The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone · 29-02-2008 7:08pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Blasphemy against the Spirit:
Matthew 12:31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

What has that to do with asking why, or one you are in, there is no escape?

So if i went and joined some born-again christian group, and while there i swore i felt the holy spirit and believed in it, then the next day said that it didn't exist and i changed my mind. That wouldn't be blasphemy?

From Wikipedia:

Blasphemy is disrespectful use of the name of one or more gods. It may include using sacred names as stress expletives without intention to pray or speak of sacred matters; it is also sometimes defined as language expressing disapproved beliefs, or disbelief. Sometimes blasphemy is used loosely to mean any profane language. [My emphasis added]

Or is this yet another one of those subjective, multi-opinioned 'truths' that Christianity professes?

While i am at it, could you explain to me how free-will and prophecy can possibly co-exist?

Scofflaw · 29-02-2008 9:03pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The original question was about supernatural motives, why God did it by the Flood and not some other way. That is not about the science, but the theology.

Yes, that's my point. In your worldview the question of why a flood, not something else, is, as you say, a question of God's motives.

After all, what does the Flood story explain?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Natural causes involve such things as why was the ark of such proportions, for example.

It's certainly nice to hear that science would still have a place in your view, even if that place was that of engineering.

As a matter of interest, why was the Ark of such unusual proportions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane · 29-02-2008 9:26pm

daithifleming said:

So if i went and joined some born-again christian group, and while there i swore i felt the holy spirit and believed in it, then the next day said that it didn't exist and i changed my mind. That wouldn't be blasphemy?

Could well be - depends on if you knew Him to be real and then reviled Him as a fake. An ignorant cursing of the Spirit is not meant. The incident where Christ gave this warning illustrates the point: the offenders clearly saw the Spirit's work, knew it had to be of God, yet attributed it to Beelzebub:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012:22-%2031;&version=50;

While i am at it, could you explain to me how free-will and prophecy can possibly co-exist?

Sure. Man's will is free to choose in accordance with his nature; it is not absolute, nor can it ultimately overule God's will. You will most likely have heard some Christians speak as if it could, but they are mistaken.

As you rightly point out, if man had a veto, God could never order the future. At best He could foretell it. There would be no New Covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

That would mean God could have been left alone in heaven, if all His angels and man had rejected Him. Not the picture one gets of the God of the Bible.
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ekancone · 29-02-2008 9:42pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Could well be - depends on if you knew Him to be real and then reviled Him as a fake. An ignorant cursing of the Spirit is not meant.

Well don't you think that is a bit cruel? If someone came to your church and thought that they felt something like the holy spirit, wouldn't they feel coerced into not questioning that belief?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure. Man's will is free to choose in accordance with his nature; it is not absolute, nor can it ultimately overule God's will. You will most likely have heard some Christians speak as if it could, but they are mistaken.

As you rightly point out, if man had a veto, God could never order the future. At best He could foretell it. There would be no New Covenant

So mans free will, is like a demi free-will? Which isn't really free will at all?

wolfsbane · 29-02-2008 9:51pm

daithifleming said:

Well don't you think that is a bit cruel? If someone came to your church and thought that they felt something like the holy spirit, wouldn't they feel coerced into not questioning that belief?

Not being sure doesn't count. Knowing and reviling is what matters.

So mans free will, is like a demi free-will?

Yes.

Which isn't really free will at all?

No, as above, it is free to an extent, on a lease if you like, but not absolutely free. Only God has an absolutely free will.

PDN · 29-02-2008 11:28pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Or is this yet another one of those subjective, multi-opinioned 'truths' that Christianity professes?

If you really want to know what Christians believe then there is little point in taking a 21st Century definition of a word (eg blasphemy) and then trying to force that definition onto the words of someone who was speaking nearly 2000 years earlier in a different language.

The important thing is not what wikipedia says 'blasphemy' means today - but what did Jesus mean by the phrase του πνευματος βλασφημια?

I wonder, did you really not read down to the bottom of the wikipdia article you cited? Or did you deliberately omit it because would have exposed your (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what Jesus was saying?

wikipedia wrote:

Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable - the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense.

In the time of Jesus, when Christian ideas relied upon the influence of natural authority against the then secular religious power of the Second Jewish Temple, this admonishment may be interpreted as warning against an actual reaction from the Holy Spirit in the form of a curse that can irreparably harm a person (and thus be unforgivable but not by dictate)[citation needed]. This statement in effect establishes the importance of this aspect of the Godhead, rather than setting an arbitrary law.

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

MooseJam · 01-03-2008 12:29am

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, as above, it is free to an extent, on a lease if you like, but not absolutely free. Only God has an absolutely free will.

if God can see into the future then we have no free will

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 2:29am

PDN wrote: »

I wonder, did you really not read down to the bottom of the wikipdia article you cited? Or did you deliberately omit it because would have exposed your (deliberate?) misinterpretation of what Jesus was saying?

No, that is a creationist tactic, not my style. But what you are saying is wide open to interpretation, much like the rest of that book written by a bunch of desert nomads.

Take a look closer at that article, i read it quite clearly. Perhaps you (deliberately?) didn't.

Christian theology may condemn blasphemy, as in the Luke 12:10, where blaspheming the Holy Spirit is spoken of as unforgivable - the eternal sin. However, there is dispute over what form this blasphemy may take and whether it qualifies as blasphemy in the conventional sense.

In the time of Jesus, when Christian ideas relied upon the influence of natural authority against the then secular religious power of the Second Jewish Temple, this admonishment may be interpreted as warning against an actual reaction from the Holy Spirit in the form of a curse that can irreparably harm a person (and thus be unforgivable but not by dictate)[citation needed]. This statement in effect establishes the importance of this aspect of the Godhead, rather than setting an arbitrary law.

Firstly, it says there is a dispute over the actual meaning of the word. So i dont see how you can be so pompous in your assertions. Secondly, the paragraph you quoted below requires a citation, which means it isn't even backed up by any reference. I'm sure you could dig one out of the bible like usual, but in fairness, you could justify anything using that; as we have seen in the past.

Scofflaw · 01-03-2008 3:47am

MooseJam wrote: »

if God can see into the future then we have no free will

I've always disagreed with that position. If God is outside Time, then he doesn't see "forwards" - he simply sees the result of all our choices laid out like a route-map. Nevertheless, we freely made those choices as we moved through time - so we have free will within our time-bound state (and free will makes no sense without being time-bound, since one exists on both sides of every decision simultaneously). It's almost exactly analogous to the situation described in Flatland.

It seems obvious to me, anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 11:26am

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've always disagreed with that position. If God is outside Time, then he doesn't see "forwards" - he simply sees the result of all our choices laid out like a route-map. Nevertheless, we freely made those choices as we moved through time - so we have free will within our time-bound state (and free will makes no sense without being time-bound, since one exists on both sides of every decision simultaneously). It's almost exactly analogous to the situation described in Flatland.

It seems obvious to me, anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But in order for the future to be seen, it must have already happened. Yes or no?

Ciaran500 · 01-03-2008 11:42am

daithifleming wrote: »

But in order for the future to be seen, it must have already happened. Yes or no?

Only if time is linear, which it wouldn't be to god

MooseJam · 01-03-2008 11:44am

Hmm, thats assuming God remains outside time though, however God is everywhere, inside and outside of time.

Scofflaw · 01-03-2008 2:00pm

Ciaran500 wrote: »

But in order for the future to be seen, it must have already happened. Yes or no?

Only if time is linear, which it wouldn't be to god

Exactly. To us, inside time, the future has not happened. To God, outside time, there is neither future nor past, just the layout of existence.

Hmm, thats assuming God remains outside time though, however God is everywhere, inside and outside of time.

Well, God will have a cross-section in Time, if you like, much as a cube is the 3D cross-section of a 4D tesseract. It will bear a very limited relation to the actuality of God.

mystically,
Scofflaw

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 2:08pm

So God can see the infinite number of possible outcomes? Something akin to multiple universe theory?

PDN · 01-03-2008 2:51pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Firstly, it says there is a dispute over the actual meaning of the word. So i dont see how you can be so pompous in your assertions.

Pompous as in suggesting that it would be better to try to determine what Jesus actually meant (by looking at the context) rather than arbitrarily attempting to force a 21st definition of the English word blasphemy onto words that were spoken in Greek 2000 years ago? LMAO.

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 3:13pm

PDN wrote: »

Pompous as in suggesting that it would be better to try to determine what Jesus actually meant (by looking at the context) rather than arbitrarily attempting to force a 21st definition of the English word blasphemy onto words that were spoken in Greek 2000 years ago? LMAO.

Wow, what an arrogant person you are. Quite fitting of a christian. There is no such thing as absolute truth, anyone who says they know it is a liar, which basically means all of religion, especially the Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity. To deny the Holy Spirit means you will be tortured for eternity, simple as. In my opinion, that is a form of psychological abuse. It should be made illegal.

Quite frankly your religion disgusts me.

PDN · 01-03-2008 3:17pm

daithifleming wrote: »

Wow, what an arrogant person you are. Quite fitting of a christian.

Personal comments or insults are no substitute for rational argument.

I think it is perfectly fitting for a Christian to expose the weaknesses in arguments.

PDN · 01-03-2008 3:20pm

daithifleming wrote: »

There is no such thing as absolute truth, anyone who says they know it is a liar,

Is that absolutely true?

If there is no such thing as absolute truth then the most you can say is that anyone who says they know might be a liar, but of course you can't be absolutely sure whether they are a liar or not.

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 3:24pm

PDN wrote: »

Personal comments or insults are no substitute for rational argument.

I think it is perfectly fitting for a Christian to expose the weaknesses in arguments.

No, it is quite fitting for a christian to be an ignorant, mindless bigot with a superiority complex. I was talking to one of your flock the other day who said that the Buddhist culture had a 'fractured' view on life because ladyboys are accepted in that part of the world. What a horrible, baseless viewpoint. The sooner your kind are laughed off the planet the better.

Denying the holy spirit condemns you to an eternity of torture. What a lovely concept from a religion of 'peace'. :rolleyes:

PDN · 01-03-2008 3:34pm

daithifleming wrote:

No, it is quite fitting for a christian to be an ignorant, mindless bigot with a superiority complex.

You come and post on the Christianity forum, propose weak arguments, and then get offended because I point out why your reasoning is defective. If you don't like what I'm saying then you are free to argue with me, but how about you cut out the childish insults?

daithifleming wrote: »

I was talking to one of your flock the other day who said that the Buddhist culture had a 'fractured' view on life because ladyboys are accepted in that part of the world. What a horrible, baseless viewpoint. The sooner your kind are laughed off the planet the better.

I doubt very much it was one of 'my' flock. If I were to produce an anecdote of something hateful an atheist said then would that constitute a reason for atheism to be laughed off the planet? Of course not, but then again I wouldn't use that as a line of argument because I'm not a bigot.

BTW, you might have a long wait for us to be laughed off the planet since we are steadily increasing numerically year after year.

Denying the holy spirit condemns you to an eternity of torture. What a lovely concept from a religion of 'peace'

Where does it mention denying the Holy Spirit?

MooseJam · 01-03-2008 3:39pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, God will have a cross-section in Time, if you like, much as a cube is the 3D cross-section of a 4D tesseract. It will bear a very limited relation to the actuality of God.

mystically,
Scofflaw

Well thats looking at the bigger picture of where God is in the scheme of things however to repeat a point God is Everywhere, he is also down the pub watching the football game with the lads, wholly inside of time, don't you think so ?

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 3:46pm

PDN wrote: »

You come and post on the Christianity forum, propose weak arguments, and then get offended because I point out why your reasoning is defective. If you don't like what I'm saying then you are free to argue with me, but how about you cut out the childish insults?

Your little LMAO comment lowered the bar, i took the ball and ran with it.

PDN wrote: »

I doubt very much it was one of 'my' flock. If I were to produce an anecdote of something hateful an atheist said then would that constitute a reason for atheism to be laughed off the planet? Of course not, but then again I wouldn't use that as a line of argument because I'm not a bigot.

No, this guy would be regarded highly among his group, he leads the bible study for example. They seem like quite innocent people on the surface, but when you do a little scratching you find their true side. All the religions of the desert breed this.

PDN wrote: »

BTW, you might have a long wait for us to be laughed off the planet since we are steadily increasing numerically year after year.

That is quite scary actually, you will consign us to the dark ages once again. Hopefully humanity will see sense.

PDN wrote: »

Where does it mention denying the Holy Spirit?

In some peoples interpretation that is exactly what it would mean, including the person who i was conversing with earlier, and another. Its funny, because they talk about other christians as not being true christians as well, just like you guys do. Its funny since you all preach absolute truth, yet all of you have a different truth. And all from the same book.

LMAO

wolfsbane · 01-03-2008 3:52pm

MooseJam wrote: »

if God can see into the future then we have no free will

God can not only see into the future, He orders it according to His plans.

Nevertheless, our wills are free to attempt to act according to our desires, our nature. Sometimes God allows those actions, sometimes He prevents them.

Ephesians 1:11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

wolfsbane · 01-03-2008 4:03pm

daithifleming wrote: »

No, it is quite fitting for a christian to be an ignorant, mindless bigot with a superiority complex. I was talking to one of your flock the other day who said that the Buddhist culture had a 'fractured' view on life because ladyboys are accepted in that part of the world. What a horrible, baseless viewpoint. The sooner your kind are laughed off the planet the better.

Denying the holy spirit condemns you to an eternity of torture. What a lovely concept from a religion of 'peace'. :rolleyes:

The man you talked to is saying no more than historic Christianity has said and still says. Any culture that condones sexual immorality has a 'fractured' view on life. Obviously we do not agree on what constitutes sexual immorality. Christians find your idea horrible and baseless too. Why are you so sure you have the right morality?

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 4:07pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

The man you talked to is saying no more than historic Christianity has said and still says. Any culture that condones sexual immorality has a 'fractured' view on life. Obviously we do not agree on what constitutes sexual immorality. Christians find your idea horrible and baseless too. Why are you so sure you have the right morality?

How can anyone be sure? But whats wrong with the belief that people are free to do what they want as long as they aren't imposing their beliefs/actions on others? What adults do in their private life is their business and no one elses. What business is it of yours whether someone wants to be a woman or be gay? Perhaps you don't try to impose your beliefs on others, but the majority of your sect seem to think that their beliefs are everybodys business. I see any fundamentalist religion as a threat to civil rights, especially when it becomes political which is inevitable.

wolfsbane · 01-03-2008 5:11pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, that's my point. In your worldview the question of why a flood, not something else, is, as you say, a question of God's motives.

After all, what does the Flood story explain?

It's certainly nice to hear that science would still have a place in your view, even if that place was that of engineering.

As a matter of interest, why was the Ark of such unusual proportions?

cordially,
Scofflaw

We seem to be talking at odds. My worldview is indeed theological. Creation Science is science. The latter deals with the scientific issues arising from my worldview.

The Flood story explains God's inevitable wrath against sin, and His mercy toward those who trust in Him. Sin, no matter how long endured by a holy God, will eventually bring destruction to the sinner. Faith, no matter how despised by the world, results in the vindication and salvation of its possessor.

The proportions of the ark seem to be for stability: Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1773/

An interesting follow-up on the recent BBC program:
Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
Reply by Bodie Hodge and Dr Jonathan Sarfati to
Did Noah really build an ark?, by Jeremy Bowen, Presenter, Noah’s Ark
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3104

wolfsbane · 01-03-2008 5:27pm

daithifleming said:

How can anyone be sure?

Only if God reveals it to their heart.

But whats wrong with the belief that people are free to do what they want as long as they aren't imposing their beliefs/actions on others? What adults do in their private life is their business and no one elses. What business is it of yours whether someone wants to be a woman or be gay?

None of my business. but it becomes my business if, for example, they want to join my church. Then I have to refuse on the basis of their beliefs and moral conduct.

Perhaps you don't try to impose your beliefs on others,

Correct.

but the majority of your sect seem to think that their beliefs are everybodys business.

Yes, we want to tell everyone about our saviour and His message to them. That has nothing to do with imposing our beliefs upon anyone.

I see any fundamentalist religion as a threat to civil rights,

It can be, depending on its theology, but it is not a necessary part of any fundamentalism. Someone who adheres to the fundamental beliefs of the Quakers, for instance, is not likely to threaten anyone's civil rights.

especially when it becomes political

Indeed so.

which is inevitable.

Not at all. Quakers, Amish, and others seem to do well without politics. I'm a Baptist and have been involved in politics, but not to impose my religion on anyone.

Ekancone · 01-03-2008 5:38pm

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, we want to tell everyone about our saviour and His message to them. That has nothing to do with imposing our beliefs upon anyone.

So why don't you keep it to yourselves then? Your not so much imposing your beliefs but trying to ram it into peoples heads. Why do you people stand on the streets and tell us we are all going to hell? Of course you will say that they are not 'true christians', but to be fair thats what you all say, its kinda hard to tell what a true christian is.

wolfsbane · 01-03-2008 5:52pm

Eschatologist said:

Yes, it does have bigger ambitions – trying to explain the world in a more detailed way rather than just saying it was created by a god with no empirical data or independent lines of reasoning. Just saw it in a book: God is great, he did it therefore its validity cannot be questioned so we’ll use that as the basis for this creation ‘science’ and force the science to fit rather than arriving at it through logical deduction by simply observing.

Creation science offers scientific argument to support the biblical account. You want science to have no starting assumptions. That's OK too, but it is not better science because of it. The quality of the science is determined by the honest evaluation of the evidence and ability of the scientist.

Certainly one has to beware of our presuppositions tending us to fit the interpretation of the evidence to our position. Both creationists and materialists face that problem. Honesty and rigour help avoid it.

If I unearthed an ancient Greek book which depicted Zeus as the divine creator (putting aside Gaia and Uranus, to illustrate my point), would I believe that the word of Zeus was law? Because the book was hailed by many as a genuine depiction of how Zeus created the world, and He was quoted as saying 'I created the heavens and the earth', would I then believe it?

Depends on how gullible you are.:D But the Christian has a much better grounds for belief - God reveals it to his/her heart.

How would I reconcile my observation that lightning happened by the forcible separation of positive and negative charges with the fact that Zeus was recorded in the book as having said 'I am the Lord Of Lightning, created from my master thunderbolt.' Which would be the more satisfying answer?

Again, the Christian doesn't have to choose science or theology as the cause; both are true. God made the physics and it runs naturally in accordance with His will. At times He intervenes against the course of nature and we call that a miraculous act.

Would either take away from the awe I felt at watching a thunderstorm?

The answer is no - whether God zapped it from his finger or the separation of charges did it, at the heart of things doesn’t really matter - lightning is beautiful, but knowing empirically how it happens only makes me appreciate it more.

Agreed.

If all we ever said to such questions as, 'How does electricity work?', 'God made it so, look it says so right here in this book', we would still be stuck in sandals and robes.

Agreed. That's why so much of scientific discovery was by Christians who sought to find out the wonderful ways of God in nature.

If you then countered with, ‘Well then, God is everything’,

That's Pantheism, not Theism.

The simple fact is, the more we try to make better for ourselves, the more we discover about the world, and the more we need more conclusive answers than just 'Flood waters formed the entire landscape as we see it'. If we applied that logic now we never would have gotten to a point where we had to debate it in the first place!

Agreed. That's why Christians have played a big part in science and the Creation Science movement specifically addresses matters like the science of the Flood.

Asiaprod · 01-03-2008 5:52pm

daithifleming wrote: »

No, it is quite fitting for a christian to be an ignorant, mindless bigot with a superiority complex. /quote]
A little strong! Would appreciate you toning it down a little
Asia

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments