universe was infinite and had no beginning and no end.
kaze
|
Mary Dill
Member
Username: kazegpan
Post Number: 27
Registered: 12-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:07 am: | |
I just wanted to mention that I accidentally deleted an email awhile back of someone who said "thank you...". And I'm sorry, but that's why I didn't say anything back. But thanks for helping me along with your comment at a time when the "evidence" was beginning to swim like alphabet soup in my head! (Timothy, I'm sorry, but this was more of a challenge even than talking to the Mormans!)
God Bless!
kaze
|
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 272
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:56 am: | |
Mary,
You rock! That's all I have to say.
(I sent a reply to your longer post, but I'm not seeing it. Lemme check and resend if I can find it.)
I appreciate your recognition....and we haven't even started talking about spirituality. Just so you know, I have absolutely no interest in devaluing or destroying your faith. Nor do I seek for you to even change your faith in Christ. I have a great deal of respect for christians, tho I may disagree. My only point is to convey the idea that reasonable, sincere, informed and spiritual people can be just as devote and honest with their relationship with their God, Gods, or you name it, as you or anyone else is to their ultimate thing or being, and they aren't stupid, ignorant, dishonest or uninformed in doing so. There are things that reasonable people can differ on. Greater tolerance does not require acceptance of others' beliefs, but just recognition that others' spiritual beliefs are as true to them as yours is to you, and mine is to me. (Whether there is a reliable means of determining objectively whether any one of those beliefs are more reliable than another is completely different issue, and one I am eager to discuss.)
Keep up the good work, Mary. |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 274
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 01:06 pm: | |
Mary,
I looked all over the ICR site, and could not find the article you presented.
"Ok, so How might a gap in radiocarbon dates support a flood theory?? Simple... it might be difficult for fossils, which are caused by erosion, to form ANYWHERE so long as the earth is totally covered with water."
This is a testible hypothesis. However, this contradicts the fossil record in the earth's strata immediately. Creationists (in ICR) claim the strata we curently observe is due to Noah's flood. If your hypothesis were true, then we should find all kinds of consecutive layers (created by the flood) with a lack of fossils compared to strata before and after the flood. This is not case.
"Another development is the Cambrian explosion of fossils, which is not good for evolution,"
While there are unanswered questions regarding the "sudden" appearance of more complex life form in the cambrian age, it is infinitely more damaging to the creationist model. You'll note there are no complex vertibrates, like any mammals, birds, fish, or reptiles from this era. Considering what a rich food source these fossils show existed for many animals we know today would love this environment, there is not a single example of them being there at all. The Creationist model predicts there should be. Furthermore, the Cambrian explosion shows evolution within it, including so-called "transitional" forms.
" But interestingly, what is mentioned is that because most organic samples had the same C14/C ratio its plausible that the organisms could have been alive at the same time."
It is also demonstrated that natural radiation from the surrounding rocks and contamination from much newer biological organisms give incorrect dates using the highly sensitive AMS method. But, using the creationist model, there should never be a fossil without a c14 reading, which is not the case by a longshot.
"As for justification for the idea that differing strata from the same event would increase in complexity as you go up the layers, even though they were supposedly alive at the same time, is easily explained by the ecosystem idea. Note how more complex organisms tend to live lower than more complex organisms, and how also the latter may be more able to avoid the effects of a flood for a longer period of time."
The flood, according to the bible, didn't happen over a period of years, but about a month. The idea that more complex organisms could avoid the rising waters ignores why extremely capable dinosaurs (including those that could fly) were less able to avoid the floods than many animals alive today that couldn't outrun a snail. It also doesn't explain the differences in plants found in the different strata of the fossil records. Again, the flood/creationist model predicts that you'd find some modern animals along with dinosaurs, for example, and this never, ever happens. Also, there is no evidence that "less" complex organisms reside at lower elevations than more complex organisms. Just the opposite is apparent to anyone who has been from the ocean to the mountains. Finally, using the flood to explain the increase in complexity of organisms in such a way contradicts the hypothesis that fossils wouldn't have formed in a flood scenario.
"Finally, I do NOT have a prediction of expected findings, because I am not a researcher in this area."
You don't have to be. Just use your common sense. If we took the Noah story literally, and he took two of every kind of animal on his boat, why is more than 98% of all species that ever existed currently extinct? God didn't say "take 2 of every kind of 2% of all the animals. Why did the Asian and African elephant species make it on board, but not the mammoths? How did the duck-billed palatapus get to Australia, and not be found anywhere else on earth? Same for the kangaroo? In fact...how did the Kangaroos get from Mt. Ararat to Australia without leaving any trace of existing anywhere on earth besides australia? Some things to think about.
|
Hanson Street
Junior Member
Username: hansonstreet22
Post Number: 12
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, April 02, 2004 - 08:01 pm: | |
"You couldn't be futher from the truth Ryan. Not only did god create evil, (if there is a god), but he introduced it to mankind by setting Adam up in the garden" - John Dill
Hey johnny , did Adam or eve have to submit thereselves to evil... ohh wait your saying thats God's fault right? Since I'm irresponsible and dont like to take any faults for myself i just like to blame them on God. I didn't mean to steal your car... It's God's fault. He created evil so i didnt have to do that. It should be my fault for stealing the car not God's. It sounds like you couldnt be any further from the truth.
God didn't necesarily create evil he created free will in which we can choose to do good or evil. If we were all good because God made us with no choice then we wouldn't be human beings John. I bet when you were a teenager or if you are a teenager there has been a time when one of your parents has been like no John you can't do that... and i bet you didn't like that because you wanted to do what you wanted to do and not what they wanted. You wanted freedom. That's what God gives us. We choose evil over good sometimes. That's sad but that's not God's fault. We choose to do evil, and your saying since we can choose to do evil thats God's fault. Well I'm glad he gave me free will John. Because if not then i would be a robot and not be able to do anything for myself. I guess If i was a robot (which I dont believe I am) then i could blame it on God. But it's not that case is it Johnny? |
Timothy Campen
Advanced Member
Username: tcampen
Post Number: 293
Registered: 09-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 02:50 am: | |
Hanson,
If you work it out logically, a truely omnipotent being must, necessarily, be responsible for the entire universe, and everything that occurs in it. That would include Adam, you, me, meteors slamming into the earth, etc. Everthing, down to the most minute subatomic particle interaction ........everything. It is an irreconcible conundrum. Even making the argument that god chose not to know exactly what decisions every being would make is unreasonable, for (1) there is no basis for such an assumption, and (2) such an act would make god less than omnipotent.
The only way to reconcile the "problem of evil," as it is called, is to accept as a mystery that God can be both omnipotent AND not responsible for evil, even though it cannot be resolved by logic, cute analogies, or esoteric theology - just as omnipotence and free-will absolutely cannot be reconciled by the rational mind.
hope that helps. let me know if this requires futher explanation. |
Doug Munro
New member
Username: zapicles
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 10:54 pm: | |
Is there really a trinity according to the bible?
Is the bible really God's word to us?
If so then where is the trinity in the bible?
Why did God not speak of such as there is only 1 God, and he knows of no other, also as he is the only saviour and knows of no other?
Isa 43:11
Isa 44:8
Isa 45:5-6
Isa 45:21
Just to mention a few....
Have you ever looked up the origin of the "trinity" and where it came from, who formed it and why? The culture, the religions of the era... and so on?
Why would God lie, and say he knows of no other, then for man to come along and say that there is 3 in one, all co-equal, co-existant, and co-eternal, when your saying 3 in one, is this not twisting and confusing what God say's?
Is this a pre-conceived idea that satan has planned to dethron God, and his utlimate worship to led astry people to think that there is this mocker of 3 in 1, yet not 3 but 1 and yet it's still God?
The bible is clear, the word of God is clear, search it, research histroy and see for youself where this heathon theroy came from...
yet people uphold the trinity...
as you state on your site..
3 coexistant people..... hmmmm
Answers...
Biblical references to the "Trinity"?
If God is ONE, then why say different?
Waiting patiently for the twisting of truth!
Doug |
Hanson Street
Member
Username: hansonstreet22
Post Number: 49
Registered: 03-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 12:15 am: | |
... doug thats my middle name, douglas... ha anyways first of all i hope you haven't already assumed that the next response you receive is twisting of the truth... i dont intend on twisting anything now... I have never understood the trinity and it has always bothered me. First of all the word trinity isn't in the Bible, and i believe it is a term invented by the Catholics to categorize the Father, Son, and holy spirit all as one equal single God... clearly at first thought this doesn't make sense. Here are some scriptures that make it seem quite possible (at first glance) though that the there is in fact such a thing as the trinity ...
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
*see bottom about this verse
Colossians 1:15-18 "And He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything." (Jesus is Yehovah-Creator)
Hebrews 1:3 "And He is the reflected-brightness of His glory and the exact-image of His essence, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Jesus is God)
Job 33:4 "Ruach-Elohim has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life." (The Holy Spirit is Elohim)
Isaiah 64:8 "But now, Yehovah, You are our-Father, we are the clay, and You our potter; and all of us are the work of Your-hand." (The Father is Yehovah)
Isaiah 40:13-18 "Who has directed [Spirit-Yehovah, hw:hy]Aj'Wr] Ruach- Yehovah, Or as His counselor has informed Him? With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge, and informed Him of the way of understanding?. . . . To whom then will you liken El? Or what likeness will you compare with Him?" (The Holy Spirit is Yehovah)
1 Timothy 2:3 "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Jesus is God)
Psalm 45:6 "Your throne, O Elohim, is forever and ever, a scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom." (Jesus is Elohim)
John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes."
John 6:63 "It is the Spirit who creates-life, the flesh profits nothing."
... (don't worry doug here comes the part you will like)...
then there is this verse
(John14:28) " Remember what i told you: I am going away, but I will come back to you again. If you really love me, you will be very happy for me, because now I can go to the Father, who is greater than I am."
unless i read a mistranslation, this clearly proves that the Father,Son, and Holy Spirit can't all be one in the same God... or equal. Yet the verses from above leave me confused. I read somebody elses interpretation on 1 John 5:7 which i found pretty interesting...http://www.blessedbible.com/newsletters/Trinity.pdf (doug you would like that site so you'll probably want to read it )..... It points out that this verse might have been added in later... i don't know enough to argue either side on that issue but just read the website and think for yourself...
lastly (sorry for the long post) My opinion on the trinity... first of all i dont care about the term trinity ... i know there is a Father, A son, and a holy spirit. They are all separate with separate wills... yet they all have divine power in my opinion. Jesus had limited power on the Earth (won't explain that cause it will take too long) but basically it's proved by him asking God for help all the time and asking that the Father's will be done and not His own. Yet Jesus is still the Son of God... and he will judge us all in the end... of course thats my belief cause i believe what the bible says. I don't have a clear-cut understanding on this trinity issue yet those are some things that i felt i could toss out there ... maybe that helps doug hope i didnt twist any truth if i did im sorry... and if any of those verses up there are wrong or inaccurate it would be because i copied them off somebdoy elses website on google when i typed in trinity ... yet i dont know of any being wrong.
|
amy
Member
Username: amylc
Post Number: 47
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 06:38 am: | |
God is our father. We are all the sons of God, which is why God's holy spirit is in all of us; Therefore, we are one with the Father, the Son and the holy spirit. |
Paul Ehlke
Junior Member
Username: paul
Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 08:38 am: | |
Amy, if we are the son, then who is Jesus? Jesus is the Son of God. Our place with God is by having the Holy Spirit dwell in us only when we believe in Jesus as our Saviour.
John 14:
15“If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever– 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
John 16:23-24:
if you should now ask, how can i have the spirit in me? Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete."
no man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. This is why many have trouble saying it, cuz the Holy Spirit is not in them. I don't say Jesus is Lord, but the Spirit that lives in me says it. (1 Corinthians 12:3)
Doug, even the book of Genesis states that there was more than one with God. (note the key word, "us/our".)
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
|
amy
Member
Username: amylc
Post Number: 48
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 05:47 pm: | |
Jesus is God's son and taught us to exemplify the Christ. Jesus taught us that we are all sons of God. A good example of this teaching is the Lords prayer that was taught to us by Jesus and begins with "our father." |
Doug Munro
New member
Username: zapicles
Post Number: 2
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:50 pm: | |
***Paul Ehlke***
Your Post
Doug, even the book of Genesis states that there was more than one with God. (note the key word, "us/our".)
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
If I was just to give you the first 26 versus of Gen, then what would you have if you studied and analyzied it?
Shortend version of what took place!!
Gen 1:
God created the Heaven and Earth
Gen 2:
The Spirit of God
Gen 3-25:
God Spoke and it (world and all that was in it the air/sea/land) came to be
So far, we have God, his Spirit, and his Voice.
Now with the next verse you may assume, or imply that there are "OTHERS", but unfortunately you are wrong.
With Gen 1:26 if you are implying that because the use of the words
"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE", your implying that there is MORE than GOD!
Yet throughout the bible God speaks of 1, ONE only. And if you were to research and study passages in the bible you would come to understand that God does not lie!
For if he the statement in Duet 6:4
De 6:4
¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Then this would be a blantent lie! For you say or interpret Gen 1:26 to mean other people or Gods or however you want to twist it!
Now I would like to show you the interpretation from the Jewish people.
*************Please note the numbers in the scripture*************
1:26 Then God said, “Let us make47 mankind48 in our image, after our likeness,49 so they may rule50 over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth,51 and over all the creatures that move52 on the earth.”
Lets look at #47
47sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
If you would like to look up specific versus and such here is one link you might like to try out.
http://www.bible.org/netbible/
Or if you would like a bible for your computer try this one
www.swordsearcher.com
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Now to carry on a little bit longer
starting at the begining and conception of the trinity.
Try doing a search on the "origins of the Trinity"
Then read up on the institution of the creeds, who made them and why, and what was their upbrining...
Here is a link for you to read too... lots of reading my friend...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/otherreligions/trinity.html
Study up on the Eygptians and Romans and the Greeks and all their pagan rituals and gods.
If there is ONE God, and no others then whom would want people to think different?
Yet many will believe without giving it a 2nd thought and accept what has been told without doing any searching and really hungering for truth!
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
So the Gate is wide, and broad.. and many many people will go along that path...
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Fast, search, seek, hunger, pray, weep for truth, seek the Lord and you will find him.
Hope this helps some...have many scriptures to post, but this can wait for another time.
Maybe next post will be on the pagan egyptians then the romans/greeks...
History has many books that tell the story, but God told it in one book of himself and his love for us!
God bless all whom hunger for truth!
In Christ's Love
Doug |
Doug Munro
New member
Username: zapicles
Post Number: 3
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 11:57 pm: | |
***Paul Ehlke***
Your Post
Doug, even the book of Genesis states that there was more than one with God. (note the key word, "us/our".)
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
If I was just to give you the first 26 versus of Gen, then what would you have if you studied and analyzied it?
Shortend version of what took place!!
Gen 1:
God created the Heaven and Earth
Gen 2:
The Spirit of God
Gen 3-25:
God Spoke and it (world and all that was in it the air/sea/land) came to be
So far, we have God, his Spirit, and his Voice.
Now with the next verse you may assume, or imply that there are "OTHERS", but unfortunately you are wrong.
With Gen 1:26 if you are implying that because the use of the words
"LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE", your implying that there is MORE than GOD!
Yet throughout the bible God speaks of 1, ONE only. And if you were to research and study passages in the bible you would come to understand that God does not lie!
For if he the statement in Duet 6:4
De 6:4
¶ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Then this would be a blantent lie! For you say or interpret Gen 1:26 to mean other people or Gods or however you want to twist it!
Now I would like to show you the interpretation from the Jewish people.
*************Please note the numbers in the scripture*************
1:26 Then God said, “Let us make47 mankind48 in our image, after our likeness,49 so they may rule50 over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth,51 and over all the creatures that move52 on the earth.”
Lets look at #47
47sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
If you would like to look up specific versus and such here is one link you might like to try out.
http://www.bible.org/netbible/
Or if you would like a bible for your computer try this one
www.swordsearcher.com
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Now to carry on a little bit longer
starting at the begining and conception of the trinity.
Try doing a search on the "origins of the Trinity"
Then read up on the institution of the creeds, who made them and why, and what was their upbrining...
Here is a link for you to read too... lots of reading my friend...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/otherreligions/trinity.html
Study up on the Eygptians and Romans and the Greeks and all their pagan rituals and gods.
If there is ONE God, and no others then whom would want people to think different?
Yet many will believe without giving it a 2nd thought and accept what has been told without doing any searching and really hungering for truth!
Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
So the Gate is wide, and broad.. and many many people will go along that path...
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Fast, search, seek, hunger, pray, weep for truth, seek the Lord and you will find him.
Hope this helps some...have many scriptures to post, but this can wait for another time.
Maybe next post will be on the pagan egyptians then the romans/greeks...
History has many books that tell the story, but God told it in one book of himself and his love for us!
God bless all whom hunger for truth!
In Christ's Love
Doug |
Doug Munro
New member
Username: zapicles
Post Number: 4
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 12:58 am: | |
\b Sorry for the double post people must have hit the Preview/Post button twice
\Red \1 Keep the messages comming
God Bless
Doug |
Ryan Archer
Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 82
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 06:03 am: | |
Doug - consider the following please:
H20 is water, it is also ice, and it is steam as well. HOW can this be if H20 is just one thing, yet it can be 3 different things while always remaining H2O...Just like God RELATES to us as a Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Same with the Sun - it is light, warmth and radiation - 3 things in one. Just like our triune God.
It's not that there are 3 different gods, it's that there are 3 different personas of God. He is supernatural, infinite, omniscient, onmipresent and omnipotent - He can do anything.
He has CHOSEN to reveal Himself to us in 3 personas that RELATE to us.
If He revealed Himself to us as a thing up in the sky, we would have a hard time loving Him, let alone knowing Him.
But He chose to relate to us and show us His love by coming to earth in disguise in the guise of one of His own humble creations in the body of Jesus Christ, and showed Himself to be God and pointed to the Father and His Holy Spirit that we may know Him through Jesus Himself.
Also, think of it this way - the Father is guy behind the scenes, the director who knows everything. The Son is the One who relates to us and shows us and tells us about how the Father has set things up and how to know Him and receive His love. The Holy Spirit (the spirit of the Father) is the One who makes it all happen now that Jesus is in Heaven with the Father. |
Paul Ehlke
Junior Member
Username: paul
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 11:25 am: | |
Doug, I wasn't implying that there is more than one God. But that as Ryan clearified, 3 parts of 1 God.
Recall when asked about Abraham, Jesus said, "Before Abraham, I AM." This statement goes to show that Jesus was there before the creation of the world. Jesus is even mentioned in Genesis 3:15 after the fall of Adam&Eve. God spoke to Satan, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
Ryan explains it well. Or imagine if God was a human body, Jesus is a hand, the Holy Ghost is the breath. It's all of the same body though.
|
Doug Munro
New member
Username: zapicles
Post Number: 5
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 08:26 am: | |
Blessings in our Lord
Ryan, Paul... Please show me biblical scriptures Specifically that show 3 persons seperate yet co-equal/eternal/existant!
Paul stated Jesus said, "Before Abraham, I AM." This statement goes to show that Jesus was there before the creation of the world.
What was "Gods" NAME that he told Moses to say when he went to the pharaoh of Egypt?
Ex 3:6
Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
Ex 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you
So we have parellel versus from John 8:58, which is mearly pointing to the fact there there is 1 God, robbed in Flesh, made of Man Filled with The Holy Spirit.
A sinless vessel made to inhabit the Holy Spirit!
Read up on Gen 22
Ge 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, \2(God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together
Isa 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Now is this a seperate "part" of God?
How can you divided God into parts?
How can you say that there a 3 people when specifically the bible states ONE. Many manifestations but still ONE not 2 of 1 or 3 of 1 or 1 of 1 person!
Show me specifically where there speaks in the bible of a 2nd person (Helper/creator)?
If you called Jesus Lord/God/Saviour but yet he is a 2nd person then consider the following!
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Again you have the Lord proclaiming that there is NO OTHER SAVIOUR.
Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Here is a link to some history, their education background, and paganistic ties, which helped form the trinity the "LIE".
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/origen.htm#Origen's%20Life%20and%20Times
And finally after reading and studying... maybe you can try this one!
http://www.impact-ministry.com/acts2/jesus.html
Maybe a bit lenghty, but worth the read!
God Bless all whom hunger for truth!
In Christ's Love
Doug |
Paul Ehlke
Junior Member
Username: paul
Post Number: 14
Registered: 11-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 09:13 am: | |
Doug, I don't know what you are debating, cuz I agree with you. There is one God. But He was of three forms. The same God in three forms.
Your websites failed to mention how Christ often talked about My Father. For example:
John 10
14“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
This is the command he received from his Father. Does this mean the command he received from himself? Who was Jesus praying to before he was captured? Himself?
The Trinity is a catholic term, I believe, but it basically points out the same God in three forms. As Ryan mentioned, if God didn't become Jesus, we wouldn't have a direct connection with God. Jesus claims He and the Father are one and the same. He is God on earth. God in a human form. Now with Christ in Heaven, we have God in spirit form who lives in those who believe, so we may see the and understand the Word. That's three forms God was in. The same God.
Why do you argue trying to declare only one God when I believe it? Who is Jesus to you?
In Genesis when God called himself plural (our/us) I believe He already had his forms declared. It may seem hard to understand, but God's knowledge is beyond our reach. Through the Bible and its explanations, this is what we can make of it. One God of three forms. |
Ryan Archer
Member
Username: theleastofthese
Post Number: 86
Registered: 01-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 07:10 pm: | |
Paul already said what I would say, and I already put it fairly simply in my original message; the main thing to see is that God has chosen to RELATE to us by being 3 different personas.
In a similar way, if you were married with children, you are a father to your children, a husband to your wife and a friend to your friends. You relate to each one slightly differently but you are always just YOU, 3 different personas and roles, but you are always just one person: you.
SO God relates to us by being 3 different personas to us. That is just how He set things up  |
Nathano Martini
New member
Username: zero_cool
Post Number: 1
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 05:33 am: | |
Hi, how are you all. I have a Question: Is it wrong to call yourself just a "christan" and not lable yourself as catholic, orthordox, anglican etc or this jesus say to be of a certain church? 2nd i live with my gf who her parents are catholic and she well says shes undecided but they have pictures of jesus and saints and angles and statues of angles and calanders of the above is it wrong to even have those in the house and if it is what should i do as they are not mine but should i do what is write and get rid of them and explain it or leave them and not care about them . also i need gods help soooooooo much how will i know his signs. if someone could write back to me i would really be grateful thanx and god bless everyone
|
Nathano Martini
New member
Username: zero_cool
Post Number: 2
Registered: 06-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 05:37 am: | |
My Question is this: When jesus walked through a village and a man said jesus i wanna come with you. Jesus replied by saying ok pick up your cross and follow me, the man then said first i have to bury my farther. Jesus replied by saying let the dead bury the dead.What did he mean by that? Also Quote" If you are not willing to give up your family and friends for me, then you are not worthy of me" by jesus. Thank-you and i hope yo get an answer as soon as you can. God Bless everyone! |
amy
Intermediate Member
Username: amylc
Post Number: 149
Registered: 06-2004
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 06:54 pm: | |
No one ever hears a devoted Christian worker express disappointment or regret over anything that he has forsaken in the world. On the contrary there is rejoicing as each human link is severed, because the new relation in Christ is deeper and stronger than the human relation and because love is increased and real possessions are multiplied. |
Charles Tryon Manger
New member
Username: tryonmanger
Post Number: 1
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 02:56 pm: | |
I was in a nearly fatal car accident in January 2005 and suffered a severe brain injury from which I am still recovering. I was thrown through the windshield, and had to be ressusitated in the middle of the road by a policeman, I had no heartbeat or breathing. I then spent 6 weeks in the hospital and a week in intensive care. I have no recollection of any consciousness during this period up intil about 4 weeks in the hospital. All there was was a black void, pretty terrifying. I have not been a religious person, and to be perfectly frank have led a somewhat loathsome life with compulsive drinking, promiscuity, and some drug use. I am wondering where was Jesus when I was dead in the middle of Route 7 in Ridgefield CT drenched in blood. This whole issue is really a conundrum for me now and I am searching. |
Chuck Molnar
New member
Username: justanotherguy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 04-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 08:02 pm: | |
Jesus blinded Saul of Tarsus (Paul) on the road to Damascus which turned out to be Saul's change of heart from one that was persecuting Christians to one who spread the Word far and wide. Many things happen to us on the road of life. Maybe Jesus was in your black void as He was in Saul's blindness or maybe He was in the policemen that ressusitated you, not only phsyically but spiritually for as you say yourself now you are searching. He who seeks finds, knock and the door will be opened. It is likely not important where Jesus was when you were dead as you say, but only that He was there as you are now still here. Good luck and God bless. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page