The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

To Scofflaw and Bluewolf:

Charter rule 7 states: "Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.":

Calling someone a liar, is getting personal and inflames and insults.

Question someones facts, ask for clarification on their statements but DO NOT call someone a liar.

Thanks

Well, you're moderating, so yours is the final call. I disagree, but will drop the matter.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

To Scofflaw and Bluewolf:

Charter rule 7 states: "Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.":

Calling someone a liar, is getting personal and inflames and insults.

Question someones facts, ask for clarification on their statements but DO NOT call someone a liar.

Thanks

I made it clear that my response would be the same to anyone who made such a claim. It was in no way personal. I didn't insult him at all.
But claiming to have read ALL the books on evolution is simply absurd.
If everyone else is dropping it I'll be happy to as well since JC admitted what he said was untrue, but I do feel that we are entitled to call people on blatant untruths or there is no point to debating.

gosimeon

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but the point is the earliest manuscripts we have were written a thousand years after the events they describe.

No.

Matthew dated 50AD
Mark dated 60AD
Luke dated early 60's
John dated approx 80AD

Older manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts found have verified that earlier copies existed and that, as far as can be seen, were translated / copied loyally throughout the years.

Archaeology does back up the events in the bible, as does history and cultural context.

Jewish historians have written about Jesus. Many were critical, however one mentioned his great works and many loyal followers. Another references to his disappearance from his tomb and the furore it caused - although this historian felt the body may have been removed (a theory that has been pretty much disproved today).

Therefore, we know that:
Jesus existed
He performed great works
The NT, a testament to his great works, is reliable as far as it is unaltered.
Those that wrote and sourced the NT made great sacrafices in following Christ, up to and including death.
Jesus created a great following immediately - many were impressed by his works and believed him to be the messiah.
His body disappeared from the tomb.


Now, one can either saw that Jesus was the greatest hoax of all time who could foll anybody or else he was truly what he claimed to be - the Son of God.

It takes a leap of faith no matter what you believe, I guess.

Sorry for my lack of sourcing. I'm tight for time. If any of you don't believe me I'll route out sources tomorrow evening!!

Asiaprod

gosimeon wrote:

Another references to his disappearance from his tomb and the furore it caused - although this historian felt the body may have been removed (a theory that has been pretty much disproved today).

Really! Not as far as I am aware. How do you think this has been disproved?

bonkey

gosimeon wrote:

Therefore, we know that:

The NT, a testament to his great works, is reliable as far as it is unaltered.

Don't you mean the four gospels, rather than the New Testament.

As to them being unaltered....the original manuscripts are known to be relatively concurrent with the time they refer to. This does not prove that :

1) There were no other concurrent documents which have been excluded because they tell a different story.
2) The translations and revisions of translations throughout the years remain accurate.
3) The works of the 4 gospels is accurate to begin with. There was no official documentator standing by at the birth of Christ, who followed him around all of his years, faithfully documenting everything. Particularly of note would also be any section where Jesus went somewhere (e.g. the desert) on his own. Obviously some of hte information must - at best - be second hand.
4) There is evidence of plagiarism between the four gospels, further reducing the strength of verification that multiple works can offer.

That the guy existed is literally beyond question. That he claimed to be the Son of God is not quite so certain. That he was the son of God is not and cannot be established through documentation which has been selected by his followers who already accepted such a fact. Like you said - it takes a leap of faith. One must accept that the writing is true and accurate, and this cannot be established beyond a certain degree of uncertainty.

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

No.

Matthew dated 50AD
Mark dated 60AD
Luke dated early 60's
John dated approx 80AD

Genesis is set approx 4000 BCE (Before Common Era, a secular version of BC), but was probably not written down until the time of King David (950 BCE), and the earliest surviving manuscripts date from much later.

This is the same for most of the books in the Old Testament. The were originally oral stories, hundreds of years later were written down, with various different versions, and again hundreds of years later these versions were edited and standardised under one canon (a process where all the versions are edited to they all make logical sense, example being George Lucas altering the original Star Wars movies so they fit better with the new StarWars movies)

Further http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

gosimeon wrote:

Jewish historians have written about Jesus. Many were critical, however one mentioned his great works and many loyal followers.

There is actually very little reference to Jesus by non-Christian sources. One Jewish historian recorded that there was a religious movement around 20 CE (Common Era, secular version of AD) that believed their leader was the Messiah. But that is about it.

gosimeon wrote:

Another references to his disappearance from his tomb and the furore it caused

I'm not aware of any non-Christian source that references the disappearance of Jesus from his tomb, or even references his burial in a tomb in the first place, which would have been highly unusual given that he was cruxified.

gosimeon wrote:

Therefore, we know that:
Jesus existed
He performed great works
The NT, a testament to his great works, is reliable as far as it is unaltered.
Those that wrote and sourced the NT made great sacrafices in following Christ, up to and including death.
Jesus created a great following immediately - many were impressed by his works and believed him to be the messiah.
His body disappeared from the tomb.

I'm afraid from a historical perspective the only one we know is that Jesus or someone very like him, probably existed. Everything else we only have the religions own sources for.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Don't you mean the four gospels, rather than the New Testament.

As to them being unaltered....the original manuscripts are known to be relatively concurrent with the time they refer to. This does not prove that :

1) There were no other concurrent documents which have been excluded because they tell a different story.

Early Church histories show that different writers had slightly different lists of what they considered canonical.

bonkey wrote:

2) The translations and revisions of translations throughout the years remain accurate.

Which is the case for no other known document.

bonkey wrote:

3) The works of the 4 gospels is accurate to begin with. There was no official documentator standing by at the birth of Christ, who followed him around all of his years, faithfully documenting everything. Particularly of note would also be any section where Jesus went somewhere (e.g. the desert) on his own. Obviously some of hte information must - at best - be second hand.

They cannot all be accurate, since they are contradictory in detail, and contain different major narrative events.

bonkey wrote:

4) There is evidence of plagiarism between the four gospels, further reducing the strength of verification that multiple works can offer.

To quote Wikipedia:

"The relationship of Matthew to the Gospels of Mark and Luke is an open question known as the synoptic problem. The three together are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels and have a great deal of overlap in sentence structure and word choice. Out of a total of 1,071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark alone, 184 with Luke alone; only 370 being unique to itself."

bonkey wrote:

That the guy existed is literally beyond question.

What makes you say that? Last I heard no-one had confirmed his historical existence from unbiased sources. Even including the doubtful sources, the evidence is incredibly weak.


cordially,
Scofflaw

gosimeon

Jesus is a historical figure, face it!

The following article is taken from http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html and well worth a read. Whilst the Divinty of Jesus cannot be proved, his existance can.

Article:
Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to Jesus, thus removing the only supporting source for His existence as being in the New Testament. In 115 A.D., Tactius wrote about the great fire in Rome, "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths, Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed."

It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events. "All we can gather from this reference is that Tactius was also aware of the existence of Christians other than in the context of their presence in Rome," states Habermas. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian, wrote, "Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the City." Chrestus is a variant spelling of Christ. Suetonius refers to a wave of riots that broke out in a large Jewish community in Rome during the year 49 A.D. As a result, the Jews were banished from the city.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The first reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote, "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.

Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century, Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote in 112 A.D., two hundred years before the "deity" proclamation, that Christians in Bithynia worshipped Christ.

Two references have been made to a report by Pontius Pilate. The references include Justin Martyr (150 A..D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.). Both references correspond with the fact that there was an official document in Rome from Pilate. The Pilate report detailed the crucifixion but also reported acts of miracles. Emperor Tiberius acted on Pilate's report, according to Tertullian, to the Roman Senate. "Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favor of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Caesar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians."

RECORDED IN THE TALMUD

The Talmud, which consists of Jewish traditions handed down orally from generation to generation, was organized by Rabbi Akiba before his death in 135 A.D. The writings in the Talmud embrace the legal, ritual and exegetical commentaries that have developed right down to contemporary times. In Sanhedrin 43a, reference to Jesus is found. "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."If Jesus had been stoned, his death would have been at the hands of the Jews. The fact he was crucified shows that the Romans intervened. The Talmud also speaks of five of Jesus' disciples and recounts their standing before judges who made individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. No deaths are recorded.

Other Talmud references to Jesus indicated that Jesus was "treated differently from others who led the people astray, for he was connected with royalty." These Talmud accounts were written long before the New Testament was assembled. They provide clear evidence that Jesus did live. The Talmud does not embrace Christ as a deity and would have no reason to sanction his existence. The Talmud also states that Jesus was 33 or 34 years old when he died. The risen Christ is the foundation of Christianity. But Christ would have to have lived and died before His resurrection could become an historical factor.

Toledoth Jesu is also part of Jewish writing, as well. The disputed text states that the disciples of Jesus had planned to steal the fallen body of Christ. However, a gardener named Juda discovered their plans and dug a new grave in his garden. Then he removed Jesus' body from Joseph's tomb and placed it in his own newly dug grave. The disciples came to the original tomb, found Jesus' body gone and proclaimed him risen. The Jewish leaders also proceeded to Joseph's tomb and found it empty. Juda then took them to his grave and dug up the body of Jesus. The Jewish leaders were greatly relieved and wanted to take the body. Juda replied that he would sell them the body of Jesus and did so for thirty pieces of silver. The Jewish priests then dragged Jesus' body through the streets of Jerusalem. Strangely enough, Juda and Judas are similar, in the Talmud Juda receives thirty pieces of silver and in the New Testament Judas receives thirty pieces of silver. Shortly after this time, the Emperor decreed that grave robbing in Palestine would be a capital offense.

These commentaries have been discredited by Jewish and Christian scholars. The anti-Christian commentary was created in the fifth century. The importance of this passage, historically correct or not, is to place Jesus in the tomb of Joseph after crucifixion and to record the consternation of the Jewish Priests. This places historic significance on the fact that Jesus did live and die in history. He was not a myth.

The New Testament speaks of a census at the time of Christ's birth. Historical records indicate that a census was ordered in Syria and Judea between 6 and 5 B.C. and 5 and 6 A.D. Returning to a person's home city was definitely the practice of the time. Luke refers to Quirinius being governor of Syria during the time of the census, again historically correct.

The second century Greek satirist Lucian, though speaking derisively of Jesus and the early Christians, does establish the worship of Christ within the first century of his death. "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day, the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods, alike, regarding them merely as common property."

THE BURIAL CAVE OF CAIAPHAS, THE LATEST FIND

The New Testament refers to the High Priest Caiaphas. Records of the Temple of Jerusalem where destroyed and history has not been able to verify that Caiaphas, like Christ, existed. If no evidence existed of Caiaphas when the New Testament was embraced by the Christians of the second century, then it would have been a fact lost to history. But now, 1,950 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, a public works project building a water park in November 1990 accidentally uncovered an ancient burial cave. The inscription in the burial chamber was that of the Caiaphas family. The Caiaphas name had only been mentioned in the New Testament and by Flavius Josephus, no Jewish records have been found with Caiaphas' name linked to being the high priest. The remains of a 60-year-old man were found in the burial cave that may have been the High Priest Caiaphas. The inscription on his craved ossuary, fit for a high priest, was the name Yehosef bar Qafa (Joseph, son of Caiaphas). Coins found in the cave were bronze minted in 42/43 (C.E.) during the reign of Herod Agrippa I. These are similar to images of coins found on the Shroud of Turin Ð believed by many scientists to be the burial shroud of Christ.

According to Ronny Reich in an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, "Very few of the hundreds of people who walk through the pages of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament have been attested in archeological finds. Now, to that small list, we may add, in all probability, the high priest who presided at Jesus' trial, or at least a member of his family." It adds, "From the period between the second century B.C.E. and the second century C.E., there are only six such names, and perhaps you will exclude one or two of these because they are names of rulers or former rulers. Three of these names, however, are especially pertinent here because they, like Caiaphas, come from priestly families."

The New Testament only refers to the High Priest as Caiaphas, but Josephus refers to him as Joseph, who was called Caiaphas of the high priesthood. Joseph or Caiaphas was the high priest in Jerusalem between 18 and 36 C.E.

Scofflaw

We have an equally large (or larger) number of references to Robin Hood, or King Arthur, or Hereward the Wake, or Spring-Heeld Jack, or Lao Tzu, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or....well, the list is nearly endless. No-one is certain whether these are real people, or conflations of several other people, or entirely made up.

Usually there is some sort of "seed" person, around whom events and sayings from other lives accumulate, along with bits of mythology and folk tales.

It is a very long step from accepting that Jesus son of Joseph was real to being able to state with certainty that the Gospels correctly describe this person and his life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

We have an equally large (or larger) number of references to Robin Hood, or King Arthur, or Hereward the Wake, or Spring-Heeld Jack, or Lao Tzu, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or....well, the list is nearly endless. No-one is certain whether these are real people, or conflations of several other people, or entirely made up.

Usually there is some sort of "seed" person, around whom events and sayings from other lives accumulate, along with bits of mythology and folk tales.

Aww Scofflaw we can apply that type of logic to anyone in history, will we now try and say that Ramese II didn't really exist, but was a compilation of many Egyptian rulers and bureuacrats. Or let's deny the personhood of Confucious, or maybe you yourself aren't really real but a compilation of many?

Scofflaw wrote:

It is a very long step from accepting that Jesus son of Joseph was real to being able to state with certainty that the Gospels correctly describe this person and his life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

One exercise tha thistorians use is the method of contradictory reports. They look for writings that contradict the accounts that currently exist, if those reports do exist, now you have to attempt to discern the fact from the fiction.

In the case of Jesus ther are no contradictory accounts regarding the circumstances of His life. There are only writings that add credence to the gospel accounts.

The Talmud supports his miracles, yet deny that they were miracles, calling it sorcery:
'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Early Church histories show that different writers had slightly different lists of what they considered canonical.

Actually not. History shows that the early church fathers have agreement on the books of the New Testament. I don't have th etime at the moment to compile the lists of recognized documents by the early fathers, but it can be done.

hairyheretic

Wasn't the canon NT list finally nailed down about the year 400 or so? Or am I thinking of something else?

robindch

> History shows that the early church fathers have agreement on
> the books of the New Testament.

That's a mildly inaccurate thing to say!

There were violent arguments over what was "canonical" and what was not "canonical" and these arguments took centuries, and many councils, to quell. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia -- not known for painting its predecessors in a dim light -- feels compelled to imply, if not actually say, as much:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development [...]

Once the canon was decided -- and different churches decided on different canons -- enormous efforts were then expended in destroying alternate documents and histories, which is why the early history of the church is so difficult to study today and why there are so few original copies of the NT apocrypha and other texts remaining. They were simply destroyed by the people who were unable to tolerate dissent.

Anyhow, with largely the same set of books to work from, violent arguments could then arise in how the books were interpreted, giving rise to such events as the Arian and other heresies. But with so much text to choose from, so many interpretations to work with, and little united political will in settling the issue one way or the other, the problem of which interpretation is "canonical" was never really addressed with anything like the same vigor as the issue of source texts.

These disagreements over interpretation continue to this day with the supporters of each interpretation asserting that the supporters of the other interpretations are in states of in religious error.

wolfsbane

Guys, my apologies for not yet responding to several important posts. a crisis at work has drawn me back into 6-night extended overtime. I hope to get something posted this weekend. Regards.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

Guys, my apologies for not yet responding to several important posts. a crisis at work has drawn me back into 6-night extended overtime. I hope to get something posted this weekend. Regards.

We lookforward to your return, don't work too hard:)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

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

A evil society is one which disobeys God. As I said before, the 'rape' turns out to be enforced marriage. I'm sure the woman had the choice to refuse. That would have meant she would have died with the rest of the inhabitants of course. The rightness of their deaths was not determined by Israelite society, but by God who made them and had absolute rights to determine their time and manner of death. He continues to exercise that prerogative with us all today.

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.

Yes, the children were destroyed with their sinful parents. That does not mean the children were being punished, rather their parents. The death of anyone is not a proof of their punishment. God gives life to all, and He alone determines when and how to take it back. Nothing immoral in that. That is His right. It is not our right, however, and that is where you get confused about morality.

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.

Rape is intrinsically immoral, therefore God would not commend or validate it. Torture may be valid in some circumstances. Yes, morality applies to God, in that He cannot do that which is unrighteous. He cannot act against His nature.

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.

Percisely my point: You must not sell her or treat her as a slave

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.

Same thing - virgins to be taken as wives.

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."

God was going to deliver David's house into the hands of evil men. They were going to do to them according to the evil of their hearts - just as David had done. That does not mean God commends their evil. He permits it to fall on David, as a chastisement to David and a warning to others.

What were the children guilty of?

Nothing that caused this. It was not a punishment on them, but on their parents.

Well firstly a large number of Christians, Muslims and Jews reject the idea of original sin.

Sure, but authentic Christianity holds to it.

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.

Yes, this is the essence of the objection to God's morality. All the other issues are funnelled through this key premise. How can God be moral and have created a world He knew would fall into sin? Would it not be better, more kind, not to have created it?

I'll come to the Biblical, Christian position in a moment. The only logical alternatives to it I have heard from some professing to be Christian is either the Open Theism one (God did not know how creation would turn out) or the Universalist one (everyone is going to be saved in the end). Neither of these are compatible with the Bible.

The Problem of Evil is addressed in the Bible primarily by pointing us to the nature of God contrasted with the nature of man. An extended address is found in the entire book of Job. The righteous man is permitted to suffer greatly under the assaults of Satan. His complaints to God and the attempts of his friends to account for his suffering, and God's reply are well worth reading. It comes down to this: God loves Job but has permitted his suffering for His own inscrutible reasons. Paul addresses the issue in Romans 9, again coming down to the right of the Potter over the clay, and God's love for His people. He works everything, including their suffering, for their ultimate benefit. The wicked men and angels are left to perish in their wickedness, according to His righteous and sovereign will.

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

Not so. They do what they desire to do, He permits or prevents that according to what He wants to happen. The great example is the murder of His Son, Jesus Christ:
Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

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.

Yes, the universe works according to His rules. But He may choose to allow evil to exist, rather than make it do so. You have no reason to say We weren't going to be wicked. What might have been is beyond our understanding. The reality is this: God is infinitely holy, we are sinners; God is wise and powerful enough to make the universe and all in it, we tinker with some of its wonders. Knowing this should keep us from replying against God. For the Christian, we have an even stronger reason: God showed His love for us in sending His Son to bear the punishment for our sins. Wisdom and Love make us confess that God is good.

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

Deuteronomy 9:4 “Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.

Yes, morality applies to God, in that He cannot do that which is unrighteous. He cannot act against His nature.

If god gets to decide righteousness (which you've already insisted), then the whole thing is moot anyway.
If I personally define "good" to be "whatever I feel like doing", then I can keep calling myself good.
The rest of the world might disagree, however.

That does not mean the children were being punished, rather their parents.

Not that I want to bring up THE subject, but this reminds me so much of "why do you want to get an abortion, don't punish the child..." ...

If the children weren't being punished, then they shouldn't have been. Unless everyone thinks killing children peachy, then they pretty much were.

“Do not think in your heart, after the LORD your God has cast them out before you, saying, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land’; but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is driving them out from before you.

Sounds like a good excuse. Just in case anyone has any qualms about killing people and taking their land, we can call them wicked and that'll seal the deal.
I mean, bad things would never happen to good people, eh...

The righteous man is permitted to suffer greatly under the assaults of Satan.
..

It comes down to this: God loves Job but has permitted his suffering for His own inscrutible reasons.

Oh, I guess not.

Rape is intrinsically immoral, therefore God would not commend or validate it.

But if god is defining your morality anyway, your god can do what it pleases and call it "moral". Either you have your own set of morals which happen to agree with your god's, or your morality is completely based on your god's in which case you don't get to say "I think x is wrong therefore god wouldn't do it"...
You can't really tell your god what it can and can't approve...

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

If god gets to decide righteousness (which you've already insisted), then the whole thing is moot anyway.
If I personally define "good" to be "whatever I feel like doing", then I can keep calling myself good.
The rest of the world might disagree, however.

Not that I want to bring up THE subject, but this reminds me so much of "why do you want to get an abortion, don't punish the child..." ...

If the children weren't being punished, then they shouldn't have been. Unless everyone thinks killing children peachy, then they pretty much were.

Sounds like a good excuse. Just in case anyone has any qualms about killing people and taking their land, we can call them wicked and that'll seal the deal.
I mean, bad things would never happen to good people, eh...

Oh, I guess not.


But if god is defining your morality anyway, your god can do what it pleases and call it "moral". Either you have your own set of morals which happen to agree with your god's, or your morality is completely based on your god's in which case you don't get to say "I think x is wrong therefore god wouldn't do it"...
You can't really tell your god what it can and can't approve...

Unfortunately, if we follow wolfsbane's logic through, we find that none of the things we object to as immoral are particularly important because in his worldview the important life is the life of the soul, which is eternal. This mortal life is really a very brief moment.

One needs to reduce things like "killed" to "called back early" - not just as a euphemism for death, but as the actual meaning of death. Death is nothing really - indeed, none of the things that happen to a person in this life are anything more than a childish shadow-play.

One might ask, if death is nothing much, then why is killing wrong? The answer, of course, is that life is not your gift to take away, but God's. Any time you do violence to your fellow man, you are doing violence to the image of God. That man is God's image, and life is God's gift are, again, not platitudes, but the essential foundations of justice.

Most of us are emotionally uncomfortable with these conclusions. We (atheists) would say that this is because they contradict our evolved morality. Those who adhere to these conclusions claim that the tension is our sinful nature seeking to revolt. Either hypothesis explains the relatively small numbers of those who follow this logic.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

-snip-

I see your point. Though stating "god wouldn't do this" and "god wouldn't do that" still seems a little presumptuous regardless of morals...

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

A evil society is one which disobeys God.

That assumes God is good...

wolfsbane wrote:

That would have meant she would have died with the rest of the inhabitants of course.

That isn't much of a choice. Marry this soldier, allow him to rape you, or be put to death.

wolfsbane wrote:

He continues to exercise that prerogative with us all today.

He doesn't have that prerogative. That is the point.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the children were destroyed with their sinful parents. That does not mean the children were being punished, rather their parents.

If that is the case then act was even more immoral. To kill a child to punish their parents is immoral. In fact I can't think of any way that such an action could be justified, let alone agreed with.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is His right.

It isn't His right. God has no more right to inflict pain and suffering on his creations than we do on each other. He certainly can inflict pain and suffering on his creations, but that doesn't mean it is right, anymore than some who buys a cat has the right to torture the cat to death.

The right to inflict pain and suffering on someone is not based on the concept of ownership. Even if one thinks that God owns us because he created us, that does not mean he has the right to inflict suffering for his own amusement. The morality is based on if the person suffers or not.

wolfsbane wrote:

Rape is intrinsically immoral, therefore God would not commend or validate it.

Yet he does all the time in the Old Testament.

The virgins of the conqueroured lands are given to the soldiers. The soldiers "lie with" these women (have sex). That is rape, instructed and sanctioned by your god. By your own admition this is immoral

wolfsbane wrote:

Percisely my point: You must not sell her or treat her as a slave

That only applied once the man has grown tired of this woman and no longer wants her as his wife.

wolfsbane wrote:

Same thing - virgins to be taken as wives.

And raped.

wolfsbane wrote:

God was going to deliver David's house into the hands of evil men. They were going to do to them according to the evil of their hearts - just as David had done. That does not mean God commends their evil. He permits it to fall on David, as a chastisement to David and a warning to others.

God directly caused the rape of his wives and the death of his child, to punish him. That is immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

It was not a punishment on them, but on their parents.

It is immoral to cause the suffering of someone as punishment for someone else sins.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sure, but authentic Christianity holds to it.

Not sure what you mean. The first Christians didn't.

wolfsbane wrote:

Would it not be better, more kind, not to have created it?

That wasn't his only option. As I explained in an earlier post, that idea that God had only two options works under the idea that God was constrained in how he could make the universe. Being a god he clearly wasn't. God could have made the universe any way he wised. He must have chosen to make it this way.

wolfsbane wrote:

He works everything, including their suffering, for their ultimate benefit.

That is an illogical (paradoxical if you will) statement, again one that assumes God is constrained by some other force, and has to basically make the best of a bad lot. What it ignores is that God has complete free reign over the nature of the universe. God does not have allow suffering here to ultimately allow greater benefit over there. That is ridiculous. God, having complete control over the very nature of reality, could just allow benefit everywhere.

As I think I said to BC, it is always surprising to me that theists who proclaim the glory of their own god still seem to not realise the conclusion of how they define their own God. They proclaim God as being all powerful, yet also work under the assumption that God is some how constrained, and forced to work within some external framework, not realising that God is supposed to have made the framework in the first place.

wolfsbane wrote:

Not so. They do what they desire to do

No, the Old Testament contains many "The lord commands..." type passages. In fact the soldiers come back and Moses, under the direction of God, commands them to go back and kill everyone they left alive.

It is clear that even the soldiers find what they are asked to do immoral.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the universe works according to His rules. But He may choose to allow evil to exist, rather than make it do so.

That is ridiculous wolfsbane. Nothing can exist unless God made it exist. Otherwise where does it come from?

wolfsbane wrote:

You have no reason to say We weren't going to be wicked.

We are what ever God decided that we would be. We could not be anything else, under your own's religions definition of "god".

God decided that we would be wicked because otherwise we would not be wicked. In fact God decided what "wicked" actual is, he decided the rules of what is or what is not wicked.

The idea that wickeness or sin can some how come into existence externally to God's decision is ridiculous.

wolfsbane wrote:

What might have been is beyond our understanding.

The reality is this: God is infinitely holy, we are sinners;
[/quote]
If we are sinners we are sinners because God has decided to make us sinners. He could have decided otherwise, but he didn't. That would lead one to question the idea that God is "infinitely holy"

wolfsbane wrote:

God showed His love for us in sending His Son to bear the punishment for our sins.

But our sins only exist in the first place because God decided that he wanted our sins to exist.

God creates sin, and creates us as sinful. He then punishes us because he created sin and made us sinful. He then sends his son to Earth to bear his punishment for the sin he created.

Scofflaw

Had anyone heard of the Spiegelman Monster:

Wikipedia wrote:

Spiegelman Monster is an RNA chain of only 220 nucleotides which is able to reproduce. It was created by Sol Spiegelman of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who introduced RNA from a simple virus (Qβ) into a solution which contained the RNA replication enzyme RNA replicase from the Qβ virus Q-Beta Replicase, some free nucleotides and some salts. In this environment, the RNA started to replicate. After a while, Spiegelman took some RNA and moved it to another tube with fresh solution. This process was repeated[1].

Shorter RNA chains were able to replicate faster, so RNA became shorter and shorter. After 74 generations, the original strand with 4,500 nucleotide bases ended up as a dwarf genome with only 220 bases. Such a short RNA had been able to replicate very fast in these unnatural circumstances.

In 1997, Eigen and Oehlenschlager showed that Spiegelman monster eventually becomes even shorter, containing only 48 or 54 nucleotides

Also, this bumper sticker.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Unfortunately, if we follow wolfsbane's logic through, we find that none of the things we object to as immoral are particularly important because in his worldview the important life is the life of the soul, which is eternal. This mortal life is really a very brief moment.

One needs to reduce things like "killed" to "called back early" - not just as a euphemism for death, but as the actual meaning of death. Death is nothing really - indeed, none of the things that happen to a person in this life are anything more than a childish shadow-play.

One might ask, if death is nothing much, then why is killing wrong? The answer, of course, is that life is not your gift to take away, but God's. Any time you do violence to your fellow man, you are doing violence to the image of God. That man is God's image, and life is God's gift are, again, not platitudes, but the essential foundations of justice.

Most of us are emotionally uncomfortable with these conclusions. We (atheists) would say that this is because they contradict our evolved morality. Those who adhere to these conclusions claim that the tension is our sinful nature seeking to revolt. Either hypothesis explains the relatively small numbers of those who follow this logic.

Once again, you have accurately distilled my argument. Many thanks.

wolfsbane

gosimeon said:

I believe the creation account and Adam and Eve are not to be taken literally.
The creation account is pretty much identical to to Babylonian theology at the time, as I have realised as I studied Genesis.

So? Would that not be exactly what one would expect if the Genesis account were true? All of mankind would carry some memory of their origins, albeit distorted by non-inspired repetition and sinful superstition.

Therefore I see the creation account not as a fact, but rather as an attempt by an uneducated people to contemplate how they came to be.

So Genesis is not the word of God, but the inventions of man? Jesus, in repeating that account and using it as a proof of historical events, was either deluded Himself or guilty of deluding others.

As for Adam and Eve, it is important to realise that this story has a striking similarity to the Babylonian myth mentioned above. In that myth, the gods create a man and his wife, Lilith. Lilith was thrown out of Gods garden due to wrong-doings.

The apple and snake are also pagan symbols.

Therefore I see the Adam and Eve account as a powerful image of the transgression of mankind and the introduction (by God) of morality into our species, a morality we so quickly chose to ignore when it suited us.

So this man-made tale was used by God to impart real morality, a sort of parable, but one that could not have happened, one not using true-to-life situations, unlike the other parables?

If it were true, we would -as a species - have developed as an inbred mess with a tiny population. Hardly a loving Gods will.

Why do you think that? Would a perfect gene pool give in-breeding defects in a few generations? Does the evolutionary alternative have hundreds of breeding pairs emerge at once?

The other events mentioned are most likely not myths as:
-they were written by a different author to the early accounts.

So only the early author is discredited? Moses did really part the sea, Jericho's walls came tumbling down, etc?

-some of them explain how Judaism came to be prominent

Indeed, but why are they not just inventions to account for the origin of their religion?

-miracles are always a matter of faith. However I trust the word of the writers of the gospels as the truth.

As do I - but why could they not be just inventions of later writers to account for the religion they had inherited?

-why would the apostles put themselves through so much misery if they did not know Christ had risen. If Christ had not risen, they would have seen him as a liar - not risked their lives to spread his word.

Maybe they knew the resurrection account was only a metaphor for the survival of the hope of God's ultimate deliverance, and it was that hope that kept them going? Later generations lost sight of this metaphor and took a crude literalist view of the original tale. You know, just like the Genesis account.

No, my friend, start metaphorizing narrative and you have no grounds to call a halt. Look for metaphor in writings where it is a standard device - the prophetic and poetic books of the Bible.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

So? Would that not be exactly what one would expect if the Genesis account were true?

The point is which account. Why are you not worshipping the Babylonian gods?

wolfsbane wrote:

All of mankind would carry some memory of their origins, albeit distorted by non-inspired repetition and sinful superstition.

How do you know that your "memory" is not the distorted superstitious one?

wolfsbane wrote:

Jesus, in repeating that account and using it as a proof of historical events, was either deluded Himself or guilty of deluding others.

How many times does it have to be said- you don't know what Jesus did or did not say, Jesus never wrote down anything himself.

You only know what others, years later, claimed Jesus said. Since we both agree that these others were not the son of God the requirement on them to be infallible doesn't exist.

wolfsbane wrote:

Would a perfect gene pool give in-breeding defects in a few generations?

Yes, it would have.

If the Adam and Eve story is true then there is no genetic material in the human race seperate from that originally found in Adam and Eve. There would never be genetic material to counter-balance the line from Adam and Eve. The problem gets worse the longer it goes on, not better. Don't believe me? Look at the history of the Royal family.

Also your point ignores the fact that Noah's family had to do the same thing over again, without "prefect" genes.

Face it, it didn't actually happen :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Once again, you have accurately distilled my argument. Many thanks.

My pleasure - although, of course, so much the worse for me come the day...

wolfsbane wrote:

gosimeon wrote:

If it were true, we would -as a species - have developed as an inbred mess with a tiny population. Hardly a loving Gods will.

Why do you think that? Would a perfect gene pool give in-breeding defects in a few generations?

Hmm. Actually, viable breeding populations are surprisingly small. The genetic evidence suggests that humanity went through at least a couple of bottlenecks where populations were really small.

Pace Wicknight, it is not impossible for a single breeding couple to give rise to a viable population - Hawaiian wallabies, for example. The Old Order Amish, of course, are derived from three couples - and while they do have a higher rate of certain genetic defects than the average population, they are certainly not non-viable.

The reason why, of course, is mutations adding new genetic information...

wolfsbane wrote:

Does the evolutionary alternative have hundreds of breeding pairs emerge at once?

You are visualising it, I think, as if H. sapiens suddenly emerged from its predecessor in one generation - H.erectus parent, H. sapiens child...

In fact, various lineages will have been collecting different genetic changes, and the eventual accumulation of these changes makes the different species. There was no single change - the first H.sapiens would have been cross-fertile with its parents' generation, and indeed it would have been difficult to distinguish them. If you were "watching the pot", so to speak, you wouldn't have been able to put your finger on the moment it started to boil.

Exactly the same process is seen in modern speciation 'events'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

That isn't much of a choice. Marry this soldier, allow him to rape you, or be put to death.

A choice the other sinners did not get. Therefore, a good choice. You work from the position that these enemies were innocents, whereas God declares them guilty.

He doesn't have that prerogative. That is the point...

It isn't His right. God has no more right to inflict pain and suffering on his creations than we do on each other.

Yes, that is the central issue between us. God declares His right to order our lives as He thinks fit; I see no logical objection to that, given the infinite holiness, wisdom and power of God, contrasted with our very limited understanding of even the physical universe.

That only applied once the man has grown tired of this woman and no longer wants her as his wife.

No, it applied from the moment he took her to wife.

Not sure what you mean. The first Christians didn't.

The first christians did not believe every man is dead in sin? Maybe you could point me to one such source?

That wasn't his only option. As I explained in an earlier post, that idea that God had only two options works under the idea that God was constrained in how he could make the universe. Being a god he clearly wasn't. God could have made the universe any way he wised. He must have chosen to make it this way.

He did indeed. I was only using those options to give the opposing objection a fair hearing.

That is an illogical (paradoxical if you will) statement, again one that assumes God is constrained by some other force, and has to basically make the best of a bad lot. What it ignores is that God has complete free reign over the nature of the universe. God does not have allow suffering here to ultimately allow greater benefit over there. That is ridiculous. God, having complete control over the very nature of reality, could just allow benefit everywhere.

My statement He works everything, including their suffering, for their ultimate benefit. assumes nothing. It merely states what God Himself tells us about our lives:
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

As I think I said to BC, it is always surprising to me that theists who proclaim the glory of their own god still seem to not realise the conclusion of how they define their own God. They proclaim God as being all powerful, yet also work under the assumption that God is some how constrained, and forced to work within some external framework, not realising that God is supposed to have made the framework in the first place.

Christians do not define God. Our understanding of Him is only validly derived from the revelation of Himself He gives us in the Bible. That shows us that God is constrained by His nature - He cannot lie, for example.

No, the Old Testament contains many "The lord commands..." type passages. In fact the soldiers come back and Moses, under the direction of God, commands them to go back and kill everyone they left alive.

Those direct commands are never to do immoral acts. The execution of God's enemies, by His command, was a moral act. But the rapes and murders carried out by evil men, even if they fulfilled God's purpose in judgement on sinners, were immoral acts. The supreme example is the betrayal and murder of Jesus Christ. Supremely evil acts, carried out by evil men in line with their evil desires, but all happening to fulfill God's good purpose:
Acts 4:24 So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the mouth of Your servant David have said:


‘ Why did the nations rage,
And the people plot vain things?
26 The kings of the earth took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the LORD and against His Christ.’

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

It is clear that even the soldiers find what they are asked to do immoral.

Maybe that was their motivation, maybe not. Whatever, if it was it only showed how ready we are to minimize the seriousness of sin. God shows us by these examples how unacceptable sin is in His sight, how certain the judgement:
Numbers 31:15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

That is ridiculous wolfsbane. Nothing can exist unless God made it exist. Otherwise where does it come from?

That is a big question, to which God gives us no explanation. Just that it is so. I trust His knowledge of the facts.

We are what ever God decided that we would be. We could not be anything else, under your own's religions definition of "god".

God decided that we would be wicked because otherwise we would not be wicked. In fact God decided what "wicked" actual is, he decided the rules of what is or what is not wicked.

The idea that wickeness or sin can some how come into existence externally to God's decision is ridiculous.

Yes, but God tells us He is also not the author of sin. How both those can be true is not revealed to us, only that it is so.

If we are sinners we are sinners because God has decided to make us sinners. He could have decided otherwise, but he didn't. That would lead one to question the idea that God is "infinitely holy"

Yes, if our wisdom is greater than God's. Since we did not make the universe and He did, His wisdom is to be relied on more than ours. What He says can be totally relied on as the truth, even if we don't understand how it all fits.

God creates sin, and creates us as sinful. He then punishes us because he created sin and made us sinful. He then sends his son to Earth to bear his punishment for the sin he created.

That is man's minimally-informed thinking at work. God says otherwise. His Spirit bears witness in my heart to the truth declared in His word. I gladly submit to Him and rejoice in His goodness to this sinner.:)

J C

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

Your question is similar to the questions put by the Pharisees to Jesus Christ in Mt 19:3-7

“3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”

– and the answer is the same as Jesus gave in Mt 19:8:-

“8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

God doesn’t interfere with the free will of people – as it would remove our free will, if He did interfere.

The Laws in the Old Testament, like all Law, recognised the pragmatics of the situation and the hardness of the hearts of the people of the time.

Jesus Christ came to change Mankind’s Relationship from one under Law (where there could only be condemnation) to one under Grace (where we could be saved).

In Mt 19:5-6 Jesus placed God’s plan for the sexual relationship between men and women before the Pharisees – and it ISN’T one of Master and chattel or sex slave – it is one of voluntary, permanent, equal and united fidelity :-
“For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and the twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”


Gosimeon
Does it really wreck the Bible if the first few lines are rubbish?!

In a word YES.


Gosimeon
I also feel that Creationists are undermining and damaging. Christianity by encouraging the spread of ignorance.

The Theory of Evolution basically reduces God’s role in the origins of life to the point of practical non-existence.

Creation Scientists are scientists of the highest calibre.
…..and here is a list of some current leading Creation Scientists.........

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

………….as well as a few Creation Scientists from the historical past.


There is nothing ‘ignorant’ about SCIENTIFICALLY questioning Evolutionists on their unfounded beliefs.
To quote Dembski, who believes evolutionary theory can be rejected on strictly its lack of scientific merit.
“ the following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines ……”

If you have been following this thread you will have observed that the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the development of complex organ systems and the development of irreducibly complex molecular machines haven’t been satisfactorily explained by the Evolutionists on the thread – and indeed the origins of all of these phenomena remain unexplained by the current known laws of science.:D


Wicknight
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.

You are confusing the ORIGIN with the ONGOING.

It is true that ONGOING processes are natural processes, and barring a miracle, these processes obey natural laws.

However, the ultimate ORIGIN of all matter, energy and life as well as the natural laws themselves, can only be accounted for by a Transcendent, omnipotent and omniscient Entity – and that Entity perfectly matches the God of the Bible.:D


Wicknight
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

No.

Neither matter, energy or life could be produced using currently understood natural processes.
The Big Bang attempts, but fails to explain how energy, time and matter originated – and Evolution similarly fails to explain how life arose on Earth.

The only people claiming magical processes are the Evolutionists – who believe that Muck just ‘magically’ sprang into life!!!!:eek:


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....

To be saved, all one needs to have faith in, is Jesus Christ.

You are quite entitled to your opinion – but the ‘leap of faith’ required to believe that muck ‘lifted itself up by it’s own bootstraps to become Man’ is very great indeed.

Certainly, my faith ISN’T great enough to believe in such a proposal, which would defy every known law of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Logic!!!!:eek:


Gosimeon
I often feel that the God of the OT seems incompatible with Jesus Christ.

Why so?

The following verses of scripture, for example, should leave you in no doubt as to where Jesus Christ ‘stood’ on the right of God to exact punishment when people reject Him:-

Mt 10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Mt 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
Mt 11:24 But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
Mr 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. {and: Gr. or}
Lu 10:12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Lu 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.


Gosimeon
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:

The verses clearly show that NEITHER the Israelites NOR the other peoples were righteous – and the PRIMARY reason that God drove out the Gentiles was because He had foresworn to give the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and NOT because of the righteousness of the Israelites of the time.

While the ‘last straw’ may have been the behaviour of the Gentile tribes, God was primarily exercising His sovereign prerogative to give this land to the Israelites as He had promised.

At the end of the day, there is none of us righteous before God - all of us are sinners in need of His salvation.

J C

Wicknight
JC we have already shown that God didn't design life. You can pick any number of pieces of evidence for this, from the large size of club moss DNA compared to human DNA, to the fact that there are 40 independent eye designs that all do pretty much the same thing, that rule out God as being the intelligent designer of life. The evidence for this is overwhelming

The size of a ‘primitive’ Club Moss’ genome could be explained by an Intelligent Agent deliberately choosing a large genome – whereas, if blind Evolutionary processes were at work, the relative size of the genome should be approximate to the relative sophistication of the organism.

Forty independent eye designs DON’T indicate a common descent as hypothesised by Evolution – and the chances of EVEN ONE eye arising through undirected processes are so small as to be statistically impossible – and as for 40 independent designs, forget about it!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Why would god, on purpose, make something less efficent that it needs to be. That makes no sense. Therefore God was not the designer.

What is ‘less efficient’ about either the Club Moss or the Human Genome??
They both exist at ‘micro-dot’ levels of resolution and they both work by producing viable Club Mosses and Humans respectively!!!:D


Wicknight
God doesn't lie. He would not mess up the design of life just to laugh at humans. You seem to believe in a pretty petty God JC

God certainly doesn’t lie – but He does marvel at the arrogance of some of His Creation!!!:D

Just like all life points directly towards creation by an omnipotent and omniscient God, the Club Moss enigma points away from undirected processes like Evolution because the relative size of the genome should be directly correlated to the complexity of the organism IF undirected processes were the cause

On the other hand an Intelligent Designer could choose any relativity between the size of a genome and the complexity of an organism – just like a new ‘notebook’ PC can be more sophisticated than an old mainframe computer.
Please also note that the reduction in size of modern computers has corresponded with an increase in complexity and sophistication – so once again size is NOT related to sophistication.
Please also note that the move from old large mainframes to small ‘notebooks’ was only possible through the appliance of enormous intelligent effort and design.


Scofflaw
First you argue one way, then the other, then back again - ………………………
…………………….. It's like being attacked by a mad gnat.

You said it Scofflaw………………

…………and then YOU did it yourself!!!!

Which is why diseases like haemophilia don't eliminate themselves from the population, because they require both alleles to be the mutated version.

…………………….Statistically, the carriers of non-lethal but debilitating genes are less likely to breed succesfully. Over generations, that weeds out the debilitating mutations - the more debilitating, the more quickly weeded out, because the less likely the carrier is to breed.


gosimeon
As for Adam and Eve, it is important to realise that this story has a striking similarity to the Babylonian myth mentioned above. In that myth, the gods create a man and his wife, Lilith…………….

…………….If it were true, we would -as a species - have developed as an inbred mess with a tiny population.

How do you explain Abraham being married to his half-sister Sarah in Gen 20:2 then???

……and WHERE do you draw the line between ‘myth’ and ‘truth’ in the Bible??

There was little / no genetic defects in the earlier generations of mankind (because they had been created perfect by God). Therefore, the children born of unions between close relatives did not run any significant danger of being homozygous for serious genetic disorders (which is the main historical reason for banning incest among consenting adults).
Genetic disorders largely arose after Noah’s Flood when the mutation rates appear to have greatly increased (as measured by the rapid collapse in longevity from several hundred years to an average of 70 years) – and a Law was then given by God in Lev 20:17 that siblings shouldn’t marry.
Although not advisable because of our increasing ‘mutation loads’, near cousins may still legally marry – so there shouldn’t be any great wonder about close relatives marrying each other during the immediate subsequent generations from Adam and Eve............
...........so there was NO risk of inbreeding depression with the immediate generations following Adam and Eve – who is stated to be ”the mother of all living (people)” in Gen 3:20.


Wicknight
If the Adam and Eve story is true then there is no genetic material in the human race seperate from that originally found in Adam and Eve. There would never be genetic material to counter-balance the line from Adam and Eve. The problem gets worse the longer it goes on, not better. Don't believe me? Look at the history of the Royal family.

Also your point ignores the fact that Noah's family had to do the same thing over again, without "prefect" genes.

Face it, it didn't actually happen

Scofflaw
Actually, viable breeding populations are surprisingly small. The genetic evidence suggests that humanity went through at least a couple of bottlenecks where populations were really small.

Wicknight talk to Scofflaw

Even evolutionists like Scofflaw accept that there is evidence that “viable breeding populations are surprisingly small” and “that humanity went through at least a couple of bottlenecks where populations were really small”.
I accept that Scofflaw wouldn’t interpret these “bottlenecks” to support the account of Adam and Eve or Noah’s Family – but Creation Scientists would argue that these ”bottlenecks” DO indeed support the Biblical account!!!!


Scofflaw
Pace Wicknight, it is not impossible for a single breeding couple to give rise to a viable population - Hawaiian wallabies, for example. The Old Order Amish, of course, are derived from three couples - and while they do have a higher rate of certain genetic defects than the average population, they are certainly not non-viable.

“Lo, what light from yonder window breaks?”:D

Hawaiian Wallabies???

PS I am not familiar with the examples quoted by Scofflaw - but I do know that highly inbred lines are routinely used in commercial breeding to achieve various objectives, including maximising hybrid vigour when they are crossed - and the inbred lines are obviously viable!!!:cool:

Equally, all thoroughbred race horses are descended from three founding Arab stallions - and, as every bookie can confirm thoroughberd horses are also viable!!!:cool:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

PS I am not familiar with the examples quoted by Scofflaw - but I do know that highly inbred lines are routinely used in commercial breeding to achieve various objectives, including maximising hybrid vigour when they are crossed - and the inbred lines are obviously viable!!!:cool:

Indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

A choice the other sinners did not get. Therefore, a good choice.

Are you actually stating that rape or death is a good choice??? Are you serious?

wolfsbane wrote:

You work from the position that these enemies were innocents, whereas God declares them guilty.

I am working from the position that they could not all be guilty of crimes justifying rape or death as punishment.

This is actually supported by the Bible. The selection of who will live and who will die is based on the virginity of the women. The women who are sentenced to death are not sentenced to death because they are guilty of a crime, they are sentenced to death because they are not virgins and as such are not useful to the soldiers as future wives. The virgins on the other hand are and instead of being executed are given as sex slaves to the soldiers.

So please don't delude yourself Wolfsbane that there is some kind of justice going one here, that people are having just punishment for their crimes. There is no justice here The punishment is based on if you are unlucky enough to not be married when the Israelites decide to storm into your city.

It is disgusting.

wolfsbane wrote:

God declares His right to order our lives as He thinks fit

God has no right to order suffering for his own amusement, or to rectify his own mistakes.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, it applied from the moment he took her to wife.

Not it doesn't. Read it again in the context of the other rules about marriage.

wolfsbane wrote:

The first Christians did not believe every man is dead in sin?

The first Christians did not believe that every child is born in a state of wickedness.

Like the Eastern Orthodox Church still believe, they believed that what was pass on was death and disease. To quote the below article -

"It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease."

We are not born in a state of wickedness, we don't inherit our wickedness from Adam. It is our physical biological state the we inherit, that our bodies will grown and die, that is passed on from generation to generation.

This is what the original Christians believed, and this is what the Orthodox Church, would consider themselves the original church, still believe to this day.

http://www.antiochian.org/ancestral-versus-original-sin

wolfsbane wrote:

He did indeed.

Then why did he choose the option he did if it displeases him so when he could have chosen from any and all options? That makes very little sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

My statement He works everything, including their suffering, for their ultimate benefit. assumes nothing.

It assumes he has to "work" something. Working something means manipulating it within some kind of constraints, to get the best out come. That something humans have to do everyday, but you forget that God is supposed to have completely control over everything, and as such would not have "work" anything to any particular constrain.

You statement assumes that the benefit cannot come without the suffering. Again, that might hold for humans, often we need to endure suffering for ultimate benefit. But again we do that because we are slaves to the nature world around us. God is not. There are no constraints on him. The benefit could come without the suffering, and vice versa.

wolfsbane wrote:

Christians do not define God.

The Hindus might object to that statement :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

He cannot lie, for example.

Are you failing to see the paradox in that statement, or are you choosing to ignore it?

If God is constrained by His nature, then what defined his nature. What ever that "what" is is more powerful that God, since it ultimately defined what God is. But based on Judeo/Christian teaching there is nothing above God. One must conclude that God then constrained his own nature, which is ridiculous.

The classic paradox that deals with this is the question

Can God produce an object that He cannot himself move

wolfsbane wrote:

Those direct commands are never to do immoral acts. The execution of God's enemies, by His command, was a moral act.

No it wasn't, because the people executed were not guilty of any crime worth of execution. As I've already said it is immoral for God to order the execution, or rape, of people just because he wants to.

wolfsbane wrote:

But the rapes and murders carried out by evil men

They weren't "evil men" Wolfsbane. Read your Bible. They were God's chosen people, working under his orders, even when they objected themselves at the morality of what they were being asked to do. Do you think Moses was an evil man?

Your excuses justify these acts are getting weaker and weaker. These were God's chosen people, ordered to do something by God's messanger Moses, that even they had moral questions about.

wolfsbane wrote:

Whatever, if it was it only showed how ready we are to minimize the seriousness of sin.

No actually it shows they had "issues" with the idea of murdering innocent women and children because God was in a bad mood.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is a big question, to which God gives us no explanation. Just that it is so. I trust His knowledge of the facts.

Why?

What if He is lying to you?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, but God tells us He is also not the author of sin.

And if He is lying?

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, if our wisdom is greater than God's. Since we did not make the universe and He did, His wisdom is to be relied on more than ours.

Ignorance is bliss, as they say ... :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote:

What He says can be totally relied on as the truth

You have never explained why you believe that. Is it because you want to believe it, because you want all the things promised to you if you do believe this?

Also has it occurred to you that the Bible might simply not be the word of God, and as such cannot be relied upon as the truth?

wolfsbane wrote:

That is man's minimally-informed thinking at work. God says otherwise.

God could be lying to us all, or the Bible which is supposed to be his message, could be wrong.

If something described in the Bible makes no sense we have 2 options.

One, the Bible is the word of God but God is deceiving us in what is written.

Two, the Bible is not the infallible word of God.

Of course you appear to take the third option, the "head in the sand, I don't want to think about it" option. Which, ultimately is just a cop-out, the reason why Dawkins describes religion as "the God delusion"