The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bit of a no-brainer really. He was raping kids for crying out loud. You don't need to be endowed with the gift of prophecy to know that the authorities will be coming for you soon. Except he told his followers that the authorities were coming for them. Which was a lie.

Didn't Jesus foretell his own execution?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would say that the fear to say anything about it was what prevented them. They believe he was the son of God remember, don’t talk back to him whatever you do.

And why did they believe he was a prophet if he wasn't?

Can you explain that?

Soul Winner wrote: »

And they're entitled to it if they truly believe it. It’s a free country.

So he had followers when he was alive, and he still has followers now after the seige. How do you explain that other than saying it is because the truth of his message is so powerful?

Soul Winner wrote: »

What miracles?

He healed terminally ill people. And had detailed visions of things before they happened.

How can you explain this?

How can you explain that so many people believed he had done this if he hadn't actually? Where they all lying? Why would they continue to follow him if they knew he had not done the miraculous things he claimed to have done? You could claim that some were on a power trip themselves, but when the government is beating down your door and your life is in danger you aren't going to hang onto a prophet you know is a liar. He aren't going to let him have sex with your child unless you know he is sent by God.

If they were nuts how can you explain that they all had the same crazy idea about what Koresh did? One person may have imagined Koresh healing someone, but 76? That is nonsense.

The idea that they were crazy doesn't make sense (all of them? with the same delusions?), and the idea that they were liar is disproven by the fact that they were prepared to die for their beliefs, not something a person does if they know what they believe is a lie.

The only conclusion left is that Koresh actually did do the things his followers claimed he did.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Like what? Has anyone testified to these miracles?

They all did. They burned alive and shot their kids. You think they would just believe him saying "I'm a prophet from God" unless he had proved to them that he was

Soul Winner wrote: »

Because most probably the henchmen knew they were going to get life in jail or the death sentence for their culpability with Koresh.

So they were scared of jail time so they shot themselves? Come on, that doesn't make sense.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes, ordinary Jewish people with no predisposition to forsake everything they had, family, friends etc in order to die horrible deaths for a lie that they knew was a lie for someone who they knew was dead and not who He claimed to be in the first place.

Like the Waco residents who had no predisposition to forsake everything they had, family, friends, in order to die horrible deaths for Koresh, unless he had proven to them that he was a prophet?

How could he have done this if he actually wasn't? How could they all believe something that wasn't true, all claim to witness things that never happened, all be prepared to die for this?

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

So they were scared of jail time so they shot themselves? Come on, that doesn't make sense.

Yeah. They were so scared of a death sentence, they shot themselves.

Oh, lordy.

Flamed Diving

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7870562.stm

The current research estimates that there are at least 361 intelligent civilisations in our Galaxy and possibly as many as 38,000...

In his new approach, Mr Forgan simulated a galaxy much like our own, allowing it to develop solar systems based on what is now known from the existence of so-called exoplanets in our galactic neighbourhood.

These simulated alien worlds were then subjected to a number of different scenarios...



The first assumed that it is difficult for life to be formed but easy for it to evolve, and suggested there were 361 intelligent civilisations in the galaxy.
A second scenario assumed life was easily formed but struggled to develop intelligence. Under these conditions, 31,513 other forms of life were estimated to exist.
The final scenario examined the possibility that life could be passed from one planet to another during asteroid collisions - a popular theory for how life arose here on Earth. That approach gave a result of some 37,964 intelligent civilisations in existence...

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah. They were so scared of a death sentence, they shot themselves.

Oh, lordy.

I take it you never ehard of the Masada Complex. Oh Lordy indeed. Wick I'll retort to your post in full later, have to shoot out for a while. L8r loosers... ( Just kidding )

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I take it you never ehard of the Masada Complex. Oh Lordy indeed.

Yes that is the point. Why would Koresh's followers commit mass suicide rather than be taken by an enemy (according to Koresh) if they didn't believe what he was saying

And how could they believe him if he wasn't what he claimed to be?

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7870562.stm

Interesting but almost certainly inaccurate to the point of being meaningless. We don't really have a clear picture of the local exoplanet distribution due to a detection bias in our current technology. Would be interesting to see if there's a primary research paper on this. The mainstream press have a knack for missing the main point of these things.

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner wrote: »

I take it you never ehard of the Masada Complex. Oh Lordy indeed. Wick I'll retort to your post in full later, have to shoot out for a while. L8r loosers... ( Just kidding )

Is there also a complex for killing your children in the name of your lord?

Somewhere in Leviticus, I believe...

:pac:

Zombrex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there also a complex for killing your children in the name of your lord?

Somewhere in Leviticus, I believe...

:pac:

it is ok so long as the lord stops you just before you do it ... except you aren't supposed to t know that is going to happen ... d'oh

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes that is the point. Why would Koresh's followers commit mass suicide rather than be taken by an enemy (according to Koresh) if they didn't believe what he was saying

I never said that they didn't genuinely believe what he was saying though. I said even if they did believe what he was saying that doesn't mean that he was who he claimed be. He also claimed to be Cyrus the ancient king; can they two claims be true? That he was both Cyrus and Jesus at the same time?

Wicknight wrote: »

And how could they believe him if he wasn't what he claimed to be?

They were duped. If they weren't duped then he was in fact Cyrus and Jesus at the same time right? What is the more plausible answer? The difference between Koresh’s followers and the real Jesus’ followers is that the real Jesus’ followers claimed to be eyewitnesses to events that they reported, miraculous supernatural events, a testimony to which they paid with their lives. Now they were either lying, deluded or telling what they actually saw and experienced.

I’ve gone through the lying and deluded explanations here already several times, those explanations can only explain one of the three facts, they cannot explain all three facts that most New Testament scholars agree on as being facts. 1) That the tomb was in fact empty, 2) That they had post mortem appearances and 3) The genuine belief of the disciples that Jesus rose from the dead.

The New Testament scholars are the one ones who spend their lives studying these things. They are the authorities. They never say that Jesus rose from the dead is a fact even though they might believe to be so but there a many who actually don’t believe it to be a fact. But no matter what their belief in the supernatural may be, they are all to a man, agreed that the aforementioned facts are in fact, facts.

Like the scientific method they have their own methods at how they arrive at these conclusions. They use deductive means to conclude things like these three facts and those conclusions are based on the writings they have before them, the evidence in hand if you like. All I’m saying is that the only thing that can explain all three facts is the resurrection of Jesus. I’ve yet to hear a naturalistic explanation that explains all three. Or anyone who can show with evidence that any one of these facts are not in fact, facts.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that they didn't genuinely believe what he was saying though. I said even if they did believe what he was saying that doesn't mean that he was who he claimed be.

He also claimed to be Cyrus the ancient king; can they two claims be true? That he was both Cyrus and Jesus at the same time?

I see no reason why not.

Hm...perhaps drinking and posting is not the best idea...

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Is there also a complex for killing your children in the name of your lord?

Somewhere in Leviticus, I believe...

Well if there is no Lord then what is morally wrong with it? If there is no God then all we are is just byproducts of evolution with one purpose, to propagate DNA, so what's morally wrong with killing your kids. If you can tell me, then I want you also to tell from where do you derive your moral standard from, and to what moral code do measure your moral behavior to and where did that code come from and why should anyone adhere to it?

And don’t come back with any: “I can’t believe it, you think killings kids is ok.” garbage…

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

it is ok so long as the lord stops you just before you do it ... except you aren't supposed to t know that is going to happen ... d'oh

Well if God is not the ultimate determiner of what is right and wrong then who is?

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if there is no Lord then what is morally wrong with it? If there is no God then all we are is just byproducts of evolution with one purpose, to propagate DNA, so what's morally wrong with killing your kids. If you can tell me, then I want you also to tell from where do you derive your moral standard from, and to what moral code do measure your moral behavior to and where did that code come from and why should anyone adhere to it?

What's wrong with it?! They're your freaking kids! Surely you don't need an all-powerful being to tell you that it's not right to kill something that you gave life to. In the words of Stephen Fry: Pants, bottom and double arse.

As to where I got my morals - generally from my parents, I suppose.

And why does there need to be an ultimate determiner of what is right and wrong?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I never said that they didn't genuinely believe what he was saying though. I said even if they did believe what he was saying that doesn't mean that he was who he claimed be.

Yes but can you explain how 76 people would believe he was who he said he was, including testifying to accounts of miraclous events, unless he was he claimed to be.

What other plausible explanation do you have?

Soul Winner wrote: »

They were duped. If they weren't duped then he was in fact Cyrus and Jesus at the same time right? What is the more plausible answer?

You are saying that he managed to trick 76 well educated middle class Americans living the late 20th century that he was a prophet from God. These weren't goat farmers living before science and modern society.

How is that plausible? How could he trick all of them? How could the describe miraculous feats that he carried out?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The difference between Koresh’s followers and the real Jesus’ followers is that the real Jesus’ followers claimed to be eyewitnesses to events that they reported, miraculous supernatural events, a testimony to which they paid with their lives. Now they were either lying, deluded or telling what they actually saw and experienced.

I'm not following.

Are you saying Koresh's followers didn't claim to be eyewitnesses to Koresh and what he did? Because they did. And we have already established that they genuinely believed Koresh's explanations for what they saw. They were prepared to stay with him and burn to death because of this faith in him.

How can you explain that?

How can 76 people think they have seen things and experienced things that they didn't?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But no matter what their belief in the supernatural may be, they are all to a man, agreed that the aforementioned facts are in fact, facts.

Who are "they"?

Soul Winner wrote: »

All I’m saying is that the only thing that can explain all three facts is the resurrection of Jesus. I’ve yet to hear a naturalistic explanation that explains all three.

Can you give a naturalistic explanation for what Koresh's followers experienced?

How can 76 people think they have seen things and experienced things that they didn't?

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What's wrong with it?! They're your freaking kids! Surely you don't need an all-powerful being to tell you that it's not right to kill something that you gave life to. In the words of Stephen Fry: Pants, bottom and double arse.

As to where I got my morals - generally from my parents, I suppose.

And why does there need to be an ultimate determiner of what is right and wrong?

I was asking Flamed David ehem...

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

I was asking Flamed David ehem...

So no-one else is allowed to question the absurdity of the suggestion?

Soul Winner

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So no-one else is allowed to question the absurdity of the suggestion?

I'm more interested to see what FD says at this particular juncture.

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

He also claimed to be Cyrus the ancient king; can they two claims be true? That he was both Cyrus and Jesus at the same time?

Jesus was God and Jesus at the same time

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but can you explain how 76 people would believe he was who he said he was, including testifying to accounts of miraclous events, unless he was he claimed to be.

What other plausible explanation do you have?

I've told you several times already, why can't you accept my answer? He twisted scripture to make them believe what he was telling them. He was using the Bible to show them verses therein that pertained to him and they believed it.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are saying that he managed to trick 76 well educated middle class Americans living the late 20th century that he was a prophet from God.

Yes.

Wicknight wrote: »

How is that plausible? How could he trick all of them? How could the describe miraculous feats that he carried out?

Where is this multiple attestation to his miracles recorded?

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following.

Are you saying Koresh's followers didn't claim to be eyewitnesses to Koresh and what he did? Because they did.

I have yet to read any of their testimonies? Can you cite any for me please? I need multiple testimonies about the same events.

Wicknight wrote: »

And we have already established that they genuinely believed Koresh's explanations for what they saw.

Did we? I thought we just established that they believed that he was who he claimed to be? What things did they see and why can't they make their own minds up as to what it was they saw instead of relying on what Koresh's interpretation of the events were?

Wicknight wrote: »

They were prepared to stay with him and burn to death because of this faith in him.

How can you explain that?

Like I said ad-infinitum, that only shows that they genuinely believed in him. Nothing else. They did not die for a testimony that they themselves preached, they died because they were caught up in a building under siege. They were not alone years later and given every opportunity to renege on this testimony before the whips, swords and crosses came out. When they endure something like that I will at least read with interest their testimonies.

But even if we grant all that, it still comes nowhere near the testimony of the disciples and the subsequent influence that had on history. A testimony billions believe in today.

Wicknight wrote: »

How can 76 people think they have seen things and experienced things that they didn't?

Where is their testimony to these events?

Wicknight wrote: »

Who are "they"?

N. T. Wright
James Dunn
James Orr
Jindrich Mánek
Jacob Kremer
Richard Hays
Craig A Evans
J. A. T. Robinson

To name a but a few.

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you give a naturalistic explanation for what Koresh's followers experienced?

Only when you show me the testimonies of his followers to these events, then I will make a judgment call on it. Multiple testimonies would be nice.

Wicknight wrote: »

How can 76 people think they have seen things and experienced things that they didn't?

Again, what things, where are their testimonies? Are there any eyewitnesses alive today that can verify these events and would they suffer a hideous death instead of reneging on this testimony? If they would then that would still only tell me that he did miracles, it still doesn’t show that he was who he claimed to be.

Even if Koresh did actually perform miracles that still doesn’t mean that he was who he claimed to be. We are told in the book of Revelation that the false prophet will perform many miracles in the sight of man.

And Jesus Himself warns against false Christs in the New Testament
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” Matthew 24:24

Plus by their fruits ye shall know them. Koresh bares arms, rapes 10 year old kids, misquotes scripture, takes over a respected order by force of arms. These things alone should serve as warning sign to any potential followers. Now show me similar signs that people should be aware of before they follow what Jesus teaches.

Soul Winner

MatthewVII wrote: »

Jesus was God and Jesus at the same time

Yes this was one of Jesus' claims, "I and the Father are one" "If you've seen me you've seen the Father", claims that were vindicated by God raising Him from the dead. To which we have multiple attestation. Where is the evidence for Koresh's divine vindication for his claim that he was a) David Koresh, b) Cyrus and c) Jesus, all in one.

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if there is no Lord then what is morally wrong with it? If there is no God then all we are is just byproducts of evolution with one purpose, to propagate DNA, so what's morally wrong with killing your kids. If you can tell me, then I want you also to tell from where do you derive your moral standard from, and to what moral code do measure your moral behavior to and where did that code come from and why should anyone adhere to it?

And don’t come back with any: “I can’t believe it, you think killings kids is ok.” garbage…

Killing your children means killing 1/2 of your DNA lineage. Therefore any group assembled of individuals which kill their kids cannot last longer than a generation. Any individuals in this group who do not possess the characteristic (gene) for doing this, will not kill its children and the gene will not be passed on. The new group will be dominated by those who do not kill children. Simple evolution. Parents mostly* don't kill their children. This is true of all species, especially mammals. No bible required. Just science.

For humans, morals are as we define them. Back in Leviticus days, it was clearly ok to have slaves, sell your daughter and stone unruly children to death. This was moral back then. In some countries, some of these things are still moral. In the West, we have decided to ditch these 'morals' in favour of ones that we see as being superior. They are certainly not based on your bible.

*I use the word mostly to be defined as >95% of cases. Just in case you decide to pull out some outliers.

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Killing your children means killing 1/2 of your DNA lineage. Therefore any group assembled of individuals which kill their kids cannot last longer than a generation. Any individuals in this group who do not possess the characteristic (gene) for doing this, will not kill its children and the gene will not be passed on. The new group will be dominated by those who do not kill children. Simple evolution. Parents mostly* don't kill their children. This is true of all species, especially mammals. No bible required. Just science.

For humans, morals are as we define them. Back in Leviticus days, it was clearly ok to have slaves, sell your daughter and stone unruly children to death. This was moral back then. In some countries, some of these things are still moral. In the West, we have decided to ditch these 'morals' in favour of ones that we see as being superior. They are certainly not based on your bible.

*I use the word mostly to be defined as >95% of cases. Just in case you decide to pull out some outliers.

Ok, so if I kill my kids you wouldn’t view that as an abhorrent crime and immoral? You'd just turn around and frown at me for not propagating my DNA in order to keep the species going? Not at all, you would think I was evil. But if there is no God then to what to what moral code do you measure what is evil or not? The morals in the Old Testament were an illustration of what cannot work as a method of righteousness or ethics because we cannot keep that standard. All that standard does is bring death.

That is what God was teaching the world through His oracle people. He chose them for that purpose, to teach the world His ways and this old way of death was fulfilled in Christ in order that He might establish a better way that brings life and that more abundantly. God used His own people to illustrate this and then ended the whole thing by fulfilling that old way and establishing a new one, the faith way, daily trusting God with everything including our own lives, now if you can show me a better standard of living than the way Jesus preached then I’m all ears.

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if there is no God then to what to what moral code do you measure what is evil or not?

So what you are basically saying is that the only thing that stops you from killing your children is God?

Wow.

No wonder you need religion so badly.

Thankfully, I have decided for myself that killing children is just wrong, which means I don't need the fear of incurring the wrath of some non-specific deity to stop me from commiting such acts.

Soul Winner wrote: »

now if you can show me a better standard of living than the way Jesus preached then I’m all ears.

Buddhism. It doesn't preach hatred of unbelievers, gays, etc.

Soul Winner

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So what you are basically saying is that the only thing that stops you from killing your children is God?

Wow.

No wonder you need religion so badly.

Thankfully, I have decided for myself that killing children is just wrong, which means I don't need the fear of incurring the wrath of some non-specific deity to stop me from commiting such acts.

I suppsoe that one way of dogding my questions.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Buddhism. It doesn't preach hatred of unbelievers, gays, etc.

And Jesus does?

Flamed Diving

Soul Winner wrote: »

I suppsoe that one way of dogding my questions.

I answered your questions. You just don't like facing the reality.

(I also added an answer to your last Q)

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes this was one of Jesus' claims, "I and the Father are one" "If you've seen me you've seen the Father", claims that were vindicated by God raising Him from the dead. To which we have multiple attestation. Where is the evidence for Koresh's divine vindication for his claim that he was a) David Koresh, b) Cyrus and c) Jesus, all in one.

Ask again in 2000 years. I'm sure someone will have the answer in an ancient book written by 40 people with unknown identities some 1900 years previously. And I'm sure there'll be someone defending that book as inerrant.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is sort of the point. Life is overly complex. It is wasteful and inefficient. If a job can be done with single bone or a single muscle you can bet you will find life sticks half a dozen of them in there instead.

Why?

Because it had 6 bones doing something else, and evolved a new function for them. It had to keep the old components but modify them slightly to get new function.

The idea that an intelligence would do this is laughable. Look at your ear. There isn't an audio engineer in the world who would design the ear that way if they were starting from scratch. But it had to evolve that way because it wasn't starting from scratch, it was evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function.

Where do you find a record of the ear arising from evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function?

That is your assumption - as if you understand all the complexity of the ear. Maybe you are as guilty now of simplifying biology as were your predecessors a hundred years ago. Now we know so much more of its complexity than then. How much more may we know in 10 years?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where do you find a record of the ear arising from evolving a previous set of bone and muscle to perform a new function?

Ok, let me use my powerful, er, powers of prophecy to see how this is going to go

I'm going to say "In the fossil record"

You are going to say "I don't accept the fossil record as being a time line of evolution, it simply proves that other animals with similar ear structure existed in the past, not that evolved into each other"

I'm going to say "I don't care"

You are going to say "Good, and I don't care that you don't care"

So, saved us a bit of time there. :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is your assumption - as if you understand all the complexity of the ear.

And you understand it well enough to say that it could not ever have been designed better than it is now ... ?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now we know so much more of its complexity than then. How much more may we know in 10 years?

So you are going to abandon Creationism for ten years until we know that the ear could not have been designed any better? Or perhaps 100 years?

I suspect not.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

How much more may we know in 10 years?

And will there be a single creation science publication between now and then? :pac:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....I said that matter is not capable of producing' life ... no more than it is capable of producing a computer programme or writing a book without an intelligent input!!!!


The Mad Hatter
Somehow, I don't think early life was nearly that complex. Also, if you really do have a four year old, I think it's safe to say you produced her - possibly (hopefully) with some help.

....like I said, matter 'is not capable of producing' life ... no more than it is capable of producing a computer programme or writing a book without an (ultimate) intelligent input!!!!

....once the intelligent input is made, life or the computer programme can be 'run' and replicated ad infinitum without any further intelligent input!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...you seem to be having awful difficulty understanding the obvious fact ... that information is a definitive indicator of intelligent activity!!!!


The Mad Hatter
Sometimes your circles are so small it's cute. Information implies intelligence implies information...

We're asking you to define information so that we can measure it for ourselves in order to see whether ID is true - and you have to believe ID is true for the definition of information to make sense!

...so ARE you saying that you don't know what information is or how to recognise it definitively?

....is this the unhappy position which Evolutionists now find themselves ... unable to even define information ... or measure it?:eek::eek:
(waiting 'Road Runner style' with a very large metaphorical 'mallet' to really whack any Evolutionist who falls into the trap of asking me for a definition of Information ... that s/he cannot provide themselves)!!!
...MBEEP .....MBEEP......MBEEEEEEP!!!:D

....believing you are a glorified Ape apparently has the most amazing 'dumbing down' effects ... not only are you unable to define Information .... very soon you won't even be able to define Evolution...oops I almost forgot ... you CAN'T!!!:eek:
....speaking of which ... here comes Morbert with his particularly hopeless definition of Evolution.....

wrote:

Morbert

Non-random selection of random mutations is the primary mechanism for the development of life/"biological information".

...if that is the case, then you are not going to get much further that ONE critical Amino Acid Sequence about 80 Amino Acids long ... and to do so will require ALL of the time and matter in the supposed Big Bang Universe!!!!

....if Non-random selection of random mutations worked, every factory would simply churn out random junk and then select useful product from it ... but it doesn't work ... because it would ALL be junk ... with practically NO functionally useful product ... and that is why factories use precisely (and intelligently) designed systems to deliver precisely (and intelligently) designed product ... ditto with living proccesses!!!:):D

The great Dr Stephen Meyer has the following words of wisdom for all of the 'died in the wool' Darwinists out there:-

"We've learned a lot about biology since the (American) Civil War (in 1860). Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working. Explanations from the era of the steamboat are no longer adequate to explain the biological world of the information age." ....Darwinist explantions are inadequate .... but this doesn't stop Evolutionists trying ...I guess, Evolution still 'floats' their (steam) boats!!!!:D:D

"Darwinists say they're under some sort of epistemological obligation to continue trying, because to invoke design would be to give up on science. Well, I say it's time to redefine science. We should not be looking for only the best naturalistic explanation, but the best explanation, period. And intelligent design is the explanation that's most in conformity with how the world works. " The Case for a Creator (2004) p.243

...and the above quote is particularly pertinent for any Darwinists out there who admit that they couldn't define or recognise information .... even if it 'jumped up and bit them' in the you-know-what!!!:eek::eek::)

....they even admit that life has the 'appearance of design' ... but then the reality of a Designer's existence makes them recoil in denial!!!!

....life looks like it was designed, behaves as if it was designed ... and has no other plausible explantion for it's existence ... other than that it WAS designed
....I'd say that was pretty conclusive proof that life WAS designed !!!!:D:D