2 of 26
2
i am a born again, evangelical christian
Posted: 03 May 2009 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

You don’t take in account that the bible is not a scientific book. Just the fact is relevant and remarkable, that Genesis 1 actually names all 5 elements, which do describe all what exists. And it took a looooong time, until Spencer made his description in the 19th century. It might not be as scientically well described, as science is able today, but in “ grosso modo “ Spencer was right, and shoule anyone really make to think, how the bible could be so accurate in describe all that exists, that much time ago.

Well, OK, so you have shown that the Bible successfully predicted what Mr. Spencer would say. But it did not predict what Mr. Newton said, Mr. Copernicus said, Mr. Darwin said, and so on through just about every great mind in history. In effect, you’re saying that the Bible shot an arrow into a crowd of people and successfully hit one person, and that this demonstrates the accuracy of the Bible. That doesn’t impress me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03

first of all : all your inquiries below are not new to me, gone all that throuth…...

PLaClair - 03 May 2009 11:03 AM

Angelo,
A. 1. OK, you believe in a transcendent reality, and think you can divine its shape and character. In itself that’s a contradiction and it can only be done based on a wish.

No. It thas nothing to do with wishful thinking. the base of my faith is the bible. The bible is actually the only religious book, which does give a description, which does correlate with reality, and does not contradict science .

psalm 90:2

Even before the mountains came into existence,3or you brought the world into being,4you were the eternal God.

1.Kor 1:17

He himself is before all things and all things are held together31 in him.

1 Pet 1:20

He was foreknown36 before the foundation of the world but37 was manifested in these last times38 for your sake.

Surely you’ll admit that there can’t be any evidence for it, unless of course you think that the Bible is the evidence. But surely you’ll admit that anyone could have written the Bible. But there I go with evidence again, right.

So how do you think it is possible, that the writers of the bible were describing reality in accordance of todays scientific discoveries ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFmZS3Zv2Mw&feature=PlayList&p=13A27FB10E81B97B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=32

A. 2. Yes, you did. It’s implicit in your argument, which I suggest you read again. Your critique of scientific naturalism is that it doesn’t answer all the questions. You’re right, it doesn’t, but neither does your theology.You just talk yourself into thinking it does and then refuse to see that you’re no further ahead than when you started. If you posit a transcendent reality, why couldn’t it just be the laws of nature?

yes, correct. but again my question : did i assert something else ?

Simply put, yes. If God transcends time and space, then he knew everything that would happen, so he’s responsible for all of it.

that is simply not true. Each one of us has a free will, and has responsability for its own choices. God cannot be blamed for them.

http://conversationaltheology.wordpress.com/where/if-god-knew-that-we-would-sin-why-did-he-create-the-world/

Furthermore, if free will always involves a risk, then how does anyone manage to stay in heaven? Wouldn’t everyone screw up sooner or later - unless you say that people in heaven are perfect. But if that’s true, then we could have been made perfect. If it’s good enough for people in heaven and doesn’t violate their free will, it should be good enough for us.

http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi039.asp

You see, the problem is, you can’t hold your theology together unless you assume it to be true to begin and then completely close your eyes to its obvious problems.

have you come to your conclusion after a comprehensive research ?  the net is a great tool , use it !!

Furthermore, your conception of justice is fundamentally different from mine. Punishment is not an intrinsic good, but that is how you are framing it. In a Humanist conception, punishment is intrinsically to be avoided; it is done only insofar as is necessary to achieve a necessary and proper end. And we’re not just talking about punishment, we’re talking about exquisite and unremitting torment forever with no hope of redemption; essentially, eternal torture. Our laws would not permit that. Further, you’re avoiding the question. What purpose would it serve? It’s just gratuitous infliction of suffering.

God is the roolmaker , not we…..

As you can see, I’m trying to address all your questions. We can’t have a meaningful discussion unless you address all of mine. You’re not doing that.

you acuse me again, despite its not true. i adress your questions. i do not garantee you however, that i have a answer to all questions.

“But people choose not to believe in God - and will face the consequeces. Its THEIR choice, not God’s one.” What if God doesn’t exist? You must answer this question directly in order for this discussion to make any sense.

Well, i believe, he DOES exist. So your question is irrelevant for me.

Why would the punishment for sincerely believing the wrong thing be eternal torment with no hope of redemption? What’s just about that? You avoided that question. You must answer it.

I do believe in a JUST God, which will examine the life of every person, distinctively, also the life of the ones, that never heard the gospel.
I believe he will be able to give a right judgement for everyone.

B. 2. So not only did God punish every human being because the first two supposedly sinned;

Well. Today he is asking YOU to believe and trust in Jesus Christ. This will be the point of decision , between heaven and hell….and not original sin.

he also punished the animals, who not only had done nothing wrong but weren’t capable of it according to Christian theology. This makes sense to you? Please explain why the sin of the first two humans would necessitate suffering among the non-human animals. You can’t give any explanation that doesn’t render God less than almighty; or any explanation that makes moral and ethical sense. Again, try to think about the question without assuming your theology to be true.

Apparently it doesnt. But i do not claim to understand everything. One day, i believe, God will explain and give the answer to questions like this.

[ Edited: 03 May 2009 01:04 PM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

So how do you think it is possible, that the writers of the bible were describing reality in accordance of todays scientific discoveries ?

Hold on! A little while ago you said that the Bible is not a science book, and now you’re saying that it comports with science. There are plenty of events described in the Bible that most definitely do NOT comport with science. To name a few:

Noah’s flood
Walls of Jericho coming down from sonic effects
Earth’s rotation halting so that the Jews could win a battle
Red Sea parting

I’m willing to accept all of this if you declare that these are all mythological metaphors for deeper spiritual matters. But then you have to retract your claim that the Bible is substantiated by science.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2457
Joined  2008-06-03

I just began reading through this thread. It started out sounding sincere but has soured a bit. I find it hard to have a productive conversation in situations like this. The answer to every question is “God makes the rules” “I believe/have faith” and tossing in some bible quotes. God-botting just goes around in a circle. Forever. Paul, Doug, and others, I admire your kind patience and thorough replies.

 Signature 

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it’s a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.    - Lex Luthor

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Randy - 03 May 2009 11:38 AM

Belief is not evidence.  What is your evidence that the universe was created by something external to it?  And what is your evidence that that thing is a god?  And what is your evidence that that god is the Christian God?  The burden of proof is on you, since you make the claim, and because it’s a rather extraordinary claim, it requires extraordinary proof.

First of all : i did not come here to proof anything. I came to testify my faith. It is a result of the observation of the creation, the bible, and personal experiences, and the testimonies of others, which made similar experiences, as i made. Thomas Aquinas, argued in favor of the existence of God on the basis of fundamental aspects of the universe such as causality and change. William Paley argued that the hand of God is evident in the apparent design of the universe and living beings. The third line of evidence argues that God makes Himself evident in personal transcendent experiences of people. Of these three lines of evidence, science has eliminated none, although many would argue that the evidence for biological evolution has weakened the argument for the design of living organisms.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/god_of_the_gaps.html

Many skeptics believe that all arguments for the existence of God fall into the God of the gaps variety. According to this premise, one would expect these arguments to become fewer in number as scientists make more discoveries and learn more about our world. In reality, evidence continues to accumulate suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. The evidence suggesting that the universe and its physical laws were designed continues to accumulate at a rapid rate.

Testifying your faith is not debating, not logic, and not science.  If you’re here, you should be challenging your faith.  It seems clear to me that you’ve simply come here in an attempt to convert people, rather than have an honest discussion.

I do accept scientific discoveries not less than you do. I am not less logic , than you are. Actually, you need to accept a totally unreasonable standpoint, to mantain your atheistic belief. What is our difference, is that i take completely different conclusion, than you do. While i belief, recent scientific discoveries appoint to a intelligent creator, you think the oposit. But based on what ? istnt it just a little more than wishful thinking ? How do you explain the finetuning of the universe, which makes live actually possible on earth ?

The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

there is no naturalistic answer to how live came to be. Abiogenesis does not give any acceptable, reasonable answer .

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

An Estimate of the Probability for Attaining the Necessary Parameters for Life Support

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/probabilitieslife.html

what a faith you need to rebut all this evidence. Its admirable !!

Further, you have not proven that humans have actual free will, versus the perception of free will.
You have not proven that free will leads to evil (or perhaps what we might call anti-social behavior).
You have not proven that love can’t exist without free will.

could you make your point more clear ? i don’t understand what you mean. What is there to be proven ?

Choices are better when they are made based on facts, and not on social pressures or irrational fear.

I made my choice based on love, not on fear.

The fact remains that there is no evidence of gods.

thats not a fact. its just your perception. I see it differenty, and i am not alone

  There is only evidence of a group of people seeking power, and their followers who have succumbed to it.  You should be aware that by denying the existence of hundreds of other gods, you are putting yourself at roughly equal risk as the rest of us who deny your god.

i don’t think so. I think the other Gods are mens invention, and completely irrelevant.

The thing about Genesis is that other claims made there do not match up with reality, so we have to take it all with a grain of salt.

thats your assertion…. i don’t take it.

[ Edited: 03 May 2009 01:37 PM by Adonai888 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Chris Crawford - 03 May 2009 12:36 PM

You don’t take in account that the bible is not a scientific book. Just the fact is relevant and remarkable, that Genesis 1 actually names all 5 elements, which do describe all what exists. And it took a looooong time, until Spencer made his description in the 19th century. It might not be as scientically well described, as science is able today, but in “ grosso modo “ Spencer was right, and shoule anyone really make to think, how the bible could be so accurate in describe all that exists, that much time ago.

Well, OK, so you have shown that the Bible successfully predicted what Mr. Spencer would say. But it did not predict what Mr. Newton said, Mr. Copernicus said, Mr. Darwin said, and so on through just about every great mind in history. In effect, you’re saying that the Bible shot an arrow into a crowd of people and successfully hit one person, and that this demonstrates the accuracy of the Bible. That doesn’t impress me.

could you point out, what these gentlemen said, that the bible described wrong ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Angelo,

I agree with Jules.  I just read through this thread, and will skip it from now on.  I went through discussions about the existence or non-existence of a god and the meanings of the bible many years ago and found them pointless and a waste of time.

And, before you get into an argument about the bible, read it much more carefully.  You challenged Doug to find where the sins of the parents are visited on the children.  If you don’t even know the Second Commandment, your grasp of that document is pretty superficial:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them:  for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my Commandments.”

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Chris Crawford - 03 May 2009 01:19 PM

Hold on! A little while ago you said that the Bible is not a science book, and now you’re saying that it comports with science.

http://www.icr.org/article/346/

The Second Law of Thermodynamics Confirms Psalm 102:26

First, let us consider the science of thermodynamics: In Psalm 102:25,26, we read, “Of old hast Thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed.”

In verse 25, we find, restated, the fact that God is the Creator of all that exists. Verse 26 then tells us something highly significant, not about the initial, created state of the universe, but about the present state of the universe. According to this Scripture, written three thousand years before the dawn of modern science, we learn that the universe is like a suit of clothes that is wearing out. In other words, the universe is running down, deteriorating, constantly becoming less and less orderly.

That is not what most people believed when this Scripture was recorded. According to human observations, the universe was unchangeable. The statement that the universe is constantly becoming more random, less orderly, is a scientifically testable statement.

other sources :

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/scientific-proofs-of-bible-1.html

There are plenty of events described in the Bible that most definitely do NOT comport with science. To name a few:

Noah’s flood
Walls of Jericho coming down from sonic effects
Earth’s rotation halting so that the Jews could win a battle
Red Sea parting

most definitely ? maiby you change that in ” most unlikely ” . Today it might look so. but this perception can change. How many
things described in the bible didnt have any evidence, until archaeological discoveries actually proved what the bible says ?

for example sodom and gomorrah :

http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddKDIMNtEqG/b.4711853/k.BD32/Does_archaeological_evidence_prove_the_Bible_How_do_archaeological_discoveries_relate_to_events_in_Scripture.htm

However, recent excavations at Tell Mardikh, now known to be the site of Ebla, uncovered about 15,000 tablets. Some of these have been translated, and mention is made of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I’m willing to accept all of this if you declare that these are all mythological metaphors for deeper spiritual matters. But then you have to retract your claim that the Bible is substantiated by science.

i don’t see any reason to do so….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14
Adonai888 - 03 May 2009 12:28 PM

could you point me out, where the bible says, that God does blame children for the sins of their ancestors ?

Original sin was supposed to derive from the supposed “sin” of Adam and Eve. That is punishing children (us) for the sins of their ancestors (Adam and Eve). Punishing children for the sins of their ancestors is unethical. I believe it is standardly found in Romans 5:21-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

In your next question, you advert to Jesus’s role in extinguishing “original sin” yourself, so I have to assume you believe in it.

Adonai888 - 03 May 2009 12:28 PM

I believe Jesus came to take ALL sin away, not only ” original sin “.

Irrelevant. As I said before, God, being all powerful, can simply wipe away sin with a single act. He wouldn’t have required the torture and death of himself or his son to do it. The torture is simply gratuitous violence. And once again, gratuitous violence is incompatible with a perfectly good God.

Adonai888 - 03 May 2009 12:28 PM

this is a very commonly made assertion. the link gives the answer :

http://www.dublinvcc.org/Welcome/ValleyChristianCenter/NEXTSTEPS/AreYouaNewBeliever/QuestionsofGod/WhyDoesGodAllowSuffering/tabid/825/Default.aspx

Suppose you try to put into YOUR words what you think the answer is. I don’t see any coherent answers there.

In particular, blaming earthquakes, floods, volcanoes and viruses on “man’s disobedience” is simply absurd. None of these happen because of man’s actions.

Try to think for yourself rather than parroting nonsense.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 01:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Occam - 03 May 2009 01:46 PM

Angelo,

I agree with Jules.  I just read through this thread, and will skip it from now on.  I went through discussions about the existence or non-existence of a god and the meanings of the bible many years ago and found them pointless and a waste of time.

And, before you get into an argument about the bible, read it much more carefully.  You challenged Doug to find where the sins of the parents are visited on the children.  If you don’t even know the Second Commandment, your grasp of that document is pretty superficial:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.  thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them:  for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my Commandments.”

Occam

hi Occam

i do know this argument. What you do not know, is the historical environment , and how the Jews lived back then , and even today :
we today are much more individualistic living. Getting of the age of 20, 25 years, we leave our parents, and family, to create our own family, generally far from the parents home. Back in Israels time not so. All family was living together, grandfather, father, son, and grandson. The whole family was living together. When they started to cult other Gods, it was generally the whole familiy. So all of the family members where doing the same wrong things. Later in the bible, it is clarifyed, that each one has to respond for its own sins, actually.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1995
Joined  2008-09-18

Angelo, I think your assertion that the Bible stated the Second Law of Thermodynamics fails in two ways:

1. 2nd Thermo says a lot more than “The Universe runs down”
2. The idea that things wear out does not reveal anything new. Haven’t you noticed that when creatures die, they rot and eventually disappear? Haven’t you noticed that mountains are eroded by water?

I’m going to bow out of this discussion, too. I agree with the earlier commentators who pointed out the futility of discussions such as this. The arguments you make strike me as grossly, patently illogical. I don’t want to argue with you, so I leave you to your faith.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Ah, so the bible is not infallible.  You get to change meanings whenever it’s convenient.  You seem to be saying that god was wrong when he wrote the second commandment, that he/she/it is not omniscient.  That pretty well weakens or destroys the bible as a guide for present-day living.  And, in so doing, it also invalidates all of your earlier arguments using the bible as reference.  And, finally, please quote and identify that section where, “it is clarifyed, that each one has to respond for its own sins, actually.”  I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a section that retracts the threat in the second commandment.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 03:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Occam - 03 May 2009 02:10 PM

Ah, so the bible is not infallible.  You get to change meanings whenever it’s convenient.  You seem to be saying that god was wrong when he wrote the second commandment, that he/she/it is not omniscient. 

where do i say that ?

And, finally, please quote and identify that section where, “it is clarifyed, that each one has to respond for its own sins, actually.”  I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a section that retracts the threat in the second commandment.

you don’t know the bible ?

Hesekiel 18:20

The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer27 for his father’s iniquity, and a father will not suffer28 for his son’s iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.29
18:21 “But if the wicked person turns from all the sin he has committed and observes all my statutes and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 18:22 None of the sins he has committed will be held30 against him; because of the righteousness he has done, he will live. 18:23 Do I actually delight in the death of the wicked, declares the sovereign Lord? Do I not prefer that he turn from his wicked conduct and live?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
dougsmith - 03 May 2009 01:48 PM

Original sin was supposed to derive from the supposed “sin” of Adam and Eve. That is punishing children (us) for the sins of their ancestors (Adam and Eve). Punishing children for the sins of their ancestors is unethical. I believe it is standardly found in Romans 5:21-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

God gave a solution for the problem of sin : his son : so there is nothing more asked,then to believe in Jesus Christ. So your salvation or condemnation does rely now entirely on YOU, on your rendering to Gods proven love for you. Through your faith in his sacrifice, you can find forgiveness, and eternal life. So you will not be held accoutable for be descendent of Adam and Eve, and actually heridate a sinful nature, but eventually for not obey God, and to reject Jesus’ sacrifice for your sins.

Irrelevant. As I said before, God, being all powerful, can simply wipe away sin with a single act. He wouldn’t have required the torture and death of himself or his son to do it. The torture is simply gratuitous violence. And once again, gratuitous violence is incompatible with a perfectly good God.

its actually God, not you, to say, what way is acceptable to him, to wipe out sin. And it was Jesus sacrifice. That was the only way God accepted. Who are you to say, what should be acceptable for God, what not ? Are you above God , to set the rools ?

Adonai888 - 03 May 2009 12:28 PM

In particular, blaming earthquakes, floods, volcanoes and viruses on “man’s disobedience” is simply absurd. None of these happen because of man’s actions.

Well, i wont take my time to answer by myself . If you want to go deeper into this, have a look at following homepage :

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2207

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 May 2009 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05

Second Commandment doesn’t back your argument? Pick another verse. Never mind the obvious contradiction.

I, too, grew tired of these debates long ago. You cannot hold a rational discussion with someone who insists irrational thinking is acceptable proof of an argument. However, I will leave you something to think about.

According to the Bible, Yahweh knew all things before he created the universe. He knew he would send the majority of the people on this planet to eternal torment, yet he created this planet and those people anyway. That makes your god the worst genocidal murderer in the universe. But I guess it is OK, because the Bible says he loves us.

I am an atheist because I reject the notion such a god exists. I am also an atheist because I have taken time to study the universe as it is, and find reality far more compelling, beautiful and wondrous than any religion.

[ Edited: 03 May 2009 03:54 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 26
2