The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

My response would have been the same as Scofflaws. From their point of view, they are knowingly allowing the auctioneer to commit fraud. Or else they are willing to set their beliefs a side for one moment in order to make a profit. Either way that makes them frauds and sellouts.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

My response would have been the same as Scofflaws. From their point of view, they are knowingly allowing the auctioneer to commit fraud. Or else they are willing to set their beliefs a side for one moment in order to make a profit. Either way that makes them frauds and sellouts.

Even when all parties know the dispute about age??? If they were selling it to some dear old grandma, I could see your point.

I think you are just pulling my leg.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even when all parties know the dispute about age??? If they were selling it to some dear old grandma, I could see your point.

I think you are just pulling my leg.

They should stand by their convictions about a 6,000 year old earth. No, im not pulling your leg.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

They should stand by their convictions about a 6,000 year old earth. No, im not pulling your leg.

I can see no problem with a secular auction house using the secular date. No loss of conviction involved. Obviously you differ. You see my position as compromise, I see yours as pedantry.

krusty2101

Look I believe in treating other people well, but religion is just made up by people to gain power and exert influence over people. Have a look at the world around you - the world is full of it. You quote the bible but it was written years after the year Jesus Christ.
I know that you're opinions are un-changeable so I'll leave you to your life and the same fate as me. A box in the dirt.
The one bit of advice I would give to you is - enjoy this life !!

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can see no problem with a secular auction house using the secular date. No loss of conviction involved. Obviously you differ. You see my position as compromise, I see yours as pedantry.

They should stand by their principles, they are profiting from the fact that the skull is 40,000 years old. What a bunch of sellouts.

robindch

Good heavens! Surely a creationist wouldn't allow his auctioneer to lie on his behalf, just so he can make more money? That's tantamount to fraud. I thought that creationists tell everybody that they're the moral giants in this world. Perhaps they aren't after all?

If the creationist thinks that it's 3,000 years old, then I think he should have the courage of his convictions and sell the thing as 3,000 years old and not as 40,000 years old. Surely the security of his eternal soul is more important than money?

What would Jesus do?

Ekancone

robindch wrote: »

What would Jesus do?

Do you think that actually matters to a Christian?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

They - and all parties involved - know the disputed provenance of the item. No deceit is involved, just an avoidance of pedantry.

I admit that mostly I find this funny, rather than anything else. However, it certainly is true that the museum are allowing the auctioneer to commit what they can only view as fraud on their behalf - assuming they are genuine in their beliefs.

It's all of a piece with using the products of modern medicine and other sciences while claiming that those sciences are falsely founded and cannot be correct. It suggests a certain element of "mental reservation".

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

....I haven't laughed this hard since JC said the holy ghost tells him things...classic stuff altogether, creationist museeum selling a 40,000 year old skull...out and out charlatans tbh

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is the motivation - the motivating reason.

Well it doesn't really work like that, not if you are an atheist. Just because I want to shag the baby sitter doesn't mean that is a reason to do so. I might shag the baby sitter, but I will do so knowing that that is wrong because it conflicts with a moral decision that I cannot simply change because it is my own moral, I didn't get it from anywhere else, and as such I can't pretend to myself that my original moral was flawed now just because I want to shag the 17 year old.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, he might admit what he is doing is wrong. Or he might say his previous moral principle was wrong and he is now behaving properly.

Yes but that is the point, that is far harder to convincingly do if the previous moral opinion was also your own. You have to come up with a logical reason to justify that, and "I just want to shag my baby sitter" isn't going to convince anyone, particularly oneself.

I'm not saying the person won't shag the baby sitter. But they certainly won't shag the baby sitter while thinking that it is totally in line with their own moral system to do so.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly the ame for the Christian, only the latter has to offer a credible reconciliation with Scripture

But again, that is the point. There is no such thing as a "credible reconciliation with Scripture". Credible to who? Anything is credible to someone who wants to believe it.

Christians can and do make anything they like credible reconcile with Scripture, because it is simply a case of interpretation, rather than justification. If someone disagrees with you that is simply because they are interpreting the Bible wrong. A Christian doesn't have to justify the moral itself, they simply have to find some link, no matter how tenuous, with anything in the Bible. And lets not be coy, pretty much everything is in the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

. The atheist owns his morality, so he has no outside, objective standard to reconcile with.

And neither do you, because ultimately your interpretation has no outside standard to reconcile with. Basically you have no idea if your interpretation is actually correct.

This is one area the Catholics are ahead of the game, they do actually have an outside standard to reconcile with, that being the Church itself. As Kelly1 often points out this at least gives them a uniform system of interpretation. But the Protestant religions don't even have that. And as such their different interpretations end up all over the place.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I pointed out above, it is not an easy and convent way, but a rather difficult one if it is not genuine.

Well it is easy and convenient because it requires no justification of the moral beliefs themselves, to either oneself or to others. Heck most of the time it requires no justification of the particular interpretation that leads to the moral belief, to either oneself or to others.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Rubbish. We all believe in the teaching/testimony of others, even when we don't fully understand it.

That is wonderful, but I didn't mention teaching/testimony, I said morality.

For a person to truly believe in a moral it must be their own. A person cannot truly believe in a moral that is not their own because they will never truly understand it, they are simply working off a facsimile copy that they have created based on interpretation of what they think the moral should be.

Which is why you get so many different versions in Christianity of seemingly the same "moral teaching".

The issue is that none of you actually fully understand the moral (which I suppose is understandable, you aren't God and therefore the moral is not your own) which means none of you actually believe in it, you all just believe in copies that you have formed based on your limited interpretation. The actual moral is unattainable, you can only ever work off your copies formed from flawed interpretation.

Of course that doesn't stop you going to war with each other trying to convince each other that your particular interpretation is in fact 100% correct.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians don't do that - we take our morality from the Bible, not have ours confirmed by it.

Well actually you do do that, though I appreciate that you probably don't realize you do because it doesn't fit with how you perceive the purpose of your religion (which again is why you go to war with each other).

When you say "take our morality from the Bible" what you actually mean is that you attempt to interpret the morality describe in the Bible. What you end up with is flawed copies of the original morality, flawed because these morals are formed based on interpretation. You don't take these morals from the Bible, you take these morals from what you think is in the Bible.

You end up not with the morality from the Bible, but with your own copies, that fit your own internal logic and morality. How closely these copies match the actual moral in the Bible is anyones guess, and you yourself are certainly not in a position to accurately judge this. Which again is why you get so many different interpretations of seemingly the same moral message, with everyone believing they are 100% correct.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This is certainly a comment on your poor logic. Unless of course you believe you are God and thus infallible. Mortal man would certainly question his own morality if it threatened his life.

Again that isn't a reason Wolfsbane.

If a man holds a gun to my head and tells me to do something horrible I may do it, but at no point does that give me a reason to justify thinking that it is ok now to do that. I will be aware through the whole process that what I am doing conflicts with my morality, but I'm doing it anyway to save myself.

On the other hand a Christian can easily determine in those few seconds that his original interpretation of what ever Bible passage that forbid that action he is being asked to do is in fact flawed, and that oh look we have another Bible passage over here that now allows him to interpret things completely differently. How funny he didn't realize that before ....

It is basically a moral get out of jail card, the ultimate "You don't need to feel guilty" card, because no matter what the interpretation ends up being the Christian has the concept that the moral is perfect because it comes from God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not if it belonged to a God who would hold him to account.

That great but that only happens when you all get to heaven and God says "That interpretation is completely wrong, to hell with you"

It doesn't help in the actual moment, because there isn't a Christian alive or dead who doesn't accept his own interpretation of what he thinks the morals should be, even if that changes over time.

Every new interpretation will be the one that a Christian is sure this time is the correct one.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can see no problem with a secular auction house using the secular date. No loss of conviction involved.

You seem to be ignoring that the Museum will be happily taking the money raised from this sale, the sale of an object that the Museum knows is being sold with fraudulent information.

If you think that is no loss of conviction for a Christian group to do perhaps you should see my previous post to you about the flexibility of interpretation open to Christians when determining their morality, particularly the bit about how a Christian can easily adjust their moral compass with a gun to their head (or in this case the threat of closure of their Museum).

Ekancone

Something just hit me there. Does JC stand for Jesus Christ?

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote: »

Something just hit me there. Does JC stand for Jesus Christ?

You cracked the code :eek:

Jesus is (second) coming ... look busy ....

stevejazzx

daithifleming wrote: »

Something just hit me there. Does JC stand for Jesus Christ?

no it's jaded creationist i think...

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

Museums are supposed to be expert. If a museum believed that a piece of porcelain was not, could not, be Ming Dynasty, they should not allow their auctioneer to sell it as Ming.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Let's say the experts are divided on the porcelain. Some say its ming, some an even rarer piece. The auction house presents it as Ming, but everybody knows it is disputed.

I don't see the problem.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't see the problem.

That you don't see any problem, is the problem, I believe. Aaaaah! [/profundity]

Clearly, the creation museum people don't see a problem either.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let's say the experts are divided on the porcelain. Some say its ming, some an even rarer piece. The auction house presents it as Ming, but everybody knows it is disputed.

I don't see the problem.

The problem is they are profiting from the fact that the item is 40,000 years old. That means they are selling-out their beliefs. Just give it up Wolfy.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

And neither do you, because ultimately your interpretation has no outside standard to reconcile with. Basically you have no idea if your interpretation is actually correct.

This is one area the Catholics are ahead of the game, they do actually have an outside standard to reconcile with, that being the Church itself. As Kelly1 often points out this at least gives them a uniform system of interpretation. But the Protestant religions don't even have that. And as such their different interpretations end up all over the place.

You only move the choice from the individual to the Pope, another individual.

In the case of the individual Christian, he - if he is sincere - has to make an honest attempt to understand what the Bible teaches on this or that moral point. He is faced with an outside standard that makes demands on him, sometimes even to the point of his death.

If he is insincere, he of course can twist it to whatever suits his desires.

That is wonderful, but I didn't mention teaching/testimony, I said morality.

For a person to truly believe in a moral it must be their own. A person cannot truly believe in a moral that is not their own because they will never truly understand it, they are simply working off a facsimile copy that they have created based on interpretation of what they think the moral should be.

Christians truly believe in the morality taught in the Bible, as best they understand it. You shall love your neighbour as yourself, for example. That presses upon my conscience when I'm tempted to ignore his feelings in fulfilling my own. Simple, clear externally revealed morality that I have embraced and now motivates my heart.

Of course that doesn't stop you going to war with each other trying to convince each other that your particular interpretation is in fact 100% correct.

I haven't went to war with anyone over their interpretation of morality, if by that you mean their religion. My fathers did go to war over Hitler's interpretation of morality, when it involved threatening our lives and liberties. Civil and religious liberty is a morality a State should find worth defending.

When you say "take our morality from the Bible" what you actually mean is that you attempt to interpret the morality describe in the Bible. What you end up with is flawed copies of the original morality, flawed because these morals are formed based on interpretation. You don't take these morals from the Bible, you take these morals from what you think is in the Bible.

You end up not with the morality from the Bible, but with your own copies, that fit your own internal logic and morality. How closely these copies match the actual moral in the Bible is anyones guess, and you yourself are certainly not in a position to accurately judge this. Which again is why you get so many different interpretations of seemingly the same moral message, with everyone believing they are 100% correct.

I agree, we do not get it 100% right. But it is a much better source of morality than inventing your own for these reasons:
1. It must offer a credible interpretation of the written code (the Bible). Words cannot anything to anyone - or we wouldn't be able to have a discussion board. We may get nuances wrong, or some bits wrong - but honest study will reveal more than enough for us to live exemplary lives.

2. Internally-generated morality is utterly subjective and driven by our own best interests. Reason, if rejecting an outside Authority, must invincibly suggest the moral choice that best suits our needs, never mind what effect it has on others.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

The problem is they are profiting from the fact that the item is 40,000 years old. That means they are selling-out their beliefs. Just give it up Wolfy.

Would they not get a better price if it was proved to be 4000 years old, as they allege it is?

Think it through, fellas.

wolfsbane

And now, or your delectation & delight:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

And Academics For Academic Freedom
http://www.afaf.org.uk/

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would they not get a better price if it was proved to be 4000 years old, as they allege it is?

Think it through, fellas.

Well, that would require the use of Creation Science dating techniques, surely...but I fear mammoths aren't mentioned in the Bible.

Unless of course you mean (gasp!) that someone should carbon-date it? Although that would be intellectual fraud as well...

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know, I shouldn't find this quite as funny as I do. Mea culpa!

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would they not get a better price if it was proved to be 4000 years old, as they allege it is?

Think it through, fellas.

So why don't they stand their ground and insist it be sold as a 4,000 year old item? Why not hold their own creation auction? They are willingly taking part in this. There is no other way of looking at it. They are selling out.

stevejazzx

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would they not get a better price if it was proved to be 4000 years old, as they allege it is?

Think it through, fellas.

Is there a course on 'delusional selective thought processes and their benefits' available anywhere in dublin (apart from this thread you understand) that I might attend in order to preform the required task of 'thinking it through' and arriving at roughly the same hysterical precept that you seem to find almost instantaneously?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You only move the choice from the individual to the Pope, another individual.

That is true, but with your system you replace the unified interpretation of one select group of people with the interpretation of anyone.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In the case of the individual Christian, he - if he is sincere - has to make an honest attempt to understand what the Bible teaches on this or that moral point.

How "honest" he is has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he is right. And lets be frank, how many Christians make honest attempts to understand what the Bible teaches? What if the Bible honestly attempts to teach that slavery is ok? What would happen to a Christian if he stood up and said that? He would be denounced as immoral because slavery isn't in tolerated in post-Enlightenment western world, and therefore no one would accept that the Bible could ever honestly teach that slavery is ok. Of course that fact is irrelevant to whether or not it does. See that moral opinions of the current generation shape entirely how they interpret the Bible, because to them the Bible will always appear to match their own standards. If you believe it is wrong to rape prisoners of war you will find some way to get around the passages in the Bible that describe Hebrew prisoners of war being rapes. If you think slavery is wrong you will find some excuse to get around the fact that slavery is regulated through the entire Bible.

When you do this are you honestly try to understand what the Bible teaches? No of course not, because that isn't the point. The point isn't to find out what the Bible actual teaches, the point is to use the Bible to justify your own moral opinions.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If he is insincere, he of course can twist it to whatever suits his desires.

Well actually he can do that even if he is sincere, because there is nothing but interpretation. Its not his morality, it is simply his interpretation of morality. Even if he is being sincere he has no idea if he is correct because it isn't his moral idea. The moral will twist itself naturally simply through the process of interpretation.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Christians truly believe in the morality taught in the Bible, as best they understand it.

The last bit is the problem Wolfsbane, as best they understand it. Since they cannot understand it fully they can't believe in it fully, they instead end up believing fully in their own bastardized copy of what they think is supposed to be the message from the Bible. They certainly believe in that fully, but that is their own moral, a flawed copy of "perfect" moral that is supposed to be in the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You shall love your neighbour as yourself, for example. That presses upon my conscience when I'm tempted to ignore his feelings in fulfilling my own. Simple, clear externally revealed morality that I have embraced and now motivates my heart.

Yes but ask 10 Christians what that actually means and you get 10 different answers. Who is your "neighbor". What does "love" mean. How do you love yourself, and how does that reflect on your "neighbor"?

You have taken that passage and formed your own moral around it, a moral that is most likely unique to you or at least to your interpretation. Other Christians would interpret that differently forming their own version, their own flawed copy, of it.

The issue gets worse when you attempt to expand that out in to the implications for the real world. For example, if you love your neighbour do you still punish criminals? What does "love" mean in that context. Different Christians will provide different answer to that question. Do you fight your neighbour if needs be? Again, different Christians different answer, all with their own different interpretation of that moral. A Quaker interprets that passage much differently than a Christian who believes in "just" violence when necessary. Which one is correct? Which one has actually understood the perfect moral behind that passage?

When it comes down to it your interpretation is as subjective and as personal as an atheist's version of morality. Its just that you guys all delude yourselves into thinking that your interpretation of a passage like that is the actual way it is supposed to be interpreted, even though you have no possible way of measuring that. It might be, but then you have no idea if it is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I haven't went to war with anyone over their interpretation of morality, if by that you mean their religion. My fathers did go to war over Hitler's interpretation of morality, when it involved threatening our lives and liberties.

Excellent example. "Love thy neighbor" How does that apply to Hitler and his army? Again 10 different Christians 10 different answers. Which answer is the one God wants you to take from that passage? Should you kill your neighbour if he is threatening you? If so when and under what criteria? Should you continue to try and "love" him as you are trying to kill him? What does that even mean?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree, we do not get it 100% right. But it is a much better source of morality than inventing your own for these reasons:

Not really. The Bible as a source of morality has some good bits sure, but it also has some very bad bits (slavery, homosexuality, women, genocide). One either takes the good and finds some way to ignore or excuse the bad, or takes it all and becomes like Fred Phelps.

A far better way would just to take the good as it is, simply good morals, without the religious dogma that it is from God and therefore must be taken as a whole.

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. It must offer a credible interpretation of the written code (the Bible).

You say that as if the written code will some how be useful. If we both agree that Love your neighbor is a correct interpretation of that passage what then? What does that get us? Not very far because you then have to turn the passage into an actual moral. And that is the hard bit because no one is going to tell you if you have interpreted it correctly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Internally-generated morality is utterly subjective and driven by our own best interests. Reason, if rejecting an outside Authority, must invincibly suggest the moral choice that best suits our needs, never mind what effect it has on others.

That isn't true at all, though I can see why you would need to convince yourself that it is (ie you need to convince yourself that secular morality must be so utterly flawed that your kind of flawed religious system is still much better)

History is full of examples internally generated morality that works beyond the best interests of the people developing them. For example the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Of the US Constitution, both secular in nature, both being determined by humans rather than religion.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22717687/

Sorry guys, it seems you colleagues have given up on the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. Or maybe they are lying as usual.

Here is the ACTUAL auctineers description of Mastedon skull http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=5000&Lot_No=48363

The only reference to age is the statement that the American Mastedon "is generally believed (emphasis mine) to have become extinct about 10,000 years ago".

.........could I remind you that Heritage Auction Galleries are the world's largest auctioners of collectibles......and THEY therefore determine HOW the articles that they auction are described.

.....so here we have a Creation Museum selling what they believe to be a 4,000 year old aretefact.......which is aged by a reputable auctioneering firm, that is handling the sale, as at least 10,000 years old .......and an evolutionist report of the sale describes it as 40,000 years old......
........and for some reason, that I am still trying to work out.......this has triggered the Evolutionists on this thread, to go into orgasmic convulsions of self-righteous indignation......that would embarass a Pharisee !!!!!!

...... it is indeed fortuitous that the Mt. Blanco Museum weren't selling a fossilised/stuffed Crocodile.....
.....because the Evolutionists, on this thread, would probably have embarassed themselves completely ........by claiming that..... a "200 million year old Crocodile fossil" ..... shouldn't be sold by a Creationist!!!:D


.....and Good news!!
The 10,000/4,000 year old Mastodon Skull has been sold for $191,200 ......and it's sale has more than covered the Mount Blanco Museum's $136,000 legal bill.
http://historical.ha.com/NaturalHistory/default.php?ic=rightcolumn-nathistha1-011608

........and further good news for ANOTHER Creation Museum......which will be out of debt before the end of the year!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/

.......our God reigns!!:D:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Here is the ACTUAL auctineers description of Mastedon skull http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=5000&Lot_No=48363

The only reference to age is the statement that the American Mastedon "is generally believed (emphasis mine) to have become extinct about 10,000 years ago".

.........could I remind you that Heritage Auction Galleries are the world's largest auctioners of collectibles......and THEY therefore determine HOW the articles that they auction are described.


.....and Good news!!
The 10,000/4,000 year old Mastodon Skull has been sold for over $191,200 ......and it's sale has more than covered the Mount Blanco Museum's $136,000 legal bill.
http://historical.ha.com/NaturalHistory/default.php?ic=rightcolumn-nathistha1-011608

........and further good news for ANOTHER Creation Museum......which will be out of debt before the end of the year!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14122311/

.......our God reigns!!:D:)

So that means it lived more than 10,000 years ago. How old do you loonies think the earth is again?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

So that means it lived more than 10,000 years ago. How old do you loonies think the earth is again?

The Evolutionists date the Mastodon as "at least 10,000 years old"........and Creationists date it as "less than 10,000 years old".......

.......almost perfect agreement......for ONCE!!!!:D:)


......now .....IF we could only get the same level of agreement on the age of a Crocodile fossil!!!:D:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

The Evolutionists date the Mastedon as "at least 10,000 years old"........Creationists date it as "less than 10,000 years old".......

.......almost perfect agreement......for ONCE!!!!:D:)


......now .....IF we could only get the same level of agreement on the age of a Crocodile fossil!!!:D:)

So it went extinct 10,000 years ago. Is it fair to say that there were a few hundred generations or more? So that means mastedons were around 12,000 years ago? 15,000? 20,000? How old do you think the earth is?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

So it went extinct 10,000 years ago. Is it fair to say that there were a few hundred generations or more? So that means mastedons were around 12,000 years ago? 15,000? 20,000? How old do you think the earth is?

I did say that there was "almost perfect agreement".....between Evolutionists and Creationists on the age of the Mastodon!!!:eek:
.........when contrasted with the 200 million year difference between the age attributed by Evolutionists to Crocodile fossils.....and the figure of less than 10,000 years attributed to them by Creationists!!!!

......and the age of the Earth is ALSO less than 10,000 years!!!:D:)