The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

J C wrote:

The fact that Christians are to be found amongst ALL nations and peoples on Earth suggests that there is much more than Geography at work here!!

The invention of the boat and airplane helped their migration. Or did they just start appearing spontaneously (you seem to have an affinity for that word)?

Eschatologist

J C wrote: »

I would, if I was defending a 'smaller corner'......but the only ones in a corner on this thread are the hundreds of Evolutionists who have thrown ALL they had at me.....and acted as an aid memoire by listing every invalid Evolutionist hypothesis known to Man.....and Woman!!:):D

How very typical. You haven't backed anyone into a corner, and citing the science which backs your claim while ignoring all other evidence is blatantly unscientific. 'Invalid evolutionist hypotheses'? Ha! You've yet to produce a geologic model that makes any sense. Yes I'm sure my, Hot Dog's and riftfiends geologic points haven't backed you into a corner, oh no...

By the way, I'm a geologist not an evolutionist - I'm no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'plate tectonicist' :pac:

Hot Dog

God has granted you complete freedom as to which religion, if any, that you may believe in.
The Bible is the true Word of God and it's truth will set you free.....and will show you how you can be saved.

Now bigotry raises its head, all other religions are wrong, JC is right, and does not need to prove it.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Ordinary observational operational science is excellent at describing and explaining repeatably observable phenomena.

However, when it comes to non-repeatably observable events and phenomena from the past ......things like the origin of life.....then forensic science is used......and forensic science needs a logical framework upon which to build it's theories.
For example, if a body is found with a bullet stuck in it, we don't logically assume that the death was due to spontaneous natural causes......we logically conclude that there was an intelligent Human involvement in the death.....and with further detective (and forensic) work a story about how the death occurred will usually emerge.......so forensic sciences (like Creation Science.....and the belief in Spontaneous Evolution) produce stories...based on scientific evidence and logic.

I confess myself somewhat pleased. JC has finally recognised that there is a difference between the "forensic" sciences and the "experimental" sciences.

JC wrote:

The same logic that concludes that the co-incidence of a simple bullet in the complex heart of a person is indicative of probable intelligent action......SHOULD also conclude that the complex heart itself is the ultimate result of intelligent action as well!!!!

Unfortunately, he still has not yet learned not to simply fling himself in the direction of the nearest church on encountering anything complicated. Still, baby steps, baby steps.

pleased,
Scofflaw

Killbot2000

J C wrote: »

God has granted you complete freedom as to which religion, if any, that you may believe in.
The Bible is the true Word of God and it's truth will set you free.....and will show you how you can be saved.

It lays before you, life and death.......please choose life......but you are perfectly free to not choose at all!!!!:D



The fact that Christians are to be found amongst ALL nations and peoples on Earth suggests that there is much more than Geography at work here!!



Ordinary observational operational science is excellent at describing and explaining repeatably observable phenomena.

However, when it comes to non-repeatably observable events and phenomena from the past ......things like the origin of life.....then forensic science is used......and forensic science needs a logical framework upon which to build it's theories.
For example, if a body is found with a bullet stuck in it, we don't logically assume that the death was due to spontaneous natural causes......we logically conclude that there was an intelligent Human involvement in the death.....and with further detective (and forensic) work a story about how the death occurred will usually emerge.......so forensic sciences (like Creation Science.....and the belief in Spontaneous Evolution) produce stories...based on scientific evidence and logic.

The same logic that concludes that the co-incidence of a simple bullet in the complex heart of a person is indicative of probable intelligent action......SHOULD also conclude that the complex heart itself is the ultimate result of intelligent action as well!!!!

.....it is difficult to even imagine how a bullet could get into somebodies heart without an intelligent input.......and ditto for the information that produced the heart, in the first place.

......you could come up with a forensic story that the bullet was an accidentally generated bullet-shaped piece of lead that spontaneously flew out of the exhaust of a car and killed the person........but your forensic story would be about as plausible as suggesting the person was spontanously produced by Evolution!!!:D

But how do I know which religion to choose, especially with the choice I have, not to mention the contradictions between them?

In terms of my point about geography, you would have to admit that it has a huge role to play in determining what religion a person believes in.

Many people are still ignorant of Christianity, so will those who have not been exposed to it be sent to hell (whatever that may be)?

Gravity is not observable, by that I mean I do not observe the force itself only its effects.

Your main point about "forensic science" states that it is based on logic, but religion is not logic based it is faith based and as such has nothing to say about the universe. I can accept the logic of philosophy in explaining the world around me but not faith based religion.

Why do you insist on grouping evolution and abiogenesis? Yes evolution is dependent on such a phenomenon, but it is also utterly dependent on the big bang theory and stellar nucleosynthesis and planetary formation etc.

This point may be getting repetitive but I feel it is a good one. Why do cetaceans have non functional terrestrial olfactory genes if not due to their descent from a terrestrial ancestor?

There is no way that an intelligent designer is going to insert such a set of genes into the collective genomes of the group.

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Now bigotry raises its head, all other religions are wrong, JC is right, and does not need to prove it.

That would make everyone who believes in a god/s a bigot.

To believe in any god is to declare the atheist wrong. To believe in one God, is to declare all the rest false. To believe there is no god is to say all gods are false.

So we're all bigots? Unless to are saying any of us can prove we are right - can you?

The Christian is not called to prove himself right. We just bring God's word to people and He convinces them or not, as He sees fit.

wolfsbane

Killbot2000 wrote: »

Why should I believe (and it is a faith based belief) in one religion over another? From a purely philosophical standpoint I can see no reason as to why I should favor Christianity. Creationism is espoused by all religions.

The argument that geography is one of the main determinants of religion strongly suggests that religion itself is a completely man made concept.

Religions have their good points e.g. humanitarian aid in the name of God etc. However their explanatory power is next to useless considering the whole idea is to accept ideas in the absence of evidence, the definition of faith. This seems absurd to me.

Philosophy uses logic to describe our world but it is not restricted by a set of beliefs which must be incorporated at all times into these descriptions. So even where science falls down, I don't see how religion can bring anything to the table.

You are quite correct in saying religion itself is a completely man made concept - or rather, the forms those religions take is entirely man-made. Hence the geographic spread.

The logical exception would be the true religion, one originating in the True God. If there were such, then it would obviously differ from the rest. But how would you recognise it?
Numbers? Hardly, as many religions have very large/small numbers.
Moral quality? A key requirement, but one that outward show may mislead.
Antiquity? Obviously any claimant to be the original religion must be able to point to its formation/history. But many religions go back to pre-history.

The answer is twofold:
1. Conscience. We know in our hearts/minds the truth of God, even if we refuse to recognise it. Sin, guilt and an awareness of accountability to our Maker exists in every heart. And creation around us testifies to His glory and power.

2. Revelation. God sends the gospel message to all mankind, and men either refuse it or obey it. Those who are the elect recognise God's voice and turn to Him in repentance and faith. The rest continue in their rebellion.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....and God disagrees with your logic......and He put many non-functional or switch-functional genes into the original genomes......and this is the mechanism for rapid speciation.....and it accounts for much of the so-called 'junk DNA' that is observed in modern genomes!!!!:)

There's not many geneticist left who use the term "junk DNA". In general when the term is used it is not in reference to non-function or deleterious genes but to introns or to the non-expressed DNA sequences that lie between genes. These regions often have a structural significance that impacts on transcription factor interaction with regulatory sequences.

So if I take your meaning- you believe that natural selection as geneticist understand it, does actually occur but that God created a set number of species at a certain point in time and that they've just been evolving since then?

Why could this same God, being omnipotent, not have simply created the very first genome, knowing exactly how it would interact with the environment He created, and thusly create the life we see around us? Or for that matter, set the pattern in motion at the moment the universe was created? Why jump into the middle? Did the universe, and life, need finishing touches? That doesn't sound like the behaviour of a perfect designer to me.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would make everyone who believes in a god/s a bigot.

To believe in any god is to declare the atheist wrong. To believe in one God, is to declare all the rest false. To believe there is no god is to say all gods are false.

So we're all bigots? Unless to are saying any of us can prove we are right - can you?

The Christian is not called to prove himself right. We just bring God's word to people and He convinces them or not, as He sees fit.

What about agnostics?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are quite correct in saying religion itself is a completely man made concept - or rather, the forms those religions take is entirely man-made. Hence the geographic spread.

The logical exception would be the true religion, one originating in the True God. If there were such, then it would obviously differ from the rest. But how would you recognise it?
Numbers? Hardly, as many religions have very large/small numbers.
Moral quality? A key requirement, but one that outward show may mislead.
Antiquity? Obviously any claimant to be the original religion must be able to point to its formation/history. But many religions go back to pre-history.

I agree. All of this is subjective nonsense. As is:

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer is twofold:
1. Conscience. We know in our hearts/minds the truth of God, even if we refuse to recognise it. Sin, guilt and an awareness of accountability to our Maker exists in every heart. And creation around us testifies to His glory and power.

2. Revelation. God sends the gospel message to all mankind, and men either refuse it or obey it. Those who are the elect recognise God's voice and turn to Him in repentance and faith. The rest continue in their rebellion.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer is twofold:
1. Conscience. We know in our hearts/minds the truth of God, even if we refuse to recognise it. Sin, guilt and an awareness of accountability to our Maker exists in every heart. And creation around us testifies to His glory and power.

The sense of right and wrong intrincic to most people, our moral compass, is attributed to the will of various supernatural beings in various religions. Similarly creation is attributed to a vast array of omnipotent types. Nothing I have read in the texts of a number of religions makes any particular version of events stand out as more sensible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Revelation. God sends the gospel message to all mankind, and men either refuse it or obey it. Those who are the elect recognise God's voice and turn to Him in repentance and faith. The rest continue in their rebellion.

Prophets and messiahs and even pure avatars are a feature of many religions. They all claim to be bearers of the actual truth. You telling me that your version is the real actual truth "because it is" is pretty much meaningless to me.

I recognise the value of religion to some. Many people need it to live and I would never try to take that away from them. Maybe I also need it to an extent- but I've seen too much now. For me to believe in God would be similar to a teenager to suddenly decide to go back to believing in Santa because it makes life more a bit more palateable. My life is not a rebellion- I have found my own meaning and I'm content.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

The answer is twofold:
1. Conscience. We know in our hearts/minds the truth of God, even if we refuse to recognise it. Sin, guilt and an awareness of accountability to our Maker exists in every heart. And creation around us testifies to His glory and power.

I would argue the exact opposite, based on our discussion about the genocide and murder in the Old Testament.

Our conscious tells us that your god does not exist, because we are asked to believe he carried out such hideous crimes against humanity that he is either immoral (pointless in a god) or simply imaginary.

No man or woman with a good conscious can properly look at the Old Testament and accept it as it is. They must either reject it, or ignore it. Those who happily accept it are themselves accepting immorality

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I agree. All of this is subjective nonsense. As is:

How do you know it is nonsense? Have you earnestly considered it? Have you reached out to see if He is there? Or are you letting your prejudices bar you from that?

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I would argue the exact opposite, based on our discussion about the genocide and murder in the Old Testament.

Our conscious tells us that your god does not exist, because we are asked to believe he carried out such hideous crimes against humanity that he is either immoral (pointless in a god) or simply imaginary.

No man or woman with a good conscious can properly look at the Old Testament and accept it as it is. They must either reject it, or ignore it. Those who happily accept it are themselves accepting immorality

That's not your conscience speaking, it's your sinful heart. It rejects the witness of your conscience and asserts its own evaluation of God.

It will not have a God who owns all life and is free to give or take it as He wills.

It will not have a holy God and a sinful mankind.

It will not have sinners needing a Saviour and a Saviour who receives sinners, forgives them and makes them holy.

It wants no one to rule over it, not even its Maker.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The sense of right and wrong intrincic to most people, our moral compass, is attributed to the will of various supernatural beings in various religions. Similarly creation is attributed to a vast array of omnipotent types. Nothing I have read in the texts of a number of religions makes any particular version of events stand out as more sensible.



Prophets and messiahs and even pure avatars are a feature of many religions. They all claim to be bearers of the actual truth. You telling me that your version is the real actual truth "because it is" is pretty much meaningless to me.

I recognise the value of religion to some. Many people need it to live and I would never try to take that away from them. Maybe I also need it to an extent- but I've seen too much now. For me to believe in God would be similar to a teenager to suddenly decide to go back to believing in Santa because it makes life more a bit more palateable. My life is not a rebellion- I have found my own meaning and I'm content.

You will only find out if the God of the Bible is different from all the rest if you sincerely seek to know. See my post to daithifleming.

But let me also ask - what is the meaning you have found and are content with? How objective is it? How logical is it? Is it a comfort-blanket philosophy you constructed to make life bearable, or is it a recognition of reality, the actual meaning of all existence?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

What about agnostics?

Agnostics would not be bigots - unless they say that one cannot know.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do you know it is nonsense? Have you earnestly considered it? Have you reached out to see if He is there? Or are you letting your prejudices bar you from that?

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

It is nonsense because it is subjective. I have considered the existence of god many times. I still do today in fact, but it is an answer that I find deeply unsatisfying. I am open to the idea of an Einsteinian 'higher power' behind the universe, something that is beyond human comprehension. But some super-entity watching over us and pulling the strings? No way.

Hot Dog

wolfsbane wrote: »

Agnostics would not be bigots - unless they say that one cannot know.

Well, you cannot "know" God in the same sense as science knows things - you would have no objective, testable proof. You have objective faith, which is satisfactory for you, but for no one else.

wolfsbane

Hot Dog wrote: »

Well, you cannot "know" God in the same sense as science knows things - you would have no objective, testable proof. You have objective faith, which is satisfactory for you, but for no one else.

I agree - if God is objective reality, each person can know Him, but cannot show that inner knowledge to anyone else. Doesn't make Him unreal, which 'subjective' often implies. So an agnostic may properly say he does not know, but not that one cannot know.

A Christian is one who has personally encountered God in his/her spirit - not just one who believes what others say about God.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

It is nonsense because it is subjective. I have considered the existence of god many times. I still do today in fact, but it is an answer that I find deeply unsatisfying. I am open to the idea of an Einsteinian 'higher power' behind the universe, something that is beyond human comprehension. But some super-entity watching over us and pulling the strings? No way.

You accept the possibility of a Deist god, but not a Theist one? Why? Why should a 'higher power', the creator of all things, not take a personal interest in his creatures? In fact, would it not be surprising if he did not?

Is it just because it would make you accountable to Him, that you cannot accept the idea?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's not your conscience speaking, it's your sinful heart.

Yes Wolfsbane, it is my "sinful heart" telling me that butchering children is bad, and my "conscience" telling me that I should still accept it is ok so I can get into heaven and have all manner of wonderful things.

I think you have things slightly the wrong way around. :rolleyes:

Your desire for the advancement of yourself has clouded your conscience to the crimes of your religion. You rationalize that what is good for you must be good in general.

Your God may exist and he may very well punish me for not being obedient to him, but I will not bow to a tyrant simply to gain his reward. If you think that is my "sinful heart" then so be it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes Wolfsbane, it is my "sinful heart" telling me that butchering children is bad, and my "conscience" telling me that I should still accept it is ok so I can get into heaven and have all manner of wonderful things.

I think you have things slightly the wrong way around. :rolleyes:

Your desire for the advancement of yourself has clouded your conscience to the crimes of your religion. You rationalize that what is good for you must be good in general.

Your God may exist and he may very well punish me for not being obedient to him, but I will not bow to a tyrant simply to gain his reward. If you think that is my "sinful heart" then so be it.

Yes, until you see that God is entitled to deal with us in judgement as He sees fit - and that includes national as well as individual judgements - then you remain lost and condemned already.

But we all began there, so I continue to pray for you and all our unsaved friends here. :):)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, until you see that God is entitled to deal with us in judgement as He sees fit

Unfortunately throughout history there have been slaves who, though indoctrinated self-loathing, considered themselves no better than what their masters declared.

You aren't defined by your master Wolfsbane. That isn't how it works.

You are a sentient living creature. Your value is not decided by a creator, any creator. Your value is not decided by a master, any master.

Your value is decided by the fact that you exist. This is independent to how, why, when or by who.

“The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. Freedom and slavery are mental states.”
Mahatma Gandhi

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will only find out if the God of the Bible is different from all the rest if you sincerely seek to know. See my post to daithifleming.

I was a Catholic until the age of 14. Nothing that I read or was told in all of that time convinced me that it was sensible for me to believe in God. When the crisis came I did the usual, called out for God through prayer and found nothing. I investigated other faiths until I realised that my need for belief was founded upon my fear of death and oblivion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But let me also ask - what is the meaning you have found and are content with? How objective is it? How logical is it?

My purpose in life is to seek happiness and contentment through my personal life and my work and to attempt to help others to be happy also. It is not objective, since the objective universe is an unverifiable assumption on my part. It is entirely logical. A good and kind life pleases me, I wish to be happy, therefore I pursue a good and kind life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Is it a comfort-blanket philosophy you constructed to make life bearable...

Funnily enough, this describes my view of religion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

...or is it a recognition of reality, the actual meaning of all existence?

Meaning is a human concept derived from our pattern recognition and hypothesizing tendencies. These tendencies can allow us to see faces and shapes in white noise on a TV. To search for patterns in the lotto numbers and on roulette wheels where none exist. There is no verifiable objective meaning. Existence, by my observation, does not have meaning other than self-propagation (which is less meaning than it is a pre-requisite of existing). We must construct our own meaning based on our best possible understanding of the universe around us. Religions were constructed based on limited information. We now possess enough information to make a rational decision to abandon them in favour of models which fit the facts better.

Zombrex

Atomic you are my new hero ... great post

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

You accept the possibility of a Deist god, but not a Theist one? Why? Why should a 'higher power', the creator of all things, not take a personal interest in his creatures? In fact, would it not be surprising if he did not?

Is it just because it would make you accountable to Him, that you cannot accept the idea?

I think you don't understand. There is no Him, or Her, or It. What I (and Einstein) said is that our understanding of the universe is limited by our own minds and senses, and that there is more to the universe than we could possibly understand. If one wishes to call that 'god' then fine, but that doesn't mean there is an actual concious entity up there. That is just complete human fabrication. There is no creator of all things. Neither Einstein, nor Hawking, nor I believe there is one.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Atomic you are my new hero ... great post

That's most kind, thank you.

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

A Christian is one who has personally encountered God in his/her spirit - not just one who believes what others say about God.

My understanding of a Christian was a person who belongs to the religion of Christ, who follows his teachings and the gospels. Whether that's from personal reading or being taught the life and words of Jesus in church, how is that different to believing what others say about God?

What exactly does encountering God in one's spirit mean, how does one know? Why do you have to have a personal experience to be a true Christian and not pass off said event as a mild buring sensatian at the back of your head or whatnot.

CerebralCortex

Oh just had an experience of God in my spirit......no wait a second false alarm.

Ekancone

Does anyone here claim to have actually heard God speak to them? If so, I have a question.