The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are about 2 billion Christians, do you expect us to agree on everything?

Of course not, though whether or not our creator did or did not give us free will, which is apparently pretty important to us and is also the reason why lots of us apparently go to hell, is a bit of a biggie. I mean surely you can agree on the big things... No?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you are genuinely interested in studying these questions from a Christian perspective (rather than arguing with Christians on Boards) there are numerous resources available to you.

Indeed there are. And I presume these same resources are available to christians and it does not seem to have helped them come to a consensus.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Not every Christian believes that the entire earth was flooded or all of humanity was destroyed.

But there are plenty that do. And if they are correct, which they claim to be (they also have evidence that they are correct you know,) then the points stand.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, not all Christians subscribe to this. In fact, I would say that most don't.

Again, there are plenty that do and they are quite positive they are correct. If only there was some kind of book that you could all follow that laid everything out in nice and simple terms that everyone could understand... How cool would that be?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course not, though whether or not our creator did or did not give us free will, which is apparently pretty important to us and is also the reason why lots of us apparently go to hell, is a bit of a biggie. I mean surely you can agree on the big things... No?

Indeed there are. And I presume these same resources are available to christians and it does not seem to have helped them come to a consensus.

But there are plenty that do. And if they are correct, which they claim to be (they also have evidence that they are correct you know,) then the points stand.

Again, there are plenty that do and they are quite positive they are correct. If only there was some kind of book that you could all follow that laid everything out in nice and simple terms that everyone could understand... How cool would that be?

MrP

So basically, there are differences in opinion within Christianity but you have no interest in investigating matters yourself in attempts to see which might be most consistent with what we know of God and Christianity. Rather, you prefer to pick up on a facet of Christianity that you find troublesome (ignoring other perspectives in the process) and then post some snide remarks about it. Yes...

Rev Hellfire

Galvasean wrote: »

Well I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who has to decide whether this is bird-like reptile or a reptile-like bird...

Haa nice try Galvasean, but you'll need to get up earlier to fool the young Earth creationists.
That's clearly a model not a real animal.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So basically, there are differences in opinion within Christianity but you have no interest in investigating matters yourself in attempts to see which might be most consistent with what we know of God and Christianity. Rather, you prefer to pick up on a facet of Christianity that you find troublesome (ignoring other perspectives in the process) and then post some snide remarks about it. Yes...

Seeking the opinions of christians, people who follow the bible and try to live by its tenets is, IMO, investigating matters. I find the differences in interpretation interesting. If I had personally found an answer to the bit I find troublesome I would not be an atheist.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Seeking the opinions of christians, people who follow the bible and try to live by its tenets is, IMO, investigating matters. I find the differences in interpretation interesting. If I had personally found an answer to the bit I find troublesome I would not be an atheist.

MrP

Wow! It comes as a shock to discover that you are interested in investigating biblical interpretation. Here was me thinking you pick the interpretation you find most preposterous and then attack it for the sake of attacking Christianity!

Go on! Pull the other one, Mr P.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

Seeking the opinions of christians, people who follow the bible and try to live by its tenets is, IMO, investigating matters. I find the differences in interpretation interesting. If I had personally found an answer to the bit I find troublesome I would not be an atheist.

MrP

The story of Noah and the Great Flood as has been pointed out is based upon the Sumerian legend the Epic of Gilgamesh. If people want to accept it as 100% factual fair enough. I on the other hand do not know 1 single Christian who does personally. For the rest of us it is an allegorical tale with many levels.......

-the creation, destruction, and recreation of life on earth (which is farily accurate in itself)

-the salvation of those who have faith in God.

-a world in which the sins were "washed" away, reminds me of baptism.

Again I do not know anyone who holds the story of Adam, Eve and Eden to be historical fact. It is again based on Sumerian legends of the oral tradition passed down for hundreds, and indeed thousands, of years before it was written down as it appears in the Bible.

If somebody wants to know why 'we aren't perfect beings' etc., they like I said they can feel free to read the Bible and gain an understanding, through their own reflections. Even committed Christians an find bits of the Bible 'troublesome' at times. That's where prayer, study, and deep deep thought can come into play.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

The story of Noah and the Great Flood as has been pointed out is based upon the Sumerian legend the Epic of Gilgamesh. If people want to accept it as 100% factual fair enough. I on the other hand do not know 1 single Christian who does personally. For the rest of us it is an allegorical tale with many levels.......

-the creation, destruction, and recreation of life on earth (which is farily accurate in itself)

-the salvation of those who have faith in God.

-a world in which the sins were "washed" away, reminds me of baptism.

Again I do not know anyone who holds the story of Adam, Eve and Eden to be historical fact. It is again based on Sumerian legends of the oral tradition passed down for hundreds, and indeed thousands, of years before it was written down as it appears in the Bible.

If somebody wants to know why 'we aren't perfect beings' etc., they like I said they can feel free to read the Bible and gain an understanding, through their own reflections. Even committed Christians an find bits of the Bible 'troublesome' at times. That's where prayer, study, and deep deep thought can come into play.

At what point in the Old Testament does it actually start describing historical events, rather than myth?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

At what point in the Old Testament does it actually start describing historical events, rather than myth?

Depends on who you talk to and their own interpretations. There is no definitive answer to that question and you know it.

Woger

prinz wrote: »

Depends on who you talk to and their own interpretations. There is no definitive answer to that question and you know it.

Is there a chance that there will be an updated word of god?

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

There is no definitive answer to that question and you know it.

Why not?

Gurgle

prinz wrote: »

Depends on who you talk to and their own interpretations.

Surely the word of God is the word of God: You don't get to choose which bits you believe literally, which bits are parables and which bits are bullshìt.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not?

Perhaps because different people believe different things?

Woger wrote: »

Is there a chance that there will be an updated word of god?

I doubt it, but you never know.Maybe Bono IS onto something.

prinz

Gurgle wrote: »

Surely the word of God is the word of God: You don't get to choose which bits you believe literally, which bits are parables and which bits are bullshìt.

If God was talking to me I'd believe it literally.

Can you tell the difference between the Diary of Anne Frank and the Pied Piper of Hamelin?

But well done, you've just solved every split in the entire history of Christianity

Woger

prinz wrote: »

If God was talking to me I'd believe it literally.

Can you tell the difference between the Diary of Anne Frank and the Pied Piper of Hamelin?

But well done, you've just solved every split in the entire history of Christianity

Anne Frank existed.

pts

prinz wrote: »

Depends on who you talk to and their own interpretations. There is no definitive answer to that question and you know it.

This is one of the main reasons I'm sceptical to many theist who "know" they are right in their understanding of God. Would it not be more honest to say to people that they believe God has done x & y, and wants z instead of saying they know God's has done and what he (it?) wants. Their understanding of God is mainly based on the Bible (which can be interpreted in many ways) both directly (reading the Bible) and indirectly (from Priests, scholars etc)

Genghiz Cohen

Woger wrote: »

Anne Frank existed.

And the Pied Piper is a legend.
Birds go "Tweet".

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed He did - but that does not mean He created sin. He created the circumstances for sin, as He did for perfect holiness. In making a free-will world, He did that.

He didn't just create the circumstances for sin, he created the circumstances and the natures of the people who would be involved in those circumstances. At any point he could have changed things to prevent sin, but he didn't, he chose to allow it. So we have a situation where god create the circumstances and natures for sin, knowing it would happen, the only logical conclusion is that he created the circumstances and natures for the purpose of creating sin.

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, a thing is righteous or it is not. But God is perfectly righteous, so He only does righteous things.

But for someone to be righteous in their actions, they have to be justified and they have to be judged (by god) to be living in a way that pleases god. Well this obviously makes god perfectly justified, as he will always see his own actions as justified, and if everyone else has to be judged by god to be justified and righteous, then the judgment is subject to gods decision, which makes righteousness a subjective term.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You see God creating a free-will world an unrighteous act. I see it as righteous.

No, i fail to see how god has created a truly free-willed world.

Woger

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

And the Pied Piper is a legend.
Birds go "Tweet".

What did they do on Noahs Ark?

Woger

Does the new idea of Intelligent Design get rid of the concept of original sin?

prinz

Woger wrote: »

Anne Frank existed.

Yes but were you there? Is what she wrote 100% accurate? We take it to be so, on faith, we have to, we weren't there.

On the other hand we all know the Pied Piper is a fictional character. Because I can distinguish the two.

Fanny Cradock

Woger wrote: »

Anne Frank existed.

OK, seems as it's your first time here, I'm going to direst you to the charter. Please read it and adhere to it.

prinz

pts wrote: »

This is one of the main reasons I'm sceptical to many theist who "know" they are right in their understanding of God. Would it not be more honest to say to people that they believe God has done x & y, and wants z instead of saying they know God's has done and what he (it?) wants. Their understanding of God is mainly based on the Bible (which can be interpreted in many ways) both directly (reading the Bible) and indirectly (from Priests, scholars etc)

Yes it would be more honest. You'll find most Christians on this forum refer to what they believe, what they extract from Bible teachings. I don't say my beliefs are any more right than someone else's. I can however say that imo some people have interpreted something wrong. That's what opinions are for.

p.s. I notice you have capitalised God and the Bible. That's a welcome sign of respect for other's beliefs, which is unfortunately lacking in a lot of other posters.

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

Yes it would be more honest. You'll find most Christians on this forum refer to what they believe, what they extract from Bible teachings. I don't say my beliefs are any more right than someone else's. I can however say that imo some people have interpreted something wrong. That's what opinions are for.

Exactly!

I would like to think that most Christians are open to possibility that their particular interpretation on a given belief could be wrong. In this regard, I've recently begun to shift my position on something I had previously always accepted.

That there is disagreement or various interpretations within Christianity says nothing about the fundamental truth of God's existence or the truth of the Bible.

wolfsbane

Woger wrote: »

Does the new idea of Intelligent Design get rid of the concept of original sin?

As I understand what the IDers say, No. It leaves the Biblical account intact - that God designed and created man perfect, but man exercised his free-will against God, hence original sin.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed He did - but that does not mean He created sin. He created the circumstances for sin, as He did for perfect holiness. In making a free-will world, He did that.
He didn't just create the circumstances for sin, he created the circumstances and the natures of the people who would be involved in those circumstances. At any point he could have changed things to prevent sin, but he didn't, he chose to allow it. So we have a situation where god create the circumstances and natures for sin, knowing it would happen, the only logical conclusion is that he created the circumstances and natures for the purpose of creating sin.

Again you miss the distinction between creating free-will and creating sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, a thing is righteous or it is not. But God is perfectly righteous, so He only does righteous things.
But for someone to be righteous in their actions, they have to be justified and they have to be judged (by god) to be living in a way that pleases god. Well this obviously makes god perfectly justified, as he will always see his own actions as justified, and if everyone else has to be judged by god to be justified and righteous, then the judgment is subject to gods decision, which makes righteousness a subjective term.

It is not subjective as God is the creator of all - subjective to me means something not necessarily true in itself, but considered so by a fallible person. All that God declares is true, for He is the infallible Person who created all. If He says something is righteous, we can be sure it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You see God creating a free-will world an unrighteous act. I see it as righteous.
No, i fail to see how god has created a truly free-willed world.

I appreciate we can no longer see such a world, but we have God's word about the perfect original.

pts

prinz wrote: »

Yes it would be more honest. You'll find most Christians on this forum refer to what they believe, what they extract from Bible teachings. I don't say my beliefs are any more right than someone else's. I can however say that imo some people have interpreted something wrong. That's what opinions are for.

I hope I didn't imply that I was talking about all the good folks here boards in my post. I respect a persons right to their opinions. It impresses me even more if they can back up their opinions with reasons that make sense to me. However I just don't always agree with said opinions.

The people I was referring to in my post are the people who use Bible quotes to justify their opinion, then seem surprised (some times angry) when people don't agree with them. To them their opinion is right, because their interpetation of the Bible says so.

I think we both agree that one's interpetation of the Bible is highly subjective and that it is very hard (probably impossible) to validate one interpetation over another. I just don't think that is an opinion held by the majority of Christians. I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this as I believe an open mind is much better than a close mind (on all issues, not just religion).

EDIT: I think I'm using capitals on God and Bible out of habit, once I start eating more babies that might all change

pts

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Exactly!

I would like to think that most Christians are open to possibility that their particular interpretation on a given belief could be wrong. In this regard, I've recently begun to shift my position on something I had previously always accepted.

That there is disagreement or various interpretations within Christianity says nothing about the fundamental truth of God's existence or the truth of the Bible.

I hope that is the case, maybe my over exposure to FOX news has given me the wrong impression (probably not though as they are fair and balanced )
If it isn't too theologically complex, or personal I'd love to know on what and why you shifted your position on something you had previously always accepted.

I would agree that dissagreement on the Bible does not alter the truth of God's existence, but I would argue that the unreliability of the Bible as a means of understanding God alters it's usefulness as a guide for living ones life. Further I would argue that the ambiguity of the Bible makes it more likely (in my opinion) that it is a work of man, not God, or men inspired by God.

prinz

pts wrote: »

I believe an open mind is much better than a close mind

Christian people have been the most open minded of any I've met, I find reflection, prayer and meditation helps me to be more open minded all the time.

pts wrote: »

EDIT: I think I'm using capitals on God and Bible out of habit, once I start eating more babies that might all change

Well, Jonathan Swift was a man of the cloth strange where these ideas come from.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Do you not see that morality is related to free-will, but flight and time travel are not?
Morality is the ability to recognise the difference between good and evil and this ability is greatly limited by the experiences and attributes of the individual doing the recognising. Any limitation on the individual is a limitation on the will and morality of the individual.

Things are moral or they are not. My understaning of them may be imperfect and be a mitigating circumstance, but it still remains immoral if I do it. Adam did not need to be able to fly or time-travel to exercise his free-will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They are essential attributes of God, not of free-will.
Ultimately, only a will thats is capable of omniscience and omnipotence is truely free.

Yes, it all depends on what one means by free-will. God does not have free-will in the sense Adam had. God is not able to sin. But He can do anything that is consistent with His perfectly holy nature. Adam could not speak a universe into being, as God did. Yet most people will agree that Adam's ability to decide and do good or evil was free-will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You confuse the nature of free-will as known before the Fall, and the restraint God puts on sinners now. We do not have the free-will Adam had. We are prone to sin, our free-will chained to our sinful natures. Adam had a sinless nature.
If Adam had a sinless nature then how did he sin?

Because he was free to do so. He was not like us, prone to sin - yet he chose to do so. The ability is not sinful, the decision to do so is.

If our freewill is chained, then it is no longer free.

Yes, if that's how one defines free-will. That's why I always have to give more than a YES or NO to the question, Do you believe we have free-will? I prefer to say our will is free to make the moral choice our natures desire. Because the sinner has a sinful nature, they will by nature never choose to love and obey God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Everyone would plunge to the depths of sin if God did not impart some part of His image to them. Conscience also is a part of His restraint. So too are the circumstances He causes to prevail in our lives.
But those circumstances are what causes us to sin. He causes the circumstances which cause us sin to sin, knowing full well we will sin because of the sin full nature he has given us.

The circumstances do not make us sin. We sin because we are sinners by nature. And God did not give us sinful natures; we got them from our originator, Adam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But back to the possibility of sin being an essential for a free-will creation. Can you describe a truly free-will creation that does not have the ability to sin? God (if by "sin" you mean "go against gods will").

God is not a creation - He is the Creator. Creating anything that could not sin would have meant not permitting free-will.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Heard an interview with this guy last Sunday:
Did you, uhm, actually, like, listen to, like the whole thing? Or, like, did you, uhm, like totally not even, like, listen because he sounded so, like, uhm, annoying?

When I heard him introduced as an atheist who was defending ID as scientific I made sure to listen to the whole thing.

Anyway, the guy's argument didn't have any science in there whatsoever. He had the old argument from authority in there, the teach the controversy canard, and that was about it. He never explained why ID is science. What a waste of time. Bloody philosophers.

Yes, he does not accept the naturalistic parameters most modern scientists use to define what is science. He considers that a philosophical prejudice, not a truth.

I'm sure philosophers can be an embarrassment, poking around in search of truth, maybe lifting the lid and shining a light on things one might not like examined.