The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Fallen Seraph

J C wrote:

The TRILLIONS of ‘bad’ mistakes would permanently ‘bog down’ such a putative process - so that it would go nowhere fast!!!!:D

Except for the part of the process which disposes of the bad mistakes, so that they don't accumulate. So no matter how many billions or trillions occur, it doesn't matter because they don't get passed on. Only the good ones. Nor is the process supposed to be fast. It's slow but sure.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

The following guide may be of some assistance in differentiating between the promptings of the holy spirit, the human spirit, and the devil:

Yes, not bad. I would raise questions about a few points, however, notably:

2. Docility: Persons moved by the Holy Spirit accept with true peace the advice and counsel of those with authority over them. They manifest sentiments of humility and self-effacement.

Certainly humility and self-effacement must characterise the Christian, but to say one must accept the advice and counsel of those in authority over us is far too sweeping. Those in authority may be sincerely wrong; they may be insincerely wrong; they may even be evil men seeking to lead us astray. No blank cheque can be given to any man. Only God has authority over our conscience.

The word of God indeed tells us to beware of false shepherds:
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Philippians 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

wolfsbane

Sangre said:

I don't see the difference.

We know its the word of God because it is the word of God and God told us this? Many sources have claimed the word of God, we can only know this is the true word of God because it is the word of God.

Yes, the essence of it is that God the Holy Spirit speaks to the conscience when one hears/reads the Bible and He confirms it is indeed the Truth. Those who are of God eventually hear God's voice as they hear His word, and they repent and believe.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

It can lose or GAIN chromosomes in the process.

HOW JC? HOW?

What biological mechanism is set up to allow the pre-programmed loss of an entire chromosome. When does this happen in the reproduction cycle, where does this happen in the cell, and how does this happen. If it is pre-programmed there must be a biological system in place in all life that facilitates this process. Where is it. And how does it work.

Simply stating you think this is what must happen is ridiculous. You are just making that up.

J C wrote:

This is a strong scientific indicator that we didn’t speciate in the past

I would agree with you there. But there is a strong scientific indicator that nothing "speciated" in the past, the strong scientific indicator is that all life evolved very slowly.

So far you cannot give a theory that attempts to explain how, where, or when during reproduction biblical speciation takes place. So far you cannot give any observed evidence of this every happening.

So you don't have a detailed theory, and you don't have any evidence.

J C wrote:

There are probably a number of different mechanisms responsible for it.

List them, please.

J C wrote:

There is a fundamental difference between the black box that is a software component and the black box that is Abiogenesis.

There is a fundamental difference between a chemical reaction and a software component. But the usage of the term "black box" means exactly the same thing in both cases. A "black box" is an external component or factor that one does not need to understand the internal details of to work on their own system.

J C wrote:

The people who created the software component know how it works – and it therefore ISN’T a black box to them – and so isn’t ultimately a black box to science either.

I know, that is the point. Neither the theory of abiogenesis, nor the theory of evolution, are black boxes to science. They are black boxes to each other. The theory of gravity is a black box as far as evolution is concerned.

There is a theory of abiogenesis (a few actually), and there is a theory of evolution.

J C wrote:

However, the people researching Abiogenesis didn’t Create Abiogenesis itself and haven’t succeeded in Creating life artificially either – so Abiogenesis IS a black box to them as well as science!!!:D

The people researching abiogenesis don't need to create artifical life to formulate and test theories of abiogenesis. You haven't created an artifical God, yet I imagine you would claim to study and theorise about him every day.

J C wrote:

The conclusion that club moss requires more information in its blue print than humans would make no sense IF evolution was the mechanism either.

Yes it would. You would know it would if you understood evolution :rolleyes:

Because the process that builds club moss from DNA is independent from the process that builds humans from DNA the two aren't comparable. The club moss can use a bigger chromosome if that is ok with natural selection for the club moss. It doesn't check to see if the humans have evolved a better way of doing it. The only thing the evolution for the club moss is responsible for is the club moss. If there is no environmental reason to use a smaller chromosome then it will keep using the large chromosome. Why wouldn't it, it works just fine for the club moss.

I'm not an expert on club moss but I would imagine that evolution in club moss is very very slow, as it probably has adapted to its environment quite well and isn't the most dynamic of organisms.

What doesn't make sense is the idea that some over all intelligence designed all this at the same time. Therefore all the systems should be equally efficent and quite similar. That idea is ridiculious when you look at the evidence.

J C wrote:

……..but Evolutionists HAVEN’T any valid scientific explanation for the origin of life

"Evolutionists" aren't trying to. Chemical biologiests are, and they have come up with a number of working theories centring around chemical abiogenesis. These theories are being tested as best we can and so far look very plausable.

On the other hand no one has ever observed God make ANYTHING, and the observations of the differences in modern biological design rule out a grand unifed god-like intelligent design as a logical conclusion.

J C wrote:

Look, I hope that we all agree that the Human is vastly more complex than Club Moss.

Yes, we can.

J C wrote:

If I accept for the sake of argument that both organisms developed via ‘copying mistakes’ – then surely the number of ‘copying mistakes’ required to produce a Human would be in ratio to the vastly greater complexity observed in a Human – and therefore their DNA volume should reflect this difference i.e. be vastly greater.

No. Not at all.

You cannot assume that the greater the number of mutations in a species the more complex, structurely, the species (why would you assume this?) Evolution doesn't work like that. It all depends on what the mutation does. Baterial mutates much faster than a species like humans, yet are far less complex in their structure.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read up on evolution JC, because you still aren't getting it. This is getting so frustrating. You seem to view evolution in the way a child views something like the weather (ie in only the most basic simplest terms, not understanding anything remotely complex or beyond their limited view) It is like every post someone has to explain to you how another bit of evolutionary theory works

J C wrote:

I would say that it isn’t conclusive either way.

Well considering that that conclusion is devestating to your argument that Intelligent Design is the only logical explanation for life, I imagine you would :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

On this issue we simply don’t know enough yet to make a decision

Actually we do know enough. You just don't like the end decision because it disrupts your religious fantasy land.

J C wrote:

Equally, I’m sure that you don’t particularly care whether it is a 4.5 GB DVD or a 700 MB CD that you use to store a particular presentation.

Are you claiming that your prefect God didn't take particular care when designing life? Are you actually claiming that. Think for a minute, because you know if you do that ridiculous idea is just going to be used against you for the next 400 or so pages.

How does a perfect being not take particular care when doing anything? By definition of being perfect then how can he do a lazy job? His job will be done perfectly, by definition.

J C wrote:

Similarly, God probably wasn’t particularly bothered which carrier He used for the Club Moss

That is possibly the dumbest thing you have said so far :rolleyes:

Being a god it would have been just as easy for God to design everything with perfect care as it would have been for him not to. In fact God would have to chosen not to design life with perfect care. The idea that God would just make a mistake is ridiculous, he would have to choose to make a mistake, and I would imagine most of the Christians on this forum, and in the Creationist movement, would completely reject your idea of the lazy, mistaken, God

J C wrote:

……and my point remains valid that Sexual reproduction ALWAYS results in NEW genetic combinations – but these combinations are NOT copying errors.

You are right. It is the mutation is copying errors.

But I don't know why we are arguing this. Your theory of speciation DOESN'T WORK without mutation, by your own admission (I mean as far as I'm concerned according to biology it doesn't work at all)

I think your exact words were "Creation science has no problems mutation"

J C wrote:

Look, a blank DVD is no different to a blank sheet of paper – NEITHER has ANY information on it until you WRITE something on it!!!

A blank DVD is VERY DIFFERENT from a piece of paper. A DVD contains a series of either 0 or 1. There is no NULL setting. A "blank" DVD is all 0. THAT IS INFORMATION :rolleyes:

The only difference is how the computer interprets the information. Most computers interpret the information as being a blank DVD. But you could write a computer program to interpret that information as a colour, or a word.

J C wrote:

I’ll go with the theory that it was to confuse Evolutionists to the point where they start thinking like a Club Moss

Well according to your own religion God doesn't lie. So that would be a bit of a stupid theory.

You flip flop between God made a mistake, God was lazy, or God was lying. Neither of those options fits with Christian religion.

Can we both agree that you actually don't have an answer to this paradox JC

J C wrote:

Do you always issue blank cheques then, Wicknight, on the basis that they contain ‘exactly the same amount of information’ as ones with the figures filled in??!!!!

If you take a 800x600 digital photograph of cheque with €100 written on it, and a 800x600 digital photograph of a cheque with nothing written on it, there is the same amount of information in both photographs (800x600x24 bytes)

If you gave me a copy of the imagine with €100 on it I would not need a bigger storage medium (harddrive for example) to store that than the one with nothing written on it.

J C wrote:

Do YOU not know????

No I don't know.

I suspected that you were simply talking nonsense. You just confirmed that by being completely unable to explain what you were talking about.

Needless to say this has not come as a great shock to me :rolleyes:

"Trained scientists" my arse :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Fallen Seraph wrote:

Except for the part of the process which disposes of the bad mistakes, so that they don't accumulate. So no matter how many billions or trillions occur, it doesn't matter because they don't get passed on. Only the good ones. Nor is the process supposed to be fast. It's slow but sure.

Well said. Its natural selection.

The corner stone of neo-darwin evolution, the most important factor. And, unsurprisingly, the one bit that Creationists most often don't understand (often by choice because it is easier to dismiss evolution if you pretend natural selection doesn't happen).

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

What argument or logic does God use to convince people of this?

His being there, our awareness of His presence, is confirmation. His sheep hear His voice, they know Him and therefore follow Him. God has imparted a new nature to them, so that they both can recognise Christ's voice and will desire to obey Him. Those still without that nature also recognise to some extent that this is God's word, but they suppress that truth in their heart.

Er, no that isn't true. The only thing that can't be known for sure is what God "reveals" to you. Of course if God is lying then you shouldn't be listening anyway.

Right, so using your 'reality may be an illusion' premise, you still know for sure that what your senses and reasoning tell you is true? Sounds a bit confused to me.

What?? You appear to be saying that if you didn't believe in God you would have no reason to live? Is that not a little worrying to you?

You are confused! No, I am saying that no one can live with the idea that all that their mind tells them is an illusion.

Some things are immoral no matter how is doing them. While I agree there are different standards of morality (it is moral for the state to imprision someone, but not moral for you or I to do so), there is not a level at which anything becomes moral. As I said, it would not be moral for God to rape and torture of a 5 year old girl, under any circumstances.

I agree.

Again what ever the sin of the 5 year old girl, it would never be moral, under any circumstances, for God to punish her with raped and torture.

If we agree with that then we agree that there are some things that it is not moral for God to do.

Certainly. God cannot do anything immoral. Punishing unjustly is one of those things.

Morality applies to God as it applies to anything, the only question is the standards of morality. God, according to the Old Testament, causes immoral suffering on the people precieved as enemies or threats to His people. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for humans, it is unacceptable for a god.

This is where we differ. I do not accept you allegation that God punished unjustly in the OT.

No, he may not (see the rape and torture of the 5 year old).

To permit is not to prescribe. We permit people to behave foolishly and to bring suffering or deprivation to their families - smoking, drinking, gambling, for example.

Put it this way wolfsbane. Think of the most immoral and horrific act of cruelty and pain (to most people this would involve serious damage and assult to a child). Think of the worst crime you can imagine, such as the rape and torture of that child in America in the 90s who was kept as a sex slave by a pedophile and raped over and over for about a year. Now think could God do that and that would be ok? Could God rape and torture a child over and over for years on end?

No. He did not punish her with this, But He did permit it to happen. Every day He permits evil people to think, speak and act evilly. All are restrained by Him to some extent. Some are killed by Him and lift up their eyes in Hades, under punishment and awaiting the Day of Judgement and the eternal lake of fire. Most of mankind are not so removed, and their evil continues.

He orders that the women of the fallen soldiers to be given as sex slaves to His warriors.

I'm not sure to what text you refer. The closest I know of is:
Deuteronomy 21:10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.
No idea of a sex slave here: she is to be his wife. And to her applies the same conditions as that of a Jewish wife. Had you something else in mind?

I know I am a flawed human. I know I have caused pain and hurt to other people. I know I have regrets in my life. I feel guilt over this. I know I try to not repeat the same mistakes. I know I can be a better person. I know I should try and be a better person.

I know your god, if he exists, won't grant me what you hope he grants you. I will not worship him, I will not proclaim him worthy of worship, and as such he will not reward me. So be it.

From such poor material comes every Christian.:) Paul the apostle began as a blasphemer of Christ and a persecutor of His people. But God changed his heart. That is my prayer for you and all the friends on this board.

No, it is my empathity and compassion for others (something I dare say you seem a little lacking in).

Again, you err in your assessment because of your blindness to the Truth.
2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

You say that they are your gods property, that he can do with them as he wishes. You say they deserve this, you say that they have all sinned, because of the sin of Adam, that through Gods wish is passed from generation and generation, and that anything that God wishes to do with them is fair game.

Yes I do. But you err in ascribing all the suffering inflicted to the punishment of God. Some suffering is His punishment, but much suffering is just the consequences of living in an evil society (mankind). God does not make men do evil - in fact He has to restrain them, in order to save the world from extinction. Men act according to the desires of their heart.

You say this because he rewards for saying this with the temptation of eternal life in heaven.

I say it because it is true.

You of course are free to say that, but I reject that. It is immoral. Every fiber of my being tells me this is true, and I would rather die than to accept as moral the suffering, the pain, the inhumanity described by you as "justice". I am a weak flawed person. But I am not yet that weak, that flawed.

You imagine you are more righteous than God, and that man is not inherently evil, as the Bible portrays him. God will disabuse you of the former, sooner or later, and life may well instruct you of the latter.

Wolfsbane you aren't getting this - If you rely on him as his own witness then you will never know if he is lying to you

To use your if you premise, if you trust your senses, you will never know you don't exist!

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Wow, I can be quite dramatic when I've had a few glasses of sparkling white wine from New Zealand (oh yeah!)

All of the above stands, but possibility not in such a melodramatic fashion. The acts described in the Old Testament as either being carried out by or sanctioned by God are immoral. Wolfsbane will no doubt say that that is the blackness in my heart talking (or some such), but is it not rather odd that blackness in my heart (I assume from Satan) would make me have a higher standard of morality, a greater disgust for suffering and pain, than if I followed the Old Testament?

You believe the cause of the suffering and pain is the unjust judgement of God. Your disgust should rather apply to the wickedness of man that brings just punishment on some, man's evil on others, and the natural consequences of living in a fallen world to all.

A little wine is fine - abuse of it makes our naturally weak judgement even more problematic

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

So, I have to ask...the full TULIP?

Yes, I was not even raised a Christian, much less a 5-Point Calvinist. When I became a Christian I knew almost nothing of God's plan of salvation, etc. I naturally held to the concept of man's absolute free-will, and only when I began to study the Bible did I have to change my mind. In it I clearly read of God's absolute free-will.

Not that we deny man has a free-will, just that it is bound to his sinful nature. Man freely chooses to rebel against God, but being a sinner, he cannot and will not choose to follow Him. He needs a new nature before he can do that.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

You believe the cause of the suffering and pain is the unjust judgement of God.

In the stories of the Old Testament? Yes, I do

wolfsbane wrote:

Your disgust should rather apply to the wickedness of man that brings just punishment on some

Sorry wolfsbane, but that is rubbish.
Firstly rape and torture is an unjust punishment for any crime. Secondly the very act of punishing others for the sins of the few is unjust and immoral. God punishing the women and children of a tribe with rape and torture for the sins of the men of the tribe is unjust and immoral.

It is a corner stone of our modern justice system that if you are not guilty of a crime you are not punished for the crime. I admit this was not always the case in human history. Often the brother or son of the guilty man would be punished if the guilty man had fled. But that has been abandoned as being an immoral practice, an unjust practice.

wolfsbane wrote:

and the natural consequences of living in a fallen world to all.

Can we choose not to live in a fallen world? No. Can God choose not to inflict unjust pain and suffering on us? Yes.

You talk about God as if he doesn't choose what is sin and what is not sin, as if he doesn't choose what is punishment and what isn't punishment.

You talk about God as if he could not do anything but order that all married women in the enemy tribe be slain, that all male children be slain, and that all female virgins be given as sex slaves to his warriors. As if all this was just a "natural consequence" of something, and God had no choice in the matter.

That is nonsense.

gosimeon

I really think it is important to appreciate that the Bible is not a science book, nor does it make any claim to be one. The vast majority of the Bible is a reflection on humanity and spirituality, and an account of our saviour (If you believe).

Does it really wreck the Bible if the first few lines are rubbish?! Absolutely not. Whilst I think evolution is far from the absolute answer, it is still compatible with a God that created the universe and cares for it's dwellers. God could have, for example, created the conditions necessary for evolution to see the development of human beings. Evolution could be God's greatest tool, his best miracle.

So what about the Biblical account then?

Well, it's worth noting that even the most traditional of Jews usually see the Creation account as an attempt to comprehend God's work. It is a bit unfair to expect God to explain evolution and all that to some ancient prophet on a mountain top now, isn't it?

I also feel that Creationists are undermining and damaging. Christianity by encouraging the spread of ignorance. I believe that God has granted us with great abilities. Science is not a threat to faith, rather it adds to it by explaining the work of God in depth.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

Evolution could be God's greatest tool, his best miracle.

Exactly. The point Intelligent Design/Creationists don't get is that if God exists then EVERYTHING is intelligently designed. The weather is intelligently designed, gravity is intelligently designed, you are intelligently designed. All natural processes are intelligently designed. It makes little sense to claim that life would need to be some how more intelligently designed, ie direct magical intervention, to allow it to exist.

If God exists life doesn't need anything more than a natural process to exist. Claiming otherwise is almost like saying that while God made everything else using natural processes, God isn't clever enough to produce life using a natural process, he had to use magic

gosimeon wrote:

Well, it's worth noting that even the most traditional of Jews usually see the Creation account as an attempt to comprehend God's work. It is a bit unfair to expect God to explain evolution and all that to some ancient prophet on a mountain top now, isn't it?

Exactly. There is a very strong argument that the Bible stories are not meant to be taken literally, and never wear. A christian friend of my says that he learnt in Bible camp (he is from the US) that Genesis is a jewish creation poem, it was never the literal description of the events in it. This argument was around in the early church, and it is around today. But for some reason it is very important to some people's faith that they believe ever word in the Bible is literal. Its as if they cannot see the wood for the trees.

gosimeon

Ditto, Wicknight!

I think a lot of Genesis is metaphorical, and uses imagery etc. Therefore to take it literally is just stupid really.

Creationists need to have more faith.... :rolleyes:

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

gravity is intelligently designed,

Don't be daft. There is no gravity.

There appears to be gravity because things are moved by a higher intelligence to where they should be.

Its called Intelligent Falling, and is soon to be proposed for inclusion in American
schools' science curricula as "the alternate theory" for gravity which is clearly a theory in crisis due to its many inconsistencies.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Firstly rape and torture is an unjust punishment for any crime.

For some, it is reaping what they have sown. Rapists and torturers should expect severe judgement in this life, or certainly in the next. For others, it is not a punishment specific to them, but just the consequences of living in an evil society.

Secondly the very act of punishing others for the sins of the few is unjust and immoral. God punishing the women and children of a tribe with rape and torture for the sins of the men of the tribe is unjust and immoral.

Even the innocent in Germany suffered for the sins of the Nazis. Good and bad suffer national consequences. But let me question your use of the terms rape and torture as applied to God's punishment. You have yet to point out where you think God commands "Go in and rape and torture the women and children."

It is a corner stone of our modern justice system that if you are not guilty of a crime you are not punished for the crime. I admit this was not always the case in human history. Often the brother or son of the guilty man would be punished if the guilty man had fled. But that has been abandoned as being an immoral practice, an unjust practice.

Indeed so. But national guilt brought national judgement, and none of the nation were totally guiltless.

Can we choose not to live in a fallen world? No.

That does not make us any less wicked. Like it or not, we are born wicked, every one of us.

Can God choose not to inflict unjust pain and suffering on us? Yes.

And He does not inflict unjust punishment on us. He may permit evil men to do so, and that is the consequence of living in a wicked world.

You talk about God as if he doesn't choose what is sin and what is not sin, as if he doesn't choose what is punishment and what isn't punishment.

Sin is sin - a lack of holiness, purity, goodness. God can't make evil good, just to make us not guilty. He would then be less than holy.

You talk about God as if he could not do anything but order that all married women in the enemy tribe be slain, that all male children be slain, and that all female virgins be given as sex slaves to his warriors. As if all this was just a "natural consequence" of something, and God had no choice in the matter.

First, He could have spared them another 400 years, or 4000 years. But their wickedness was so bad that to do so would have made life for everyone unbearable. God spares many wicked people now - for a time. He spared the Canaanites when they were very wicked. But eventually one's wickedness must be ended. Imagine if the Nazis had been spared to continue their course for Hitler's desired 1000 years. Do you think that would have been for the good of mankind? But when their time to be cut down came, God sent the Red Army to reward them for their sins.

Secondly, I have pointed out before - there is no suggestion of sex-slaves. These women became wives with the same rights as Jewish women.

wolfsbane

gosimeon said:

I think a lot of Genesis is metaphorical, and uses imagery etc. Therefore to take it literally is just stupid really.

Creationists need to have more faith....

For the benefit of simple believers like myself, who take what appears to be narrative as such - especially when it is appealed to as history by Christ and the apostles - perhaps you would give us a quick indication of which parts of apparent historical narrative are metaphorical and which literal?

We know the Creation account is metaphor according to you. What about: Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel?
Enoch? Noah? The Flood?
Abraham? The Exodus?
The Kingdom under David? Solomon?

Daniel in Babylon?
The virgin conception of Christ?
His miracles?
His death and physical resurrection?
The descent of the Spirit at Pentecost?

Please say which of these is metaphorical and how you know the others are not.

gosimeon

wolfsbane wrote:

gosimeon said:

For the benefit of simple believers like myself, who take what appears to be narrative as such - especially when it is appealed to as history by Christ and the apostles - perhaps you would give us a quick indication of which parts of apparent historical narrative are metaphorical and which literal?

We know the Creation account is metaphor according to you. What about: Adam and Eve? Cain and Abel?
Enoch? Noah? The Flood?
Abraham? The Exodus?
The Kingdom under David? Solomon?

Daniel in Babylon?
The virgin conception of Christ?
His miracles?
His death and physical resurrection?
The descent of the Spirit at Pentecost?

Please say which of these is metaphorical and how you know the others are not.

Well if you read my post you will see I state I feel a lot of GENESIS is metaphorical and uses imagery to contemplate something that the people of the time could not comprehend. Many of the questions you ask are not based on Genesis scripture.

From Edodus on, one can find a link between what is written and the history/archaeology of the time. It is then things start getting serious.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Rapists and torturers should expect severe judgement in this life, or certainly in the next.

That would be because raping and torturing some is immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

For others, it is not a punishment specific to them, but just the consequences of living in an evil society.

How do you define an "evil" society if the "good" society rapes women and kills children?

wolfsbane wrote:

Even the innocent in Germany suffered for the sins of the Nazis.

They did, but that wasn't justice, nor moral.

The German child killed in an alllied bombing raid was not killed as punishment for being unlucky enough to be born in a country that had elected an evil government. The child had done nothing to warrent such a punishment. She was killed for simply being unlucky to get caught under the bomb. But the allies didn't possess the power to carpet bomb Berlin without killing innocent people, people that they otherwise would not have sentenced to die.

God does have that power, and yet (according to the Old Testament), he decided that the children of the enemy should be killed. That is immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

Good and bad suffer national consequences.

Only because it is unavoidable that some innocent suffer. If it was avoidable it would be avoided. You will notice that NATO don't tend to carpet bomb cities anymore, because they have developed so called "smart bombs", that can pin point specific locations.

wolfsbane wrote:

But let me question your use of the terms rape and torture as applied to God's punishment. You have yet to point out where you think God commands "Go in and rape and torture the women and children."

Firstly, does that mean you agree that it would not be acceptable for God to rape and torture people if he so ordered? That is an important point, it means that morality does apply to God as it applies to anything else.

Secondly, quick Google pulls up numerous examples -

Deut 21-
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Numbers 31-
Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

2 Samuel 12 -
"This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' " 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

wolfsbane wrote:

Indeed so. But national guilt brought national judgement, and none of the nation were totally guiltless.

What were the children guilty of?

wolfsbane wrote:

That does not make us any less wicked. Like it or not, we are born wicked, every one of us.

Well firstly a large number of Christians, Muslims and Jews reject the idea of original sin. Secondly even if one accepts this concept we are only "born wicked" because God decided that we would be born wicked. Which makes him immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

And He does not inflict unjust punishment on us.

If by "us" you mean those in the Old Testament, he does. All the time.

God kills Davids son and causes his wives to be raped in broad daylight. How is that justice? I would be rather pissed off if I was killed because my dad didn't pay his TV license.

wolfsbane wrote:

He may permit evil men to do so

He doesn't permit it, as in some kind of free will thing. He tells them to do it, under his order.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sin is sin - a lack of holiness, purity, goodness. God can't make evil good, just to make us not guilty.

God invented original sin did he not? I mean, the universe works under his rules. He decided that Adam's sin would be passed down to all humans. He decided that all humans would be wicked. We weren't going to be wicked, and now we are, because God decided that we would be. That is pretty clear cut Wolfsbane.

wolfsbane wrote:

First, He could have spared them another 400 years, or 4000 years. But their wickedness was so bad that to do so would have made life for everyone unbearable.

Wolfsbane they weren't killed because they were wicked. They were killed for their lands.

wolfsbane wrote:

Imagine if the Nazis had been spared to continue their course for Hitler's desired 1000 years.

Wolfsbane the Bible does not describe sentencing wicked men to death. It describes sentencing entire tribes, men women and children, to death. It describes giving ALL virgins to be raped.

You can rationalise this anyway you want, you can pretend that ALL these people were wicked and evil, or that God had to do this for some unknown reason. The simple fact is that that is all that is, an excuse.

And I would point out, a very scary one at that. If one views an entire people with contempt because of the actions of some of the population, it is not a huge jump from that to something like Aparthit or the Holocaust.

wolfsbane wrote:

Do you think that would have been for the good of mankind?

I don't care. Killing the Jewish in German was good for the German economy, and for property prices. That doesn't make it moral.

The events described in the Old Testament were certainly good for God's chosen people, the Israelites. They got as much land and virgins as they wanted. But that doesn't make it any more moral.

wolfsbane wrote:

Secondly, I have pointed out before - there is no suggestion of sex-slaves. These women became wives with the same rights as Jewish women.

As I explained to BC it is possible to rape your wife Wolfsbane :rolleyes: These women were forced into marriage and they were forced into sex. In those days that was sex-slavery.

gosimeon

The fact that the Bible lists punishments and laws that we today would consider immoral is undeniable.

However one must take into account the context of these occurances and laws. Was it necessary for God be so harsh?

Many people / tribes were worshipping pagan gods. God arguably had to make it clear this was wrong.

God had to set himself out as the main figure with mankind. Hardline, autocratic leadership and punishment may have been necessary in order for God to establish himself and ensure the coming alive on Judaism, and then Christianity.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

The fact that the Bible lists punishments and laws that we today would consider immoral is undeniable.

However one must take into account the context of these occurances and laws. Was it necessary for God be so harsh?

Many people / tribes were worshipping pagan gods. God arguably had to make it clear this was wrong.

That is a fine enough argument, but it is not a moral position. I can make it clear that it is wrong to steal by sentencing a 10 year old to a good talking to, a snack on the bottom, or a stoning. It is debatable if the child needs to be stoned to death for this message to get across.

The assumption here is that God had to do this for humans to get the message. Of course the other side is that God just did it because he didn't give a crap.

Besides the reason these "wicked" people were genocided was not because they were wicked. They were genocided because the Israelites need the land, and they needed the women (the virgins mind)

gosimeon wrote:

God had to set himself out as the main figure with mankind.

Yes, but did he have to do it this way?

gosimeon wrote:

Hardline, autocratic leadership and punishment may have been necessary in order for God to establish himself and ensure the coming alive on Judaism, and then Christianity.

But that is only because God restricted himself intially to the Hewbrews. God didn't seem that bothered about others worshipping him, he seemed more interested in others being whipped out so that the Israelites could take there land, gold and women.

gosimeon

I understand your points completely, I often feel that the God of the OT seems incompatible with Jesus Christ.

But a historical and cultural context clears things up a lot. How could a loving God command the destruction of all those innocent people? The argument sounds good, but it is utterly false. The unstated assumption is that the people who God ordered destroyed were morally equivalent to the Jews, who replaced them. However, this is what the Bible says about the people who were destroyed:

"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5)

These people, the ancient tribes, had pretty awful practices, including burning their own children to death as a sacrafice to gods:

"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

God is both loving and righteous. Those that say He is righteous to a fault should also contemplate then that he is loving to a fault. He, according to the NT, offers the forgiveness off our sins in return of faith in him.

The cultural context dictates that these tribes were unruly and had some awful practices. They would most certainly not have had open minds to Gods plan.

I agree that the OT "version" of God can seem too harsh at times. However, throughout the OT, God is said to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13). He is slow to anger, we are told. It seems that the pagan tribes pushed this patience to the limits. Their survival might well have been detrimental to the survival and growth of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps in the OT cases, the ends did justify the means as:
-Gods actions showed sinfulness in not tolerated
-Gods actions showed he was real, and powerful
-Gods actions paved the way for the birth of Judaism and Christianity

gosimeon

Wicknight wrote:

That is a fine enough argument, but it is not a moral position. I can make it clear that it is wrong to steal by sentencing a 10 year old to a good talking to, a snack on the bottom, or a stoning. It is debatable if the child needs to be stoned to death for this message to get across.

Then idea of stoning was (unfortunately) not a foreign idea in this context, and was a punishment that people could relate to. God was catering for the then, not the now. He catered for us in the NT. I also feel that the punishment does not fit the crime at times in the OT, I'm totally opposed to the death penalty, yet I see that God was working with a primitive enough society who relied totally on autocratic ruling and obedience.

BrianCalgary

gosimeon wrote:

I understand your points completely, I often feel that the God of the OT seems incompatible with Jesus Christ.

But a historical and cultural context clears things up a lot. How could a loving God command the destruction of all those innocent people? The argument sounds good, but it is utterly false. The unstated assumption is that the people who God ordered destroyed were morally equivalent to the Jews, who replaced them. However, this is what the Bible says about the people who were destroyed:

"It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deuteronomy 9:5)

These people, the ancient tribes, had pretty awful practices, including burning their own children to death as a sacrafice to gods:

"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. (Deuteronomy 12:31)

God is both loving and righteous. Those that say He is righteous to a fault should also contemplate then that he is loving to a fault. He, according to the NT, offers the forgiveness off our sins in return of faith in him.

The cultural context dictates that these tribes were unruly and had some awful practices. They would most certainly not have had open minds to Gods plan.

I agree that the OT "version" of God can seem too harsh at times. However, throughout the OT, God is said to be “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth” (Exodus 34:6; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 4:31; Nehemiah 9:17; Psalm 86:5; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 108:4; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13). He is slow to anger, we are told. It seems that the pagan tribes pushed this patience to the limits. Their survival might well have been detrimental to the survival and growth of Judaism and Christianity. Perhaps in the OT cases, the ends did justify the means as:
-Gods actions showed sinfulness in not tolerated
-Gods actions showed he was real, and powerful
-Gods actions paved the way for the birth of Judaism and Christianity

Well put gosimeon. I think the line How could a loving God command the destruction of all those innocent people? sums it up. Who says that those people were innocent. they were very guilty of sin, as you have shown.

What amazes me is that God offered them grace. See what happened to the inhabitants of Nineveh in Jonah. God offered them grace, they accepted it, turned from their evil ways and were spared. Jonah didn't want to go and offer them grace, Jonah felt that God should have blown them away. But God is gracious.

Today we offer human sacrifice as well. On a daily basis all over the world and society condones it and pays for it.

hairyheretic

gosimeon wrote:

These people, the ancient tribes, had pretty awful practices, including burning their own children to death as a sacrafice to gods:

Demonising your enemies was, and indeed is, a fairly common human trait. "Oh, they do these terrible things, so we shouldn't feel bad for doing terrible things to them."

Also, history tends to be written by the winners.

gosimeon

If you looked into the history and cultural context of a lot of the OT, you would see it was common to do things like sacrafice your children, asnd other pagan rituals, it is not a case of demonising enemies

That is your rebellion against your conscience speaking. You know you are the sinner described in the Bible, and you know God is the One to whom you must answer - but you don’t want to know it and so you suppress it. But Truth will out.

lol. No, that's what you want to think.
That's your rebellion against your reasoning speaking
You know you're the fundie described by many and that your belief is a comfort blanket but you suppress it. But truth will come out!

hairyheretic

gosimeon wrote:

If you looked into the history and cultural context of a lot of the OT, you would see it was common to do things like sacrafice your children, asnd other pagan rituals,

I'd be curious to read up on it. Do you have any links or books that deal with this?

gosimeon wrote:

it is not a case of demonising enemies

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It is a human trait though, that has been demonstrated frequently throughout history. I'd not be surprised if it were a factor here.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

But a historical and cultural context clears things up a lot. How could a loving God command the destruction of all those innocent people? The argument sounds good, but it is utterly false. The unstated assumption is that the people who God ordered destroyed were morally equivalent to the Jews, who replaced them.

Well, as I asked Wolfbane, how does one define "evil" when the "good" people genocide entire countries, murder children and rape women?

It is all very well saying that these people had wicked pratices. That is probably true, it was a very barbaric time.

But the argument that was necessary to wipe them off the face of the Earth in order to stop this wickedness doesn't hold as a moral choice. This is God after all we are talking about. Its not like he didn't have other options.

Its like arguing that Rwanda should be nuked because they keep having wars. Or claiming that the solution to the Sunni/Shia sectarian fighting is to just kill all the Sunnis. It certainly is a solution to the problem, but it is not a moral solution to the problem.

Within any wicked culture, from the Rwanda militias to Nazi Germany, there are wicked people who lead, wicked people who follow, and the rest, who are just unlucky enough to be born in that time and that place. The rest are normally the majority. One of the most disturbing elements of the Old Testament stories is that no distinction is made. In fact when the Israelite soldiers come back from a particular raid, presumable having killed or captured the leaders and the army, Moses gives out to them for not killing everyone

gosimeon wrote:

These people, the ancient tribes, had pretty awful practices, including burning their own children to death as a sacrafice to gods:

The Israelites had pretty awful practices too. The objection in the Bible seems to be more that they were wicked for doing these things for other God, rather than doing them in the first place.

Also, as Hairy points out, demonising the opposition as it were was a common practice back then. It gave a justification for taking the land. You will notice that while God explained to the Israelites that taking the land, the women, and the riches was not the main reason for attacking these countries, the Israelites still took the land the women and the riches. Its a bit like Bush and Blair saying they didn't go into Iraq for the oil.

gosimeon wrote:

He, according to the NT, offers the forgiveness off our sins in return of faith in him.

That's not a very fair deal, since he is the reason we have sin in the first place.

If a government destroyed all wells in an area, forcing all the people to drink from one well, and then claimed that drinking from this well was a criminal offence unless you voted for the government, do you think that would be fair?

We punish those that do immoral things because we cannot change the nature of immorality. We cannot make it so that one cannot kill, or rape, or steal. So we have to deal with the way things are. God could have. Things are the way they are because God decided that things would be the way they are. They couldn't be any other way without God, since under Judeo/Christian teaching the universe cannot create itself.

So when someone says we are all sinful, that we are all wicked, we are this way because God has decided that we will be this way. The idea that we should then be grateful for God for forgiving our wicked nature, a nature he is responsible for in the first place, is ridiculous.

gosimeon wrote:

The cultural context dictates that these tribes were unruly and had some awful practices. They would most certainly not have had open minds to Gods plan.

I don't doubt that. My point is that the actions authorised by God towards these "wicked" people were immoral.

Genocide is immoral, even if you are genociding a particularly bad society. Killing children is immoral, even if you are killing children just so they won't grow up to be sinful. Raping the plunder of the virgins of a tribe is immoral, even if you are ... well I'm not quite sure the justification for that one.

gosimeon wrote:

He is slow to anger, we are told.

Well leaving aside the paradox of a god getting "angry", the idea of God being slow to anger doesn't seem to fit with actions described. Of course considering God lasts forever, exists outside of time and sees all including the future, I'm not sure how "slow" is even measured in relation to a god?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

That's not a very fair deal, since he is the reason we have sin in the first place.

Nope, man is the reason we have sin. It is man who chooses to commit sin, not God.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Nope, man is the reason we have sin. It is man who chooses to commit sin, not God.

Who created "sin". Who created the concept of "sin"? Who defined "sin"? Who made the rules of the universe that defined what is and what is not a "sinful" act? Who created the option to sin?

I would also point out that a lot of posters here have been saying that mankind is born sinful, it is our nature, that we are born in a wicked state, because of Adam. Therefore there is no choice involved. Who decided that sin would be passed on through the generations? Who decided that all humans would be born in a default state of wickness?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Who created "sin"?

Satan
.

Wicknight wrote:

Who created the concept of "sin"?

Satan

Wicknight wrote:

Who defined "sin"?

God

Wicknight wrote:

Who made the rules of the universe that defined what is and what is not a "sinful" act?

God

Wicknight wrote:

Who created the option to sin?

God

We have laws in our land. If someone breaks that law, whose fault is it, the lawmakers for creating the law, or the one who breaks it? After all if there was no law against speeding, I couldn't break it now could I. So my next speeding ticket I receive I'll have the lawmakers pay, because it is their fault for creating the law in the first place?

Wicknight wrote:

I would also point out that a lot of posters here have been saying that mankind is born sinful, it is our nature, that we are born in a wicked state, because of Adam. Therefore there is no choice involved. Who decided that sin would be passed on through the generations? Who decided that all humans would be born in a default state of wickness?

We are born with sin, there is no doubt about it, we all do it. The question is are you forgiven for it. Our original purpose at creation is to be in communion with God and without sin, yet we all blow it. We decide to sin. You can try and put the blame on God all you want, it is our nature to blame someone else for our wrong doings. We see it daily in our courts, I see it with my dealings with people. It is always someone elses fault that we have commited whatever crime it is.

Why not then say: and God has given me a way to be forgiven. He gave of Himself so That I may live. That is called grace, and is quite foreign to us as humans. But it is there.