The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

To you that's what He is. He is a lot more to many believers.

Well this is before humans were created. God is supposed to have created everything in the universe. So clearly he existed before he did that. So the question still remains why did he exist in the first place.

The idea that God exists to create you seems rather egocentric does it not? Why does God exist to create you?

If you exist because God wants you do exist then that also means God cannot exist for you, since the reasons cancel each other out.

So you are back to square one. Why does God exist in the first place?

I would point out that this isn't God bashing for the fun of it (I don't think God exists, so the reasons for his nonexistence would be obvious). The point is that Creationists often claim that everything has to have a beginning and a purpose for its existence. Except this doesn't, for some reason, apply to God who Creationists are happy to define as having no beginning and requiring no purpose.

philologos

Deuteronomy 29:29 wrote:

There are some things which the Lord your God has kept secret; but he has revealed his Law and we and our descendents are to obey it forever

Ecclesiastes 3:11 wrote:

He hasset the right time for everything. He has given us a desire to know the future, but never gives us the satisfaction of fully understanding what he does.

We aren't supposed to know whether God was to exist or not. However he cared and guided the Israelites through the desert. I doubt they would have made it out alive without the Lords help (giving them manna, and quail from the sky to eat, and water from a rock to drink). We think that there has to be a God to guide us through the difficult points in life. It doesn't explicitly say what his purpose was. However I doubt Earth could have been created without him either. If God didn't exist, the Earth wouldn't exist, an subsequently this question wouldn't exist.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

We aren't supposed to know whether God was to exist or not.

You are kinda missing the point. The important bit isn't the answer of what the purpose is or not, its whether the question is valid in the first place.

Does there have to be a purpose for Gods existence, even if we aren't aware of it?

If there does have to be a purpose for Gods existence then who decided this purpose?

If there doesn't have to be a purpose for Gods existence then why does there have to be a purpose for the universe?

Jakkass wrote:

However he cared and guided the Israelites through the desert.

I assume by "guided" you mean instructed to commit genocide against tribes that had land or resources they needed.

Jakkass wrote:

If God didn't exist, the Earth wouldn't exist, an subsequently this question wouldn't exist.

So again are you saying the purpose of God was to create the Earth and eventually to create life on it? If that is the case then what decided that this was God's purpose?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

I assume by "guided" you mean instructed to commit genocide against tribes that had land or resources they needed.

Guiding as in ensuring they survived till they crossed the Jordan. You don't understand why the tribes of Caanan had to die. It was so that the Israelites wouldn't indulge in the pagan behaviour of them. In another perspective, those who had sinned against God in Judaism were to die if it was major (in the majority of cases), otherwise they could atone for their sins in the Tent of the Lord's Presence. God judged the Israelites and those around them for their sins, whereas Jesus Christ took the burden of our sins after He gave up his life for us.

Wicknight wrote:

So again are you saying the purpose of God was to create the Earth and eventually to create life on it? If that is the case then what decided that this was God's purpose?

God is the highest being in existence, therefore it's clear that He decided to create the world, and mankind. He has revealed what He has revealed to us, He has however kept secrets from us, as the two verses from the Bible show us.

Wickwight wrote:

So again are you saying the purpose of God was to create the Earth and eventually to create life on it? If that is the case then what decided that this was God's purpose?

If there wasn't a purpose, we wouldn't follow his Law, or believe in him. It's clear throughout the accounts that are written what his purpose is, to make a harmonious society with rules that exist to benefit all mankind.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Guiding as in ensuring they survived till they crossed the Jordan. You don't understand why the tribes of Caanan had to die. It was so that the Israelites wouldn't indulge in the pagan behaviour of them.

Could he just have genocided the Israelites instead? That would have stopped them indulging in "pagan behavior"

Jakkass wrote:

In another perspective, those who had sinned against God in Judaism were to die if it was major (in the majority of cases), otherwise they could atone for their sins in the Tent of the Lord's Presence.

Yes God is all about the love and forgiveness ....

Jakkass wrote:

God judged the Israelites and those around them for their sins, whereas Jesus Christ took the burden of our sins after He gave up his life for us.

As Richard Dawkins asks in the God Delusion who was Jesus trying to impress by this sacrifice? God? Wasn't Jesus already God.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier if God had just taken away the burden of our sins?

Say I'm a lone shark. A family owes me a lot of money. I call around to them and see that they really can't afford to pay back my lone. So in a rare act of generosity I decide to forgive the debt. But I figure someone has to pay in some way for the debt, I am after all a lone shark. So I decide that it is me that will have to pay, so I slam two nails into my arms. The family are so impressed that not only have I decided to settle the debt, but I've decided to settle the debt with my own suffering, since someone has to suffer. Except for the little boy. He walks over to me and asks "Mister, why didn't you just call off the debt, why stab yourself?" I reply "But son, someone has to pay for the debt", to which the boy replies "That is stupid, it was your debt to call off. None has to suffer if you don't want them to". To which I go "holy crap, why did I just stab myself"

You see the point here?

Jakkass wrote:

God is the highest being in existence, therefore it's clear that He decided to create the world, and mankind.

Who created God and for what purpose?

Jakkass wrote:

If there wasn't a purpose, we wouldn't follow his Law, or believe in him.

And what would happen to us?

Jakkass wrote:

It's clear throughout the accounts that are written what his purpose is, to make a harmonious society with rules that exist to benefit all mankind.

So God was created for the purpose of creating us and giving us laws? By whom?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

If there wasn't a purpose, we wouldn't follow his Law, or believe in him. It's clear throughout the accounts that are written what his purpose is, to make a harmonious society with rules that exist to benefit all mankind.

By giving a book full of contradictions to a very small portion of humanity, a reasonable percentage of whom He condemns.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Say I'm a lone shark. A family owes me a lot of money. I call around to them and see that they really can't afford to pay back my lone. So in a rare act of generosity I decide to forgive the debt. But I figure someone has to pay in some way for the debt, I am after all a lone shark. So I decide that it is me that will have to pay, so I slam two nails into my arms. The family are so impressed that not only have I decided to settle the debt, but I've decided to settle the debt with my own suffering, since someone has to suffer. Except for the little boy. He walks over to me and asks "Mister, why didn't you just call off the debt, why stab yourself?" I reply "But son, someone has to pay for the debt", to which the boy replies "That is stupid, it was your debt to call off. None has to suffer if you don't want them to". To which I go "holy crap, why did I just stab myself

You can't just brush off something without taking responsibility for it. That's like if I broke the window in your house and claimed that it wasn't my fault. Responsibility is one of the things we can't get away from. If people didn't feel that they had a responsibility to obey God's laws they would be continually broken.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

You can't just brush off something without taking responsibility for it. That's like if I broke the window in your house and claimed that it wasn't my fault. Responsibility is one of the things we can't get away from. If people didn't feel that they had a responsibility to obey God's laws they would be continually broken.

Except that the whole point of Christ's sacrifice was that we didn't pay the penalty for our sins - He did.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Yes someone took responsibility for the sins of the world. That doesn't make sinning okay or acceptable.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You can't just brush off something without taking responsibility for it.

But we didn't take responsibility for it, nor did we "brush it off". Jesus did.

And Jesus is God is he not?

So God took his own punishment for us for not following his own laws.

What part of that actually makes sense to you?

It was God that demanded we follow the laws in the first place. So because we didn't God decided to have himself sent to Earth and tortured. Who was that trying to impress?

As I said it is like a debt collector taking responsibility for someone who owes him money by hacking off his own arms.

Jakkass wrote:

That's like if I broke the window in your house and claimed that it wasn't my fault. Responsibility is one of the things we can't get away from.

No it is like if you broke a window in my house and I said "Well someone has to pay for this" but not wanting it to be you I smacked myself in the face with a shovel. Why would I do that?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Yes someone took responsibility for the sins of the world. That doesn't make sinning okay or acceptable.

Responsibility to whom exactly if not God? The natural order of things? Does God not decide the natural order of things in the first place? Why did God have to torture himself for our sins?

Its like asking why did I have to hit myself in the face, thus taking the responsibility and punishment, for you breaking my window? Who am I atoning to? It was my window, and of course the answer is I didn't have to hit myself in the face.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Could he just have genocided the Israelites instead? That would have stopped them indulging in "pagan behavior"

As Richard Dawkins asks in the God Delusion who was Jesus trying to impress by this sacrifice? God? Wasn't Jesus already God.

Wouldn't it have been a lot easier if God had just taken away the burden of our sins?

Say I'm a lone shark. A family owes me a lot of money. I call around to them and see that they really can't afford to pay back my lone. So in a rare act of generosity I decide to forgive the debt. But I figure someone has to pay in some way for the debt, I am after all a lone shark. So I decide that it is me that will have to pay, so I slam two nails into my arms. The family are so impressed that not only have I decided to settle the debt, but I've decided to settle the debt with my own suffering, since someone has to suffer. Except for the little boy. He walks over to me and asks "Mister, why didn't you just call off the debt, why stab yourself?" I reply "But son, someone has to pay for the debt", to which the boy replies "That is stupid, it was your debt to call off. None has to suffer if you don't want them to". To which I go "holy crap, why did I just stab myself"

You see the point here?

The above shows completely what I said earlier. You 'don't' get it. You may have read and studied or become a priest or went away to join the jesuits for 10 years, but it still doesn't mean a thing. You understand nothing with regards to God, his covenants or his people. You may not be ignorant to scripture, but you certainly are as regards who you speak of.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The above shows completely what I said earlier. You 'don't' get it.

Has it occurred to you Jimi that the reason I, and others, don't "get it" is because it actually doesn't make any sense?

You seem unable to explain why it does actually make sense, to you or why it should make sense to me, which simply shows that you don't understand yourself. You simply accept it. Which is fine. But it doesn't mean it does actually make any more sense.

As a well know internet blogger said in relation to explaining something in science -

"Unless you have several different ways to explain something, you don't understand it yourself."

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Has it occurred to you Jimi that the reason I, and others, don't "get it" is because it actually doesn't make any sense?

We'll never be able to convince someone as closed minded to Christianity as you are anyway.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

We'll never be able to convince someone as closed minded to Christianity as you are anyway.

You say that as if you have actually bothered in the first place.

Jakkass I'm as open as they come. The reason I don't "get it" as Jimi keeps saying, is that so far no one, at least those who have attempted, which is the small minority, has explained it to me. One can only conclude that you don't "get it" yourself, though Jimi claims he gets it but cannot explain it to me until I first "get it"

Its not even that it has been explained and I don't believe it. Its never been explained in the first place. Neither yourself and Jimi can actually answer the questions.

When I say explain I mean properly explain, not just "the Bible says..." or "God fills me with love, therefore I accept this..." neither of which are actually explainations, simply diversions.

This is supposed to be a core foundation of the Christian faith. Yet no one seems able to explain why Jesus, who is God, had to die for our sins, since "our sins" is a concept defined by God and carried out by God.

God atoned to himself for the sins we committed against him. Its nonsense. If you see sense in there please by all means share.

Actually that isn't quite true, I remember a poster once saying that Jesus didn't have to die, but he did because it would send a "powerful message" to the rest of humanity. Which again doesn't really make sense since I can think of far more powerful messages that a bloke getting crucified, which was rather everyday back then.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

When I say explain I mean properly explain, not just "the Bible says..." or "God fills me with love, therefore I accept this..." neither of which are actually explainations, simply diversions.

This is supposed to be a core foundation of the Christian faith. Yet no one seems able to explain why Jesus, who is God, had to die for our sins, since "our sins" is a concept defined by God and carried out by God.

God atoned to himself for the sins we committed against him. Its nonsense. If you see sense in there please by all means share.

God the Father is a loving being. He didn't want to make us continue to suffer by putting our lives down for our sins. He made the sacrifice of taking his own Son's life. He was sparing us for our sins, and told us that he would offer us forgiveness when we turned back to him, as opposed to Him killing Israelites as in the old Testament. One explanation for this and why he did offer the life of God the Son (Jesus) for us, is that God told us that he would reward us if we continued to believe in God and to practise His Laws. He told us that He would punish us if we turned away from him. He decided to judge us in heaven when we progressed to the afterlife, as opposed to judging us on Earth (hence why God killed the Israelites). Perhaps it was because the Jews had been keeping their faith in God the Father that they were rewarded with the burden of their sins being taken away. It was prophesised that it would happen, it wasn't spontaneous.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually that isn't quite true, I remember a poster once saying that Jesus didn't have to die, but he did because it would send a "powerful message" to the rest of humanity. Which again doesn't really make sense since I can think of far more powerful messages that a bloke getting crucified, which was rather everyday back then.

A poster?? He died for a purpose to save us from our sins.

J C

Son Goku
Yeah, but you said several times that galaxies were just swirls of dust and not several octillion tonnes of matter located several millions of light years apart.

Have you now changed your view and think that galaxies are not just swirls of dust?

No, I have always accepted that galaxies are made up of interstellar dust AND stars.:)

In any event, the substantive point is that because the Universe has only 10^^130 electrons, it cannot mathematically produce the sequence for even a simple functioning protein using undirected processes – and so life could only arise in the UNIVERSE via the actions of an external and transcendent intelligent being AKA God!!!!:D


Scofflaw
"Fewer than half of us can identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible, and only one third know that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount."

"Approximately 75 percent of adults, according to polls cited by Prothero, mistakenly believe the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves." More than 10 percent think that Noah's wife was Joan of Arc. Only half can name even one of the four Gospels, and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts."

……and to that I could also add that many people believe that the Bible teaches Evolution and Billions of years…..

….. so it looks like many people will need to take Wicknight's wise advice to……

Read your Bible.:eek:



Scofflaw
You know, while we're playing envelope maths - what are the odds on God?

The odds on God existing are a certainty – based upon (amongst other things) the certainty that life couldn’t arise spontaneously!!!:D


Scofflaw
whatever the odds against primitive life arising by accident, the odds against God arising by accident are always going to be higher, by the amount that God is more complex and sophisticated than primitive life - orders of magnitude, one assumes.

That would be logically correct.


Scofflaw
Of course, you can just say that God doesn't arise by accident, …..

....but God DIDN’T ‘arise’ at all (either by accident or design) – because He is a doubly eternal, transcendent Being.:eek:


Scofflaw
…….but you have no actual basis for the claim other than belief.

The levels of Specified Complexity in Life proves that an intelligence of infinite power Created it.
The Universe proves that such a Creator was transcendent to time and space as well as omnipotent.
…….so we have an excellent logical basis for a belief in God.:D

However, the fact that He loved you and me so much that He died so that we might be saved, can ONLY be believed in through FAITH…….
…….. and it is NOT a blind faith – but a well founded faith based upon observed reality!!!!!:D


Scofflaw
we have definite and indisputable evidence that life exists

……and therefore we have definitive and indisputable evidence that God exists !!!!!

…….and Rom 1:20 confirms this fact “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”


Wicknight
It is rather bizarre that Creationists talk all the time about complex life needing to be created and needing to have a purpose …..

Creationists DO argue that complex life needed to be Created - because such complex specificity required an intelligent input in order to come into existence, just like all other Specified Complexity has an ultimate intelligent origin.......
,,,,,,,but Creationists DON’T argue that life needed to have a purpose in order for it to exist……
…….. the reason that Human life has an ultimate purpose is AS A RESULT of it’s Creation by God - and NOT because it somehow 'needed' a purpose to exist.


Wicknight
…… their (Creationists) belief is based around the idea of a super complex being that wasn't created and has no purpose, other than to simply exist. Forever. Creating universes and life forms for his own amusement, probably simply to give himself something to do.

An omnipotent God COULD decide to have no purpose for His existence – but God chose to derive some pleasure, and presumably some purpose, from Creating the Universe and specifically Human Beings, with whom He desires to have a loving relationship.:cool:


Wicknight
The idea that God exists to create you seems rather egocentric does it not? Why does God exist to create you?

It would be the height of folly and arrogance to believe that God existed to create us ....
......such an idea is indeed egotistical – and invalid!!!

Our Creation is a product of God’s magnanimity and we are a dependent by-product of His existence……..

God chose to Create us - but we have no power to ensure that God existed so that He could Create us - nor do we have any power to ensure that God would create us.


Wicknight
If you exist because God wants you do exist then that also means God cannot exist for you, since the reasons cancel each other out.

That reminds me of the following statement that I read somewhere:-
“I am what I think you think I think you think I think you think I am!!”

You're metaphysics is melting my mind, Wicknight!!!:D


Wicknight
Does there have to be a purpose for Gods existence, even if we aren't aware of it?
The short answer is NO.
There doesn’t HAVE to be a purpose for God’s existence – but God Himself has shown considerable purpose for His existence through actions such as Creation and Salvation.


Wicknight
If there does have to be a purpose for Gods existence then who decided this purpose?

...there doesn’t have to be a purpose for God’s existence.
However, because God is omnipotent He is capable of producing a purpose for His own existence and for saved Humans.


Wicknight
If there doesn't have to be a purpose for Gods existence then why does there have to be a purpose for the universe?

There doesn’t HAVE to be purpose for the Universe – but a Universe without purpose would be a pretty nihilistic and useless thing!!!!

Indeed the Universe can only have a sensible ultimate purpose if God Created it – otherwise the whole thing is a pointless and useless exercise.:eek:


Wicknight
are you saying the purpose of God was to create the Earth and eventually to create life on it?
Yes, one of God's wishes was to do so.


Wicknight
If that is the case then what decided that this was God’s purpose?

God decided that He wished to do so.


Wicknight
Say I'm a lone shark. A family owes me a lot of money. I call around to them and see that they really can't afford to pay back my lone. So in a rare act of generosity I decide to forgive the debt. But I figure someone has to pay in some way for the debt, I am after all a lone shark. So I decide that it is me that will have to pay, so I slam two nails into my arms. The family are so impressed that not only have I decided to settle the debt, but I've decided to settle the debt with my own suffering, since someone has to suffer. Except for the little boy. He walks over to me and asks "Mister, why didn't you just call off the debt, why stab yourself?" I reply "But son, someone has to pay for the debt", to which the boy replies "That is stupid, it was your debt to call off. None has to suffer if you don't want them to". To which I go "holy crap, why did I just stab myself"

…… but unlike loan sharks, God is a Being of perfect holiness and justice as well as perfect love……..

…….. in holiness, He couldn’t ignore peoples sin nor could He in justice, forgive their sin without proper reparation - and no sacrifice which Humans could make would make proper reparation.

………and so the only way that God could reconcile His perfect love with His perfect holiness and justice was to sacrifice Himself to forgive our sin.

Jesus Christ died so that we might live. It's kind of analagous to giving somebody your heart in a transplant.
That way you have to die so that they might live.
Similarly, Jesus Christ had to die so that we might have eternal life.
The real question that everybody must now answer is, did Jesus Christ die in vain for me - or will I accept His free gift of salvation?


Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.

Evolution. It’s RIDICULOUS. Get over it!!!!:D

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

God the Father is a loving being. He didn't want to make us continue to suffer by putting our lives down for our sins. He made the sacrifice of taking his own Son's life.

Once again you are not answering the actual question, just skirting around it

Why was it necessary for God to kill part of himself for our sins to be forgiven by him?

Saying Jesus died for our sins is ridiculous. Jesus WAS God. God died so that God would forgive us our sins?

So sacrifice yourself you need to atone for something to someone else. As JC says Jesus was the reparation for our sins. But reperations to whom? God? But Jesus IS God. How can God give reparation to himself?

If Jesus wasn't God then it would easy to say that Jesus took all the burden of our sins on himself and atoned for it in front of God. That would be a bit messed up, but it would at least make sense (like a priest offering himself to be killed in a Nazi concentration camp rather than the Nazi's killing a child)

The problem comes because Jesus is supposed to be God. So he offered himself up to himself for atonement? Why what that necessary?

Son Goku

J C wrote:

No, I have always accepted that galaxies are made up of interstellar dust AND stars.:)

Good, so I take you agree that galaxies are actually several million light years away then?

Son Goku

Since the other thread got closed I'll put my last post to wolfsbane here.

wolfsbane wrote:

Now apply that to the Creation/Evolution debate. Admit that there is scientific dispute on the issue

Okay, watch. I will be as removed as possible.

Step 1. There appears to be some scientists who disagree on evolution, a very small fraction that falls outside acceptable p-values for a conclusion.
I would hence rule out the disagreement based on this and the fact that actual peer review articles against evolution are incredibly rare. The global warming case is not similar because the disagreement is well within acceptable p-values.

On this same basis I would rule out light superpartners in physics, even though some claim they exist, they are extremely small in number.

However let's say I'm more lenient than usual and allow the disagreement because our origins are important, then I move to step 2.

Step 2. The majority of claims are written from a non-scientific perspective and involve an awful lot of "spin" and distortions of what the actual scientific theories say. If somebody criticises a caricature of a scientific theory, rather than the theory itself then they are not worth listening to.
However let's say I'm even more lenient and assume that these people are cranks that actually don't represent proper thought that's critical of evolution.
I then move on to step 3.

Step 3. Now, I'm looking at the well written criticisms of evolution that actually deal with the theory itself. These divide into two broad classes.
The first class is those who think that evolution is only part of the history of biological organisms and that there is a second mechanism that is equally important that we haven't found yet. They form 95% of this group. I'll leave them for now because they aren't related to what we're talking about, but I can speak about them if anybody wishes.
The remaining 5% are Creationists. I'll turn to step 4 to deal with this group.

Step 4. Now we have the Creationists who write decent material against evolution. I've given criticisms of their writings in several places so I won't go into here. Instead I'll mention something else. This group also appears to have problems with the Big Bang and abiogenesis. All of which are from completely unrelated fields.
Big Bang is from Cosmology.
Abiogenesis is from Chemistry.
Finally Evolution itself is from Biology.

Now, these three separate theories which stand independently of each other. Any two could be proven wrong without effecting the third. However the seem to be lumped together in Creationist literature as one single entity. Particularly Abiogenesis and Evolution get put together as molecules-to-man.

Okay why does this group have a problem with three unrelated theories.
(The Big Bang is especially, in fact completely unrelated to the last two.)
It turns out that this group consists entirely of fundamentalist Christians and all these theories go against their preferred reading of their holy book.

This extremely suspicious and remember I've already been overly lenient twice.


Let me give you a hypothetical example in reverse.
Imagine there was the possibility of making a drug from a plant I'll call the ABC plant. 99.95% of scientists are of the opinion that this drug can be manufactured from the plant, given enough R&D.
Upon reading the literature I find there is a small group, 0.05% of scientists (just on the p-value), who say this won't work. I read up on them and find out that they are all from culture X. In culture X this plant has always been considered harmful. I would suspect they are not being honest in their judgement. I then find out they also write papers criticising other areas which disagree with their culture. Not only that, but they lump all the areas together as if they are one consistent whole.


The fact that there is a dispute is not enough for the opposing opinion to be considered.
The opposing opinion must have:
1. A decent number of proponents.
2. A well founded literature
3. Not be based around a culture which requires the opposing opinion to be true.

I'd be willing to allow an opinion away with one of these, but not all three together.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Interesting.

You recognise that the untrustworthiness is because they're "just men" like "the rest of society".

Those faithful who explain the interpretation of scripture, who act as spiritiual leaders, etc. are all part of "the rest of society". Those who wrote the bible in the first place were also part of "the rest of society".

Indeed, everyone involved in putting the bible onto paper, translating, transcribing, selecting which works were to form the bible and which not.....all of tose were also part of "the rest of society".

So tell me...why do you trust their impartiality?

I only trust the impartiality of God. He inspired His apostles and prophets and they wrote accordingly. Then, according to His promise, He caused the inheritors of that word to collate and preserve it for us. They were only men and if it had been them alone we were depending on, the Bible would not be the word of God.

Do you apply the same critique to the Creationist penchant for repeating ad nauseum the strawman argument regarding "scientific provability" ???? ?

I don't see any demand beyond them asking for the same standards of 'proof' to be applied to elvoution as evoultionists demand of creationists.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Once again you are not answering the actual question, just skirting around it

Why was it necessary for God to kill part of himself for our sins to be forgiven by him?

I think Jakkass has been pretty clear, but let me try to enlighten you:
Because God is holy, He cannot just ignore our sin. That would be to condone it. Only a perfect man could be our substitue, anyone less would be under God's judgement themselves and so unable to help us. And he must atone not only for one person, but for countless millions.

Who would be this perfect man, one who would perfectly keep God's laws and could pay for the sins of millions?

Only God Himself could become such a Saviour. So God the Father sent God the Son into the world, to save His people from their sins.

He became a man in Mary's womb, yet remained God. He lived a perfect life and thus qualified Himself to be the substitute for sinners. He then died under God's curse, bearing the sins of His people in His own body on the tree.

God the Father accepted that atonement and Christ rose from the dead - sin and death had no hold on Him, as He was sinless - and ascended to His Father's throne. By this act He has obtained pardon for all who repent from their sins and trust in Him. Their sins are forgiven.

Saying Jesus died for our sins is ridiculous. Jesus WAS God. God died so that God would forgive us our sins?

Yes, God the Son died so that God the Father would forgive our sins.

So sacrifice yourself you need to atone for something to someone else. As JC says Jesus was the reparation for our sins. But reperations to whom? God? But Jesus IS God. How can God give reparation to himself?

Just the same way we can forgive someone's debt today - I take the loss myself.

If Jesus wasn't God then it would easy to say that Jesus took all the burden of our sins on himself and atoned for it in front of God. That would be a bit messed up, but it would at least make sense (like a priest offering himself to be killed in a Nazi concentration camp rather than the Nazi's killing a child)

The problem comes because Jesus is supposed to be God. So he offered himself up to himself for atonement? Why what that necessary?

Jesus (the Son of God) offered up Himself to His Father. He did this because God is holy and could not just ignore our sins. If we are to be restored to fellowship with Him, our sins needed to be expunged.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Has it occurred to you Jimi that the reason I, and others, don't "get it" is because it actually doesn't make any sense?

You seem unable to explain why it does actually make sense, to you or why it should make sense to me, which simply shows that you don't understand yourself. You simply accept it. Which is fine. But it doesn't mean it does actually make any more sense.

As a well know internet blogger said in relation to explaining something in science -

"Unless you have several different ways to explain something, you don't understand it yourself."

I know what you think. But the fact remains. You don't get it. And the previous post proved that. You have your own assumptions, and that is your problem.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

I find that an odd remark. A journalist misrepresents a scientist, and you consider that it shows that one cannot trust the impartiality of scientists.

I was thinking of the scientists he interviewed, not his personal comments. Are you saying they were imposters?

Er, no - and again I can't quite see how you come to even ask that. Some of the scientists who were interviewed for the program said that the program misrepresented their views, presenting what they had said in a form that made it seem they were saying the opposite of what they wanted to say.

That's misrepresentation, yes? It has no bearing on the impartiality of the scientists involved, since they were being falsely portrayed...

If I took what you said against evolution, and chopped it up to make it look like you supported evolution, that would be misrepresentation, but would hardly reflect on your impartiality.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Yes, I occasionally wonder why there is not slightly more committment by Christians to the 'stewardship of the earth' that they were give. Possibly the regularity with which fundamentalist Christians deny any possibility of climate change is a denial of that responsibility.

Christians should indeed be to the fore in the stewardship of the earth. It is not their property, just loaned to them by God. To ravage and pollute it is to show disrespect to its Creator. An applicable text:
Revelation 11:18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come,
And the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints,
And those who fear Your name, small and great,
And should destroy those who destroy the earth.”

I don't know of any Evangelicals who deny the possibility of climate change. I know some who think it unlikely that man is the cause of any significant change. I should think most accept there has been - and therefore is likely to be - significant climate change in the past.

But maybe you can name names?

Some links:

Evangelical Society
The Evangelical Outpost

Overall, I think there is quite a lot of concern, but there is also a huge deadweight of ordinary Christians in the US who seem excessively "skeptical" - I'm not now thinking of strong voices, but rather of the commenters on others posts/blogs/news. The defence given is often that 'it is arrogant to think that we can change the world - only God can do that'. Perhaps this is rather more the crossover between conservative politics (and Fox News, and all that that implies) and evangelical religion than evangelical religion itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote:

I only trust the impartiality of God.
He inspired His apostles and prophets and they wrote accordingly.
...
Then, according to His promise,

You're forming a circular argument - the bible tells you that the bible is true....

I don't see any demand beyond them asking for the same standards of 'proof' to be applied to elvoution as evoultionists demand of creationists.

The standards of 'proof' being asked of creationists are not proof per se, but rather something which meets the standards of scientific method - falsifiable predictions which can be tested against the premise itself.

Similarily, challenges to a scientific model should be formulated in the same manner - falsifiable predictions shown to be false. "Agreement with the bible" cannot server as a falsifiable prediction in this sense, as the veracity of the bible has not been scientifically established and cannot therefore be used as a control.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

When I say explain I mean properly explain, not just "the Bible says..." or "God fills me with love, therefore I accept this..." neither of which are actually explainations, simply diversions.

Don't be rediculous. It is widely understood that the Bible is the core of all Christian and Jewish (Old Testament) beliefs. If you want me to explain the passion of Christ without the Bible, it would be unexplainable. We find out about the passion through the Bible. Therefore it is impossible to explain it to you without referring to it. Actually, eh... you could pop down to Extravision and rent out Passion of the Christ

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

Overall, I think there is quite a lot of concern, but there is also a huge deadweight of ordinary Christians in the US who seem excessively "skeptical" - I'm not now thinking of strong voices, but rather of the commenters on others posts/blogs/news. The defence given is often that 'it is arrogant to think that we can change the world - only God can do that'. Perhaps this is rather more the crossover between conservative politics (and Fox News, and all that that implies) and evangelical religion than evangelical religion itself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There's been a large amount of debate on climate change even outside of the religious spectrum. Infact I was looking at a book on an alternative theory on climate change today in Easons. Can't remember the title though, but it claims that it is because the sunspots on the sun are more active, not due to emissions being trapped in the atmosphere.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I have always accepted that galaxies are made up of interstellar dust AND stars.

Son Goku
Good, so I take you agree that galaxies are actually several million light years away then?

Some galaxies, probably are……
……..and some probably are not.:D


I came across an interesting article, which details how the first Encyclopaedia Britannica declared the Earth was only about 6,000 years old ……
……. and under the heading of ‘Deluge’ the same Encyclopædia Britannica said:-
“the most memorable (Deluge) was that called the universal deluge, or Noah’s flood, which overflowed and destroyed the whole earth, and out of which only Noah, and those with him in the ark, escaped.”’

This is strong evidence that the modern ‘long-age view of creation’ does not originate in Genesis or early Church History, but is a relatively recent attempt to reconcile the Bible with the pronouncements of Evolutionary Science……..

…….and you can read all about it here:-
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4954


Prof. Michael Ruse, of Florida State University, is an Evolutionist. In his latest book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle (Harvard, 2005), Prof. Ruse acknowledges the religious dimension to evolution.

A review in the journal Science summed it up as follows:

“Michael Ruse interprets the last 200 years of conflict between biology and religion as a struggle between evolutionism and creationism. Evolutionism is not merely an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. It consists of “the whole metaphysical or ideological picture built around or on evolution,” including a belief in progress and attempts to reduce cultural and ethical values to evolutionary biology. As such, it constitutes a “secular religion.” Thus, for Ruse (a philosopher of science at Florida State University), the debate over creationism is more a conflict between two religions than one between religion and science.”
Science, 22 July 2005.

……..and because Evolutionism is a “secular religion”, that may be why Evolutionists on this thread, often spend more time arguing over aspects of the Christian Faith, than they do debating Evolution itself!!!!!:eek:


The British popular science magazine Focus, on receiving a reader’s question, ‘How soon could Adam and Eve have populated the world?’, published the following response:-
“If you believe the Biblical account of the Creation, it’s possible to get a very rough estimate of the time when Adam and Eve existed. The trouble is that it inevitably involves assumptions about birth and death rates, and these can have a dramatic effect on the final estimate. If we assume a historical average net rate of population growth of 0.5 per cent (around one-third of today’s rate), it would take around 4,400 years to get from Adam and Eve to today’s six billion people.”
Focus, December 2004, p. 49.

The 4,400 year figure roughly equates to the time that Noah’s Family (and from whom all people today are descended) came off the Ark.
Such straightforward figures supports the hypothesis that man has been recently Created.


Wicknight
Evolution. Its real. Get over it.

Evolution. It’s SCIENTIFICALLY INVALID. Get over it!!!!:D

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

There's been a large amount of debate on climate change even outside of the religious spectrum. Infact I was looking at a book on an alternative theory on climate change today in Easons. Can't remember the title though, but it claims that it is because the sunspots on the sun are more active, not due to emissions being trapped in the atmosphere.

Well, again, the scientific debate has been going on for fourty years, and is largely finished, except for the usual few holdouts.

The public debate, on the other hand, is only really getting going. Unfortunately, it has a very high signal-to-noise ratio.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Good, so I take you agree that galaxies are actually several million light years away then?

Some galaxies, probably are……
……..and some possibly are not.:D

So how do we see the light from them then, since it would take millions of years?