The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

mickoneill30

pipraider wrote:

The Big Bang defies explanation, and to me is sort of like the Santa Claus 'happening,' when no other explanation is available to the kiddies when on Christmas morning, there are all those toys.
-d-

Just because we have no clue about something doesn't mean it defies explanation forever. In the last couple of hundred years the sum of human knowledge has increased faster than ever before, and we're still accelerating. To say something defies explanation is to give up. It might take 10 years or 1000, it'll be figured out or replaced with something else once our understanding of the subject becomes greater. You can replace the understanding with God if you want. Bringing Santa into the debate is ironic.:D

Scofflaw

pipraider wrote:

There a couple of things which science attempts to explain, which I have long considered absurd, and since nothing important has happened of late, other than the usual political nonsense, that I might as well harass you with these two. The first is the "Big Bang" theory of how the universe 'happened,' but of course was not created by a supreme being. The Big Bang defies explanation, and to me is sort of like the Santa Claus 'happening,' when no other explanation is available to the kiddies when on Christmas morning, there are all those toys. Where did the "Big Bang" come from? Who supplied the explosives? Was there oxygen there so that an explosion could happen? Isn't a big bang a rather destructive, rather than creative force? Since when did a big bang create anything? When did this happen? Trillions of years ago? How could anyone know anything about the origin of the universe in the first place, other than to ascribe it to a creator? We are but a speck on the earth, compared to the size of the earth in the universe! Stop with this 'Big Bang' crud if you please! Could there be any other explanation other than a supreme being or creator? I am not trying to make this religious...just logical.

Well, I don't want to say you're not logical, but you are misinformed about the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is the start of the Universe. If you prefer to view things in a Creationist sense, you can think of God creating something out of nothing. Does it require explosives? No, nor oxygen - there is nothing before God creates it. Nothing is not the same as empty space - it is, instead, the absence of everything - there is no light, no dark, no time, no length - God creates all that when He creates the Universe.

The same is true for the Big Bang. There is nothing before it, and everything after it. There's no reason for it not to happen, because reason didn't exist.

pipraider wrote:

Then we come to the evolution theory, which makes about as much sense as does the big bang nonsense. Did we evolve from apes, chimpanzees, or ancient fish who happened to find it more convenient to live on land, shed their gills, and breathe air? Do giraffes have long necks because they had eaten all the vegetation at lower levels, and so rather starve, they grew long necks to access higher food stuffs? I have been told both stories by evolutionists. Then there are ancient humans who have been dug up, and whose bone structures are about the same as is current. No one has ever dug up a combination ape-man, which would demonstrate an evolving.

Factually inaccurate. We have all kinds of intermediates between man and ape in the fossil record - the study of them is a major field of anthropology.

pipraider wrote:

The fruit fly has a life span of about a month, and for thousands of years, fruit flies, and every other insect, animal and creature have reproduced trillions of times, and guess what? They're still fruit flies, pigs, apes, and earthworms. No one has ever seen an air breathing fish

Lungfish.

pipraider wrote:

, nor catfish and whales who indeed do breathe air, sprout legs to avoid the nuisance of having to dive to the surface to breathe air.

Wrong direction of evolution. On the other hand, we have some nice transitional whales with vestigial legs.

pipraider wrote:

How did the giraffes last so long while their evolving necks grew?

By eating the leaves halfway up the tree...not to mention the trees evolving as well.

pipraider wrote:

Survival of the fittest? How about arrival of the fittest?

In no way am I depreciating scientific discovery, knowledge, and research. It's just that there are times when scientists are so damned stubborn, that they will invent any fairy tale, and the educators then make it compulsory in education, (except home schooling!), so that we all toe the line and believe their absurd theories and pronouncements. Not me, nor any logical, clear thinking person...I hope.

Ah yes. It's the same methodology, the same processes, and it ties in with all the other theories - but you don't like the conclusions, so you prefer to consider it a "fairy tale". You're entitled to that belief, of course, but that's all it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It's a privilege to live yes. He could take it back if he found reason to.

If you define life as only a privilege you are on a very slippery slope.

Say God commands someone else to kill you. Do they have the right to kill you? How would you know if God had or had not ordered them to kill you. How would they know if they genuinely believed that God had ordered them to kill you.

Replace one person with an army who believe they fight with the blessing of God, because that is what they have been told by their priests. Do they have the right to kill others in Gods name.

If one believes that no one has the right to life, only a privilege to life that can be taken away by their God, then you pretty much have the justification for any holy war in the last 5000 years.

Jakkass wrote:

Actually, Wicknight why don't you believe in anything yourself? Seeing as the questions are really flying in one direction at the moment.

I believe in plenty of things. For a start I believe that everyone has a fundamental right to life, which you don't. I also believe that no one should ever suffer punishment for something someone else has done, which again you don't. I believe that death is never a justified punishment for any crime, particularly a crime carried out by a child, which you don't. I believe that guilt cannot be inherited or passed on over generations, which you do. I believe that no one can be held accountable for the guilt of their parents or grandparents, which again you do.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see how being one of God's people makes us feel worthless.

Thinking that you are a sinful creature infested with guilty for something that someone is supposed to have done 6000 years ago before you were born, and in desperate need of "saving" from this sin by the same entity that made this sin in the first place, might though

Zombrex

pipraider wrote:

The first is the "Big Bang" theory of how the universe 'happened,' but of course was not created by a supreme being. The Big Bang defies explanation, and to me is sort of like the Santa Claus 'happening,' when no other explanation is available to the kiddies when on Christmas morning, there are all those toys.

Do you actually understand what the "Big Bang" theories state?

pipraider wrote:

Where did the "Big Bang" come from? Who supplied the explosives? Was there oxygen there so that an explosion could happen?

Ok never mind .. I think you have answered the above question :rolleyes:

This might help (assuming you are not a troll)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Well I suppose but that isn't the same as saying you are worthless. I feel that it would be arrogant for one to say that they were as good as the being who created this world and it's people.

A good answer. Apologies, I thought you were sort of evading the question.

Still, it doesn't get you off the hook on the matter of the same God who gave out such 'good laws' also committed, permitted, and required some particularly vicious acts. Either that God of the OT is the God of the NT, or not - in the former case, I cannot see how He has changed, or indeed, can have changed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

pipraider wrote:

In no way am I depreciating scientific discovery, knowledge, and research.

Thats correct. You're not.

You're creating a straw-man of what you are claiming to be scientific knowledge and attacking it, despite it not being scientific knowledge in the first place.

Whether this be through ignorance or wilful misrepresentation is something only you can clarify.

It's just that there are times when scientists are so damned stubborn, that they will invent any fairy tale,

Indeed. Evolution is such an obvious fairy tale that it led to the conclusion that something with the functionality of DNA must exist...over a century before DNA was found.

I mean...what more proof do you need that its absolute hokum, right?

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Indeed. Evolution is such an obvious fairy tale that it led to the conclusion that something with the functionality of DNA must exist...over a century before DNA was found.

I mean...what more proof do you need that its absolute hokum, right?

That is a good point. If evolution is nonsense then what purpose does DNA serve?

stevejazzx

pipraider wrote:

There a couple of things which science attempts to explain, which I have long considered absurd, and since nothing important has happened of late, other than the usual political nonsense, that I might as well harass you with these two. The first is the "Big Bang" theory of how the universe 'happened,' but of course was not created by a supreme being. The Big Bang defies explanation, and to me is sort of like the Santa Claus 'happening,' when no other explanation is available to the kiddies when on Christmas morning, there are all those toys.

Great analogy, the big bang and santa claus. Well if thats as far as you've got with the subject then I am not surprised you're confused. The complexity of our first origin is infinite. Adding a hyper complex God Designer to that equation as a pre origin requisite intensifies the equation to the point of utter impossibility. Now thats a big sentence so simply, adding God into the reciepe only leaves one with the probelm, expressed here in old time cockney syntax as
'well where the bloomin' 'ell did he come from then'.

pipraider wrote:

Where did the "Big Bang" come from? Who supplied the explosives? Was there oxygen there so that an explosion could happen? Isn't a big bang a rather destructive, rather than creative force? Since when did a big bang create anything? When did this happen? Trillions of years ago? How could anyone know anything about the origin of the universe in the first place, other than to ascribe it to a creator? We are but a speck on the earth, compared to the size of the earth in the universe! Stop with this 'Big Bang' crud if you please!

Let me explain something to you. Critical analysis of something like the big bang cannot be made using a few daft phrases in a short paragraph on a thread in a memebers forum. You are not even close to understanding the subject you are attempting to criticise, you talk about explosion instead of exspansion. You mention nothing about sigularities, heat or time. You think it was just like a bomb that went off, thats not even a kindergarden level understanding of big bang theory. Go read some some interweb.

Could there be any other explanation other than a supreme being or creator? I am not trying to make this religious...just logical.

Of course you're making it religous. How can you attempt to claim to be in search of something that is logically progressive when you clearly have not read up on your subject matter? Only certain types of people do this: Idiots, pseudo intellectuals or those with alterior motives, hidden agendas and any other euphemisitic superlatives attachable to religous nuts.

pipraid wrote:

Then we come to the evolution theory, which makes about as much sense as does the big bang nonsense. Did we evolve from apes, chimpanzees, or ancient fish who happened to find it more convenient to live on land, shed their gills, and breathe air? Do giraffes have long necks because they had eaten all the vegetation at lower levels, and so rather starve, they grew long necks to access higher food stuffs? I have been told both stories by evolutionists. Then there are ancient humans who have been dug up, and whose bone structures are about the same as is current. No one has ever dug up a combination ape-man, which would demonstrate an evolving. The fruit fly has a life span of about a month, and for thousands of years, fruit flies, and every other insect, animal and creature have reproduced trillions of times, and guess what? They're still fruit flies, pigs, apes, and earthworms. No one has ever seen an air breathing fish, nor catfish and whales who indeed do breathe air, sprout legs to avoid the nuisance of having to dive to the surface to breathe air. How did the giraffes last so long while their evolving necks grew? Survival of the fittest? How about arrival of the fittest?
In no way am I depreciating scientific discovery, knowledge, and research. It's just that there are times when scientists are so damned stubborn, that they will invent any fairy tale, and the educators then make it compulsory in education, (except home schooling!), so that we all toe the line and believe their absurd theories and pronouncements. Not me, nor any logical, clear thinking person...I hope.

-d-

Ha! Yet more moronic crticism of something you clearly have no idea about. Are you actually claiming that 99.9% of scientists are deeply implicated in a conspiracy to propogate* the theory of the big bang.
Those 'stubborn scientits' you call them as if you have an intrinsic understaning of all scientific work to date logically processed in your brain (presumably some kind of massive polycore supercomputing behemoth) the end resulf of which shows science losing to out to religon.
Do you realise the amount of work and effort gone into developing and testing the major scientific theoires of the last 200 years? Do you realsie that everything we do on a dialy basis undertakes and obeys a scieintific principal? Realistically, on the basis of your input, I perhaps should be asking you how you dress yourself in the mornings but hey I thought i try and enage with you on an intellectual basis as the results are bound to be enlightening, one way or the other.

Mitch Connor

pipraider wrote:

There a couple of things which science attempts to explain, which I have long considered absurd, and since nothing important has happened of late, other than the usual political nonsense, that I might as well harass you with these two. The first is the "Big Bang" theory of how the universe 'happened,' but of course was not created by a supreme being. The Big Bang defies explanation, and to me is sort of like the Santa Claus 'happening,' when no other explanation is available to the kiddies when on Christmas morning, there are all those toys. Where did the "Big Bang" come from? Who supplied the explosives? Was there oxygen there so that an explosion could happen? Isn't a big bang a rather destructive, rather than creative force? Since when did a big bang create anything? When did this happen? Trillions of years ago? How could anyone know anything about the origin of the universe in the first place, other than to ascribe it to a creator? We are but a speck on the earth, compared to the size of the earth in the universe! Stop with this 'Big Bang' crud if you please! Could there be any other explanation other than a supreme being or creator? I am not trying to make this religious...just logical.

Then we come to the evolution theory, which makes about as much sense as does the big bang nonsense. Did we evolve from apes, chimpanzees, or ancient fish who happened to find it more convenient to live on land, shed their gills, and breathe air? Do giraffes have long necks because they had eaten all the vegetation at lower levels, and so rather starve, they grew long necks to access higher food stuffs? I have been told both stories by evolutionists. Then there are ancient humans who have been dug up, and whose bone structures are about the same as is current. No one has ever dug up a combination ape-man, which would demonstrate an evolving. The fruit fly has a life span of about a month, and for thousands of years, fruit flies, and every other insect, animal and creature have reproduced trillions of times, and guess what? They're still fruit flies, pigs, apes, and earthworms. No one has ever seen an air breathing fish, nor catfish and whales who indeed do breathe air, sprout legs to avoid the nuisance of having to dive to the surface to breathe air. How did the giraffes last so long while their evolving necks grew? Survival of the fittest? How about arrival of the fittest?

In no way am I depreciating scientific discovery, knowledge, and research. It's just that there are times when scientists are so damned stubborn, that they will invent any fairy tale, and the educators then make it compulsory in education, (except home schooling!), so that we all toe the line and believe their absurd theories and pronouncements. Not me, nor any logical, clear thinking person...I hope.

-d-

you seem to be having a go at scientific explanations forhow we came to be because you don't believe the 'proof' they have offered to back their theories - yet argue in favour of God, of which there is really only faithful belief. Odd.

As for claiming scientists inventing 'fairy tales' to back themselves, i just can't Adam and Eve you just said that.

JimiTime

Scofflaw wrote:

We've had that discussion elsewhere. I don't recall it being resoloved in favour of you personally deciding what is acceptable or not.

This is uncalled for. Why do you have to take swipes? Is this your presumption on what I was trying to do in the aforementioned thread? Gain power over the forum? Again you are misrepresenting what I was saying.

As I said, we've already had 250 pages of this thread, without your input. It has its own standards - if you don't like them, don't join in. If you do join in, don't assume that you can tell the other posters how to behave.

Scofflaw

So this thread operates outside the charter? If that's the case, apologies. I didn't realise that.
Again, you present me as this poster who's telling people what to do. Even after the poster who I spoke to said that her comments were rash, you insist on depicting me this way. You are completely wrong in your presumptions. Then again if this thread does in fact operate outside the charter then I was out of line asking the poster to realise they were speaking to a christian in the christianity forum. It might be an idea for someone to mention this in the charter, so that people realise that there is a different standard in this thread.

Honestly,
Jimitime.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

This is uncalled for. Why do you have to take swipes? Is this your presumption on what I was trying to do in the aforementioned thread? Gain power over the forum? Again you are misrepresenting what I was saying.

Well, when you tell other posters how they should behave, remind them to 'know their place', and tell the mods to 'bring it on', you certainly leave the door wide open for misinterpretation...

JimiTime wrote:

So this thread operates outside the charter? If that's the case, apologies. I didn't realise that.

In effect, this thread could equally well be titled "atheists and theists giving each other a good going over". It's here for historical reasons, and moving it would probably blow up the database.

JimiTime wrote:

Again, you present me as this poster who's telling people what to do. Even after the poster who I spoke to said that her comments were rash, you insist on depicting me this way.

Bluewolf is prepared to apologise when completely right. Many could learn from her example - myself included!

JimiTime wrote:

You are completely wrong in your presumptions. Then again if this thread does in fact operate outside the charter then I was out of line asking the poster to realise they were speaking to a christian in the christianity forum. It might be an idea for someone to mention this in the charter, so that people realise that there is a different standard in this thread.

I would have said that every thread has its own character, and that, certainly in the case of quite such a large thread, it was perhaps worth reading back a while to see what the generally acceptable ethos of the thread is.

Still, accept my apology for being over-critical of you when you weren't aware of that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JimiTime

^Indeed I now realise my own place. Its out in the sunshine:D

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

^Indeed I now realise my own place. Its out in the sunshine:D

Hah! I wish...

darkly,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

So, picking up the thread again, can anybody tell me what is scientifically wrong with evolution?

I'd also be interested in hearing wolfsbane's response to my statistical argument, it seemed like we had a good discussion going there.

philologos

Right, here we go everyone. I have a question for all of you.
Say if you saw a loaf of bread on the table, and you had no explanation for who or what made it. What would you ask, what formed this bread? or who baked this bread?
Naturally I assume the latter. That is what we Creationists think of the universe and the earth itself. There had to be a baker or in this circumstance an ultimate crafter to create it in all it's glory and wonder. A loaf of bread could not be made alone, someone had to knead the bread. Creationists would say someone had to craft the universe.
Right, I fail to see how Creationism isn't plausible, when so many things are created. For example for a car to come into existence there has to be a designer and a manufacturer involved. For a song to be composed there has to be a composer. For a table to be made there has to be a carpenter. And if there isn't a human involved, someone had to program the robot responsible for making it in the first place.
Why then if creation is so prevalent in society, why can't it be a plausible answer to how the world was created? If so many things have been created, why can't the Earth be too?
Thats just my philosophy on it, but its a firmly held belief of mine.

Son Goku

There's nothing that makes it implausible, just that there's nothing which explicitly supports it yet.

philologos

thats the issue for atheists. The Bible supports it.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

thats the issue for atheists. The Bible supports it.

Yeah, but what are you getting at? I answered the question, nothing explicitly supports it from an physical evidentiary stand point. You have the bible which you consider to be above this.

Where are you going with this?

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Right, here we go everyone. I have a question for all of you.
Say if you saw a loaf of bread on the table, and you had no explanation for who or what made it. What would you ask, what formed this bread? or who baked this bread?
Naturally I assume the latter. That is what we Creationists think of the universe and the earth itself. There had to be a baker or in this circumstance an ultimate crafter to create it in all it's glory and wonder. A loaf of bread could not be made alone, someone had to knead the bread. Creationists would say someone had to craft the universe.
Right, I fail to see how Creationism isn't plausible, when so many things are created or there has to be created. For example for a car to come into existence there has to be a designer and a manufacturer involved. For a song to be composed there has to be a composter. For a table to be made there has to be a carpenter. And if there isn't a human involved, someone had to program the robot responsible for making it in the first place.
Why then if creation is so prevalent in society, why can't it be a plausible answer to how the world was created? If so many things have been created, why can't the Earth be too?
Thats just my philosophy on it, but its a firmly held belief of mine.

Why not assume that it was born? All these living things being born, all the time, every day - do you think they're made? What could possibly be more natural than to assume that the loaf of bread was born from another loaf of bread, or hatched from an egg?

Why not assume it fell from the sky? After all, rain, snow, sleet, dust, meteorites, frogs (occasionally) fall from the sky - why not that loaf?

Why not assume it grew? Like a plant - I mean, you see them every day, surely it occurred to you that it just grew there? It's not green, so it's probably a type of mushroom - you know how they suddenly burst up after rain...

Why not assume it's always been there? From our point of view, the hills have always been there, and the animals, and the plants - it seems odd you should suddenly assume that your loaf of bread is something new?

Why not assume it came up out of the sea (if it's anywhere near it, that is)? After all, the sea washes up all kinds of strange things whose origin is a mystery to us - why not a loaf of bread?

rather more completely,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

While we're on these "it's only common sense!" arguments - everything we know was either made, born, or grew, or was always there, right? Now, we've never made anything living, and the only things that have always been there are dead things like rocks. Everything that's alive, that we've ever seen, was either born or grew. So God must have been born, or grew - that's just common sense, surely?

Hang on, there's a book that says that isn't the case. Well, when was that written? Two thousand years ago? Did they know more than us back then? Not a bit! They didn't have cars, or the internet, or aircraft - they had no antibiotics, no television, no electricity, nothing at all really. I mean, come on, we know more than our grandparents, right? So they must have really known nothing back then - it's only common sense!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Giblet

Scofflaw wrote:

While we're on these "it's only common sense!" arguments - everything we know was either made, born, or grew, or was always there, right? Now, we've never made anything living, and the only things that have always been there are dead things like rocks. Everything that's alive, that we've ever seen, was either born or grew. So God must have been born, or grew - that's just common sense, surely?

Hang on, there's a book that says that isn't the case. Well, when was that written? Two thousand years ago? Did they know more than us back then? Not a bit! They didn't have cars, or the internet, or aircraft - they had no antibiotics, no television, no electricity, nothing at all really. I mean, come on, we know more than our grandparents, right? So they must have really known nothing back then - it's only common sense!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Funnily enough, this is the first time I've seen you break down an argument to such simple terms, if only everyone else would bring their arguments up to your usual level.

worshippingly,
Giblet

Kevster

My true feelings on Christianity is that it began as a cult and became so popular that the rulers at the time became worried at its ever growing popularity. Thus, they had the leader of the cult [Jesus of Nazareth] executed. However, this was a bad move because it appears to have cemented Jesus as a saviour. From that, Jesus' closest friends perpetuated the cult by writing the bible which, I might add, is grossly exaggerated.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of God and, as much as I have tried to believe in Him, I cannot because the concept of doing so makes me feel so damn stupid.


Kevin.

Kevster

Scofflaw wrote:

While we're on these "it's only common sense!" arguments - everything we know was either made, born, or grew, or was always there, right? Now, we've never made anything living, and the only things that have always been there are dead things like rocks. Everything that's alive, that we've ever seen, was either born or grew. So God must have been born, or grew - that's just common sense, surely?

In my opinion, nothing is truly 'alive'. Everything just 'is' - i.e. we are no different than rocks, air, and everything else you see around you. We just happen to be a complex arrangement of different energy-levels such that we are capable of manipulating things around us. Rocks, on the other hand, consist of a simpler arrangement of energy-levels such that they cannot manipulate things around them.

Energy-levels can be interchangeably used with the word Atoms in this post.

Take care,
Kevin

philologos

Kevster wrote:

From that, Jesus' closest friends perpetuated the cult by writing the bible which, I might add, is grossly exaggerated.

Do you have any proof that it was grossly exaggerated.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Why not assume that it was born? All these living things being born, all the time, every day - do you think they're made? What could possibly be more natural than to assume that the loaf of bread was born from another loaf of bread, or hatched from an egg?

Why not assume it fell from the sky? After all, rain, snow, sleet, dust, meteorites, frogs (occasionally) fall from the sky - why not that loaf?

Why not assume it grew? Like a plant - I mean, you see them every day, surely it occurred to you that it just grew there? It's not green, so it's probably a type of mushroom - you know how they suddenly burst up after rain...

Why not assume it's always been there? From our point of view, the hills have always been there, and the animals, and the plants - it seems odd you should suddenly assume that your loaf of bread is something new?

Why not assume it came up out of the sea (if it's anywhere near it, that is)? After all, the sea washes up all kinds of strange things whose origin is a mystery to us - why not a loaf of bread?

rather more completely,
Scofflaw

Very very good post

Giblet

Jakkass wrote:

Do you have any proof that it was grossly exaggerated.

Do I even need to ask?

Ok. do you have any proof that it wasn't?

philologos

Giblet wrote:

Do I even need to ask?

Ok. do you have any proof that it wasn't?

Was I the one who claimed it was overexaggerated? I think Kevster should explain why he thinks so before I explain my position on it.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

So, picking up the thread again, can anybody tell me what is scientifically wrong with evolution?

I'd also be interested in hearing wolfsbane's response to my statistical argument, it seemed like we had a good discussion going there.

Just back on-line today after other pressing business, so apologies for not responding to many posts. I'll review what's needed and get back to them this week, DV.

In the meantime, in view of the season, here's a favourite passage of mine that links the Old Testament with the New:
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

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.
It was the Moses one I was thinking of.

wolfsbane said a couple pages later:

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

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost....postcount=4517

Anyway around that page is what I was talking about earlier.
So wolfsbane what's your answer now?

Just jumping in here as I review all the posts I've missed.

I don't see any change to the argument, bluewolf. The destruction of the nation was due to the parents' sins. I see you may be thinking God's actions are in conflict with His command for man not to punish children for their father's sin, and vv. God is the Creator, the giver of life, 'in Whom we live and breathe and have our being', so He can legitimately end the life of anyone at anytime. It may be in punishment, it may just be in providence. Man has no power or right to such sovereignty in providence, and in the exercise of punishment, he must abide by God's restrictions.

wolfsbane

Sapien said:

Do you understand the epistemological concept of parsimony? It is the one principle upon which all reductionist thought, and therefore science, is based.

If you insist that "God did it" is as useful as "it just happened" (which is of course to say that it happend within the understood or understandable rules of a natural universe) then you ipso facto depart from the scientific method.

Please do some reading in epistemology, or leave discussion of what constitutes a scientific idea to those who know what they are talking about.

Pardon my intrusion into your holy priesthood. As a layman, I have some problems with several key points of your faith. I had hoped my ignorance of the specialised languages could be overcome by experts like yourself expressing themselves in the common tongue.

Son Goku has been helpful, as have others. I want to follow-up their reasoning in simple steps, to see if I can fully grasp what they consider to be the development of our universe from its birth until today.

The epistemological concept of parsimony, it seems to me in my uninitiated ignorance, is just as suited to an ex-nihilo creation by Divine fiat as to an unexplained origin followed by countless steps from simple atoms to sophisticated life.

I won't expect you to demean yourself by reaching down to my level, so I'll put the questions to the rest.